i have a Porta02 and it works fine, but i was wondering if there was any way to get more than four tracks out of the machine and if there is any way to get recordings to play back in stereo rather than just Mono. when i pan instruments you cant tell during playback. any suggestions??
Stereo/Mono??? help
- Thread starter Cel
- Start date
Blue Bear Sound
New member
You have a few options.... there is the "famous" PortaStudio 10-track bounce, or you can submix.
The 10-track bounce involves some planning, but the idea is as follows:
- Record on tracks 1,2,3.... mix these down to track 4.
- You can then record on tracks 1,2... mix to 3.
- Now you can record over on 1 and 2.
Now, if you've been paying attention, you'd notice that this gives you only 7 tracks, and I said 10 -- if you add 3 tracks "live" (while doing each track reduction to the adjacent track), you will be able to get 10-tracks on a single 4-track...
Submixing involves mixing 4-tracks to an external 2-track (stereo) unit, then returning the stereo tracks to another section of the tape and being able to add 2 more tracks...
Hope this helps...
Bruce
The 10-track bounce involves some planning, but the idea is as follows:
- Record on tracks 1,2,3.... mix these down to track 4.
- You can then record on tracks 1,2... mix to 3.
- Now you can record over on 1 and 2.
Now, if you've been paying attention, you'd notice that this gives you only 7 tracks, and I said 10 -- if you add 3 tracks "live" (while doing each track reduction to the adjacent track), you will be able to get 10-tracks on a single 4-track...
Submixing involves mixing 4-tracks to an external 2-track (stereo) unit, then returning the stereo tracks to another section of the tape and being able to add 2 more tracks...
Hope this helps...
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound
New member
The 10-track bounce is a technique used in a 4-track environment to allow you to get 10-tracks out of a 4-track limitation...
Basically, you're using track reduction to maximize the number of tracks. The downsides are the tracks will be down a generation as they get bounced, and although with planning it can be done, you're generally better off with all mono tracks.
Simply follow the track recording procedure I described above... I don't know how I can describe it any differently - it's pretty straightforward!
More info at https://homerecording.com/4trackbasics.html
and also at https://homerecording.com/4trackfaq.html
Bruce
Basically, you're using track reduction to maximize the number of tracks. The downsides are the tracks will be down a generation as they get bounced, and although with planning it can be done, you're generally better off with all mono tracks.
Simply follow the track recording procedure I described above... I don't know how I can describe it any differently - it's pretty straightforward!
More info at https://homerecording.com/4trackbasics.html
and also at https://homerecording.com/4trackfaq.html
Bruce
Hello Bruce
I am sitting here thinking a little about your 10 track from 4 so i got some paper and pen sat down and worked out what you were talking about and it all worked out as you said it did 10 tracks then i got thinking.
Could you apply a similar theory to lets say 8 tracks and get 20 or 21 tracks from 8 ???
I thought ok what if you sent 1,,2,3,4,5,6,7------------>to8
then you sent tracks 1,2,3,4,5,6--------------->to7
I figured hey thats 15 tracks used leaving 6 tracks still free to record with giving you 21 tracks from an 8 track
Well i had a go anyway my knowledge is limited as im still in the gathering info stage on recording gear but i wanted to have a go at your bouncing tracks on a larger scale yes i know many might say why on earth do you want to bounce so many tracks I guess i was thinking how you would record a rock band on a budget if you had to and still get a nice result i was more thinking of a drum kit and what it takes to mic that up right that would consume a few tracks would it not anyway it would be wonderfull bruce if you could maybe tell me if how i was thinking was right or if not maybe steer me in the right direction thanking you
Wayne
Melbourne Australia
I am sitting here thinking a little about your 10 track from 4 so i got some paper and pen sat down and worked out what you were talking about and it all worked out as you said it did 10 tracks then i got thinking.
Could you apply a similar theory to lets say 8 tracks and get 20 or 21 tracks from 8 ???
I thought ok what if you sent 1,,2,3,4,5,6,7------------>to8
then you sent tracks 1,2,3,4,5,6--------------->to7
I figured hey thats 15 tracks used leaving 6 tracks still free to record with giving you 21 tracks from an 8 track
Well i had a go anyway my knowledge is limited as im still in the gathering info stage on recording gear but i wanted to have a go at your bouncing tracks on a larger scale yes i know many might say why on earth do you want to bounce so many tracks I guess i was thinking how you would record a rock band on a budget if you had to and still get a nice result i was more thinking of a drum kit and what it takes to mic that up right that would consume a few tracks would it not anyway it would be wonderfull bruce if you could maybe tell me if how i was thinking was right or if not maybe steer me in the right direction thanking you
Wayne
Melbourne Australia
Blue Bear Sound
New member
Wayne,
Yes, you can certainly apply the concept to larger multi-tracks....
The downside is that you're trading off number of tracks for flexibility and control at mixdown, so as you work with gear that is capable of more tracks, you'd find yourself not needing to "budget" your track usage. (ie, you could apply the same principal to a 24 track unit, but you've got 24 tracks! why would you need to???!)
The thing about using this technique is the trade-off in flexibility at mixdown - as you combine tracks, you have to make sure that they are mixed EXACTLY the way you want them combined, since you will not be able to change it later.
One way of helping this to be less of an issue is to combine tracks that are dissimilar in frequency range, allowing you to use EQ to change balances of one component without affecting the other track components. For example, combine drum cymbals/hi-hats with bass so that you can adjust cymbals somewhat via high-freq EQ without really touching the bass too much. Of course, this is much more limiting than if the tracks were maintained separately, but if you plan your submixes carefully, it IS workable.
Bruce
Yes, you can certainly apply the concept to larger multi-tracks....
The downside is that you're trading off number of tracks for flexibility and control at mixdown, so as you work with gear that is capable of more tracks, you'd find yourself not needing to "budget" your track usage. (ie, you could apply the same principal to a 24 track unit, but you've got 24 tracks! why would you need to???!)
The thing about using this technique is the trade-off in flexibility at mixdown - as you combine tracks, you have to make sure that they are mixed EXACTLY the way you want them combined, since you will not be able to change it later.
One way of helping this to be less of an issue is to combine tracks that are dissimilar in frequency range, allowing you to use EQ to change balances of one component without affecting the other track components. For example, combine drum cymbals/hi-hats with bass so that you can adjust cymbals somewhat via high-freq EQ without really touching the bass too much. Of course, this is much more limiting than if the tracks were maintained separately, but if you plan your submixes carefully, it IS workable.
Bruce
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
Hmmmm... 10 tracks on a Portastudio...
Well, the math works out, but I would'nt take the "reduction" method of bouncing too far.
There are obvious compromises in sonic quality when you bounce tracks.
Some bouncing is ok, and a real expert may be able to get a 'robust' sounding 10 track recording on a 4 track format, but most lay-people out there with Portastudios -can't-.
More likely, they end up with 10 'virtual' tracks that sound overproduced, yet still weak , with noticeable hiss, and some parts so weak that they're lost in the 'mud'. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a reasonable sounding tape by using this technique, but don't get too optimistic about the possibilities of bouncing tracks on your Portastudio. It works, but usually with a price in sound quality to pay.
Don't get me wrong, I bounce a few tracks occasionally, but I would not try to drive it to that extreme (10 reduced tracks on a 4 track). I've done it, and it was not good. Better to get an 8 track or larger multitrack tape recorder.
Now, the Porta02 should be able to mix down to stereo, with stereo output present on the 'line out' jacks, if you're cabled and configure for mixdown correctly.
The 'monitor' or 'cue' output is always mono. LINE OUT is stereo.
Well, the math works out, but I would'nt take the "reduction" method of bouncing too far.
There are obvious compromises in sonic quality when you bounce tracks.
Some bouncing is ok, and a real expert may be able to get a 'robust' sounding 10 track recording on a 4 track format, but most lay-people out there with Portastudios -can't-.
More likely, they end up with 10 'virtual' tracks that sound overproduced, yet still weak , with noticeable hiss, and some parts so weak that they're lost in the 'mud'. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a reasonable sounding tape by using this technique, but don't get too optimistic about the possibilities of bouncing tracks on your Portastudio. It works, but usually with a price in sound quality to pay.
Don't get me wrong, I bounce a few tracks occasionally, but I would not try to drive it to that extreme (10 reduced tracks on a 4 track). I've done it, and it was not good. Better to get an 8 track or larger multitrack tape recorder.
Now, the Porta02 should be able to mix down to stereo, with stereo output present on the 'line out' jacks, if you're cabled and configure for mixdown correctly.
The 'monitor' or 'cue' output is always mono. LINE OUT is stereo.