4-trackers: Thoughts on bouncing?

L

lawnmowersongs

New member
What's your workflow like with bounces?

Most of my stuff is overdubbed one instrument at a time, and I usually record my main rhythm instruments and then bounce them onto one track so I can pan them all down the middle, which works pretty well for me so I'm mainly just curious about other perspectives on the subject to maybe spark some new ideas.
 
My general workflow is to fill up all four tracks and then bounce that to a stereo mix on my computer (unless I don't need it to be stereo -- then I just bounce them to a mono track, but it's usually a stereo track). Then I bring that submix back onto tracks 1 and 2 of the 4-track and fill up tracks 3 and 4. If I need to, I repeat the process again, resulting in 8 tracks total.

You can increase this though if you record a "live" part while moving the submixes back to the 4-track. If it's something easy, this isn't that hard to do.

For example, let's say you record Drums L, Drums R, Bass, and Guitar on tracks 1-4 first. Then you mix those to the computer for a stereo mix. Then, while you're bringing that submix back to tracks 1-2 of the 4-track, you add a tambourine part "live" (i.e., all in one take). You'll need to make sure you've got it mixed right and that you print any effects you want on it (reverb, delay, etc.), but it's very doable.

By using the previously described method, that would increase your track count to 10 tracks if you did two external bounces and added a live track both times you brought it back over to the 4-track.

I've done this for years. Even before computers were used, I would do this with a DAT machine. And before that, I would do it with the nicest cassette deck I could afford.
 
famous beagle said:
My general workflow is to fill up all four tracks and then bounce that to a stereo mix on my computer (unless I don't need it to be stereo -- then I just bounce them to a mono track, but it's usually a stereo track). Then I bring that submix back onto tracks 1 and 2 of the 4-track and fill up tracks 3 and 4. If I need to, I repeat the process again, resulting in 8 tracks total.

You can increase this though if you record a "live" part while moving the submixes back to the 4-track. If it's something easy, this isn't that hard to do.

For example, let's say you record Drums L, Drums R, Bass, and Guitar on tracks 1-4 first. Then you mix those to the computer for a stereo mix. Then, while you're bringing that submix back to tracks 1-2 of the 4-track, you add a tambourine part "live" (i.e., all in one take). You'll need to make sure you've got it mixed right and that you print any effects you want on it (reverb, delay, etc.), but it's very doable.

By using the previously described method, that would increase your track count to 10 tracks if you did two external bounces and added a live track both times you brought it back over to the 4-track.

I've done this for years. Even before computers were used, I would do this with a DAT machine. And before that, I would do it with the nicest cassette deck I could afford.
Click to expand...

Yup. Same here. :D
 
famous beagle said:
By using the previously described method, that would increase your track count to 10 tracks if you did two external bounces and added a live track both times you brought it back over to the 4-track.
Click to expand...

How are you synchronizing all these bounces in/out of the computer...?...or do you sub-mix every time, folding the previous tracks into the new sub-mix (as thought the computer is just another 2-track deck)...?

Back in the day, I would sub-mix from the 4-track to the 2-track...and because they used the same transport/head layout, same brand of decks...the actual tracks would line up pretty well, so I would then just take the reel off the 2-track deck, and move it over to the 4-track deck, which gave me two clean tracks and one less bounce generation. At most I would do that once...maybe twice on some songs, but the losses and the inability to effectively control your final mix was a PITA.
Often I would have to go back one generation, sometimes both, and start over, if I didn't like how the mix was building with all the bounces.

That said...I moved away from that as soon as I could to a 16-track deck. All that bouncing was a lot of fun, and you could get some decent stuff with it once you really got your production laid out, so you knew what was going to happen ahead...but it just doesn't beat having all individual tracks to mix from.
 
Last edited:
miroslav said:
How are you synchronizing all these bounces in/out of the computer...?...or do you sub-mix every time, folding the previous tracks into the new sub-mix (as thought the computer is just another 2-track deck)...?

Back in the day, I would sub-mix from the 4-track to the 2-track...and because they used the same transport/head layout, same brand of decks...the actual tracks would line up pretty well, so I would then just take the reel off the 2-track deck, and move it over to the 4-track deck, which gave me two clean tracks and one less bounce generation. At most I would do that once...maybe twice on some songs, but the losses and the inability to effectively control your final mix was a PITA.
Often I would have to go back one generation, sometimes both, and start over, if I didn't like how the mix was building with all the bounces.

That said...I moved away from that as soon as I could to a 16-track deck. All that bouncing was a lot of fun, and you could get some decent stuff with it once you really got your production laid out, so you knew what was going to happen ahead...but it just doesn't beat having all individual tracks to mix from.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm treating the computer just like a two-track deck. So I'm bringing a new cumulative submix back to the 4-track each time.

I should have said, though, that before I do my first bounce --- if it's a project that I care about, that is --- I'll do one of two things:

A) Move all four tracks to the computer on four separate tracks using the 4-track's direct outs, or...
B) I'll bring the submixes back to a later portion on the tape, keeping the original four tracks intact.

That way, if I feel that I've screwed up a submix, I can always go back to those four original tracks and start again from there.

Yes, 16-tracks are certainly nice! :)
 
I'll also add that you can use one track for different instruments. For instance, if you have a guitar solo on track 3, but there's nothing on that track for the rest of the song, you could add another supportive part on that track during some other sections of the song. You just have to take care, obviously. :)
 
miroslav said:
How are you synchronizing all these bounces in/out of the computer...?...or do you sub-mix every time, folding the previous tracks into the new sub-mix (as thought the computer is just another 2-track deck)...?

Back in the day, I would sub-mix from the 4-track to the 2-track...and because they used the same transport/head layout, same brand of decks...the actual tracks would line up pretty well, so I would then just take the reel off the 2-track deck, and move it over to the 4-track deck, which gave me two clean tracks and one less bounce generation. At most I would do that once...maybe twice on some songs, but the losses and the inability to effectively control your final mix was a PITA.
Often I would have to go back one generation, sometimes both, and start over, if I didn't like how the mix was building with all the bounces.

That said...I moved away from that as soon as I could to a 16-track deck. All that bouncing was a lot of fun, and you could get some decent stuff with it once you really got your production laid out, so you knew what was going to happen ahead...but it just doesn't beat having all individual tracks to mix from.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for FB, but for me it always was using the cassette or DAT machine as a two track mix down deck. Neither could be synced back to the 246 . So it was Beatles style pre mixing, pre planning, pre collapsing of tracks.
In hindsight I was extremely happy to just have the capabilities that I had and never thought I was missing out on anything. And with the 6 channel mixer of the 246 you could add two mono or one stereo 'live' tracks to your two track mix. Thinking back, it's kind of funny, because a mistake meant you had to redo your whole mixdown. :) Usually this was a two person operation. One live mixer, one live performer.
All this went back on inputs one and two of the 246 leaving you two more tape tracks and your extra input tracks. When I got my first DAT machine that upped my game.
As tedious as that process was, the fidelity was so much better than multiple bounces within the machine.
Nowadays if I was using a 4 track and a computer I'd probably just dump my 4 tracks into the daw and keep building in the daw. Although I have no idea if and/or how that would work, as I've never tried it. Or I'd just do it old school style using the computer as a two track.
Fun times :D
 
famous beagle said:
I'll also add that you can use one track for different instruments. For instance, if you have a guitar solo on track 3, but there's nothing on that track for the rest of the song, you could add another supportive part on that track during some other sections of the song. You just have to take care, obviously. :)
Click to expand...

Haha :D I completely forgot about that goodie. You used up every little space of tape you had.
:D
 
famous beagle said:
I'll also add that you can use one track for different instruments. For instance, if you have a guitar solo on track 3, but there's nothing on that track for the rest of the song, you could add another supportive part on that track during some other sections of the song. You just have to take care, obviously. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah...did that many times with the 4-track, 16-tracks...and I'll still do it sometimes with my 24-track, even though I dump it all in sync to the DAW. :D
I mean...it sometimes bugs me to use an entire track for maybe just putting something in a couple of the chorus sections...and there's all that unused tape.
Or...I'll use the empty spaces for alternate takes...like if I'm doing vocals, but there a long section where a guitar lead would go, and normally no vocals...but that section uses the same chord structure as the verses for the vocals...so I'll just repeat a couple verse during that part on my vocal tracks....that way I have a couple of alternate versions.

I mean...it's kinda funny...considering I can dump dozens tracks into the computer, so no need to squeeze stuff into the empty spaces on the tape...but I guess it's a leftover from my pre-DAW days. Plus...it lets me just stay in tape tracking mode longer, if I can squeeze those small bits-n-pieces in with the existing main tracks...it's one less dump-to-DAW and all that.
If I was obsessed about saving all my tape tracks for some future remix, I wouldn't drop stuff all over them...but generally, once I dump the tape tracks into the DAW, I don't much care about the tape tracks. I mean...I don't plan or need to go back to the tape tracks, but I don't toss them. I mean, I still save the reels and I don't erase them...I just don't worry about really needing them for doing from-tape mixdowns since I now do it all from the DAW. The tape is purely for tracking to.
 
RFR said:
Nowadays if I was using a 4 track and a computer I'd probably just dump my 4 tracks into the daw and keep building in the daw. Although I have no idea if and/or how that would work, as I've never tried it.
Click to expand...

You just need to sort out a sync box setup with your deck and DAW. You can get away with using the tape deck as master...just drop some SMPTE on one track before you start recording, make note of the SMPTE time where your song starts...then set that in the DAW time, and tell it to chase/lock to the SMPTE code coming off the tape. Of course, some DAW actually need the SMPTE converted to MTC...so they won't be able to use SMPTE just coming off the tape track as an audio signal...but then, a few DAWs out there can read pure SMPTE.

Anyway...that's the more crude way to sync, and it has limitations, because it's a one-way sync...the tape deck has no idea where the SMPTE is or how to read it...so it's all up to the DAW. Also, when a DAW is chase-locking, if the tape wobbles/lags...it could force the DAW to resample on-the-fly if there's a single break in the steady digitizing/recording of the audio tracks. That resample could cause glitches...and some DAWs do it better than other.

The absolute best way is for the DAW to be the master...for the sync to be two-ways, with both DAW and tape deck under SMPTE/synchronizer control.
Then you got a rock solid sync setup, and you can get very precise with doing all kinds of two-way record/playback actions.
Of course...it's a bunch more equipment and connections and configurations...and much of that is older, out of production stuff, so minimal to zero support...and sometimes it doesn't want to behave because of age old code in the microprocessors...so that's the price to pay.
I managed to get things to that level of sync, and it's a fully functional hybrid setup...but there are some days I think about the ease of just staying ITB...but so far I always end up hearing the reason why I still hang on the tape and the outboard stuff. :cool:
If I was doing like...EDM or more synth based R&B/Pop stuff, I would probably abandon the hybrid and go all ITB...but since I still track 90% of my instruments, and I don't do EDM or synth based R&B/Pop music...I'm not giving up the hybrid rig any time soon.

I also occasionally think about the old 4-track days when I used to spend a long weekend at home just playing and recording. My folks would head out of town, and I would have the house to myself...and it was a non-stop 3 day recording binge. I would write, record and mix a half-dozen songs some weekends, and every minute of it was fun. Most of it sounded like shit compared to now...but it was a lot of fun. Now days, recording and mixing is a lot more work if you want to really go for the best you can. There's so many tools...that you can't use the lack of as an excuse to just blow through your production like back in the old days when just getting the tracks down was the main challenge. :)
 
Well..... seeing I don't have a cassette 4 track, and don't have the extra sync goodies........
I think I'll just dump my 16 tracks of tape into my ICE16, into the computer. :) I can also go to tape and a daw in real time too.

One of the better gear purchases I've made.

I do have an old yamaha 4 track minidisc porta studio. Thats fun for just throwing down ideas on the fly. It doesn't have that 'cassette' sound, but I dont need that anyway. And if I get any good keeper tracks, it does have four individual outs so I can dump to whatever I want.
 
RFR said:
Well..... seeing I don't have a cassette 4 track, and don't have the extra sync goodies........
I think I'll just dump my 16 tracks of tape into my ICE16, into the computer. :) I can also go to tape and a daw in real time too.
Click to expand...

Well then...if you ever need to dump more than the 16 tracks into you DAW in sync... :)
 
RFR said:
Then there would be a need, but I'm just not that sophisticated. Lol :D
Click to expand...

Necessity (and Frank Zappa) are the mothers of invention. ;)

If you need it bad enough, your level of sophistication will rise to the occasion. :D

That is to say...you just have to beat on it until you figure it out! :p
That's what it took for me...and it took a bit of time.
The old Fostex G16 first with the Atari/Cubase setup back in the mid-90s...that was bitch 'cuz I was 100% virgin with all that stuff. Then again with my current DAW...not as bad, I just had to switch things over, but the setup was basically the same.

Then when the 2" deck came, the sync setup had to be retooled from scratch, since I had to get an external sync box (the old G16 had a sync card option), plus a digital clock box to drive it and the converters, and also tie it in with the DAW, along with a MIDI feed from the DAW back to the sync box so the DAW could command the sync box, which commanded the 2" deck.
That was a lot of fun...but again, necessity forced me to "get smart" and figure it out. I'm sure you could too. :)
 
Oh, figuring it out wouldnt be that hard. :D


What I meant is that 'I'm' not that sophisticated as to do music that required more than 16 tracks.
Besides, anything past 16 tracks would be a virtual instument or midi, which I'd do all ITB anyway. :)
 
I made a video recently to experiment with bouncing. I was wondering how the quality changed with each generation bouncing internally through my Tascam 488mkii. I think it’s more subtle than I would have expected. The noise floor rises after a few, but you can definitely get away with three or so bounces before you start getting real problems.
 
I had awesome luck when using a cassette 4 track by bouncing all my tracks to a HI FI VHS and sending that bounce back to two tracks. Usually the rhythm tracks then any instruments keys and guitars then vocals. I had my final mixes dropped back to the VHS. I had some saved that way for about thirty years. I took those and sent them to my PRO LOGIC X and you can hear those albums free on Spotify. Manchester Nights "Jessica" and Michael"
 
Mel Lindstrom said:
I had awesome luck when using a cassette 4 track by bouncing all my tracks to a HI FI VHS and sending that bounce back to two tracks. Usually the rhythm tracks then any instruments keys and guitars then vocals. I had my final mixes dropped back to the VHS. I had some saved that way for about thirty years. I took those and sent them to my PRO LOGIC X and you can hear those albums free on Spotify. Manchester Nights "Jessica" and Michael"
Click to expand...

HiFi VHS was the bees knees. :D
 
I started home recording in the mid-90s with a Fostex 280. Still have it. It was magic.

I was doing guitar heavy electronica at that time. All the drums came from my Boss DR-5 Dr. Rhythm Section (still have it too). I used Cakewalk to sequence the drums, synth bass, and keys in MIDI, all from the DR5. That let me pre-mix all the rhythm tracks in MIDI and then bring them in to the Fostex as a stereo pair on tracks 1 and 2. Then I would overdub a couple of guitars on 3 and 4, bounce out to a tape deck, then back in to the Fostex as a stereo pair. The gave me two tracks for vocals. If I needed to add anything, I could do a live overdub during the bounce.

It sounded pretty good to me for its time. It was awesome to finally be recording real, finished songs by myself. I moved on to a Roland VS880ex eight track recorder, then DAWs. Don't miss it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top