It seems pretty clear that there is nothing inherently good or bad about the number of tracks one uses on a project. It would have to depend on the nature of the project and what you're doing with those tracks, right?
I guess folks using PC set ups have virtually limitless track counts (limited only by the processing power of your machine)? I use a 24 digital multitracker and typically use all 24 on each song. Sometimes I need to bounce stuff down into groups just to get it to fit within 24.
I don't think I'm adding
tracks to cover up poor
performances or bad mic positioning. I don't even see how additional tracks would help with that. It's just really nice to have the option to add layers and maybe small subtle things here and there to try to create more depth and variety to the piece, you know?
I really do not miss 4 or 8-track days at all. Having to put mutliple things in different sections of the same track or perform and track multiple parts simultaneously just to get them to fit sucked.
I don't see a downside to having more tracks available to use as needed. At the same time it is of course not advisable to keep adding tracks just for the sake of adding them.
Exactly.
But ever since recording my music on a crappy 2 input interface, in a crappy room, trying to create dense 16+ track mixes, I tend to focus more on room and source, as well as capturing large chunks of the mix without bouncing.
My whole process revolves around one room mic, placed in the most ideal location in the room (relative to where the kick/snare sounded the best in the room), capturing a single performance of a rhythm section that was basically made perfect in the room.
Once it's as good as it can get in the room (no mics set up at this point) the room mic comes in. Once its as good as it gets on the room mic, I use the remaining 7 tracks to
control any single source I feel the room mic isn't enough for, or for overdubbing, or as a place where I can create some kind of odd effect.
In a way its almost like having a bounced track grouping that was mixed down perfectly, with 7 tracks left (If you have an 8-track), and you haven't even bounced yet. Same practice can be used for almost any track count. Its just a long, tedious, and exhausting process.
But I see the benefits of this being a smaller amount of gear needed, quicker tracking process, simple mixing, and the single live
performance aspect should help give the overall mix some serious glue.
Hence why someone like me would be more interested in an Ampex 4-track. If I can live with two mics, and do it all on one mic, with the lack of tracks forcing me to be more precise, as well as more focused on the room/source, then why not use a 4-track? This is why in my case, anything over 8 tracks just seems like way too much.
Has anyone seen that Royer labs video? Where the guy uses what seems like 100 Royer mics to capture one kit? Well to my ears that elaborate setup sounds no better than the old Bonham/Watts/Starr tracks, and the difference in the amount of available tracks is something like 2-4 vs Unlimited. The room/players/kit are pretty much irrelevant between the two, as they are all pretty much top-notch.
So, to bring it full circle, its all relative. All one might need to ask is why Pet Sounds in mono sounds better than the majority of
modern music out there today. It was all done perfectly, from Brian Wilsons brain, to the vinyl LP. Composition/Arrangement/Room/Musicians/
Performance/Gear. It was perfected long before the musicians even performed it, and I would say having that lack of tracks is what contributes to the "wall of sound" more than anything.
