How many tracks do you average in your DAW?

[storoi90]

Hi everyone,

I am pretty new at producing (about 2 years), and i'm at a point where i am really starting to appreciate details in music, and discovering how i can incorporate details in my own productions.

One big thing i 've been noticing with my sessions, is the number of tracks i am using.. or rather lack of tracks.
I think this is what my productions are lacking to get a more professional sound, with more details and layering.

On average my sessions consist of roughly 20-25 tracks, and i've heard about sessions that uses up to 100 + tracks.
My sessions consist of various things like piano, strings, drums, bass, synth's, organ, guitar etc.


My question is in the title of this topic, and if you could, please tell me some of your techniques if you want to.

I am really curious of what all these tracks are made up of.. they can't just be duplicates can they?


And i am a Pro Tools 8.0.5 LE user at the moment, but i am in the process of upgrading both to an Mbox Pro and Pro Tools 10 to get better audio, more tracks and busses and so on.

 

[Track Rat]

On average, only 12 to 14. Sometimes 20 to 24 max. Usually anywhere from 4 to 8 tracks of drums, 2 tracks of bass (direct send and a mic), a couple of tracks for guitar, 1 or 2 for keys, a lead vocal and up to 2 or 3 backing tracks.

 

[kcearl]

mine are electronic so a lot of them are just FX tracks and layers beats, drums can take as much as 20 tracks....so generally around 40-60


I have seen track breakdowns on many modern records and when homerecorders say they can get that pro sound thats because pro's are layering everything...on some dumb pop track like niki manaj's "starships" theres around 9 kick tracks alone...altogether the song was 142 tracks, not including buses and the vocals were grouped into one track


that could just be a producers wankfest though...


on simpler, more traditional tracks like Vampire Weekends "Cousins", there were 67 tracks...much of that was layered guitar parts....Ive seen 20+ acoustic tracks on one song alone, and they were all playing the same part

 

[kcearl]

Heres an interesting breakdown on Pinks, 87 track, "Raise your glass"

I know its not a great song by most of our tastes/standards but this gives a little insight into how they reach pro production values


Artist: Pink
Title: Raise Your Glass
Songwriters: Max Martin/Shellback/Pink
Studio: Maratone
Production: Max Martin/Shellback
Recording: Martin/Shellback/Michael Ilbert(guitars)/Sal Ojeda(Vocals in LA)
Mix: Serban Ghenea
Mastering: Tom Coyne, Sterling Sound
Publisher: LaFace/Jive

Track 1 Side Chain-Kick
- Here lies a kick on fourths, just used for side chain.

Track 2-4 High Livekick
- Three livekicks from some sound library. Plenty of real room on. These are the most bass cut. They have the most room.

Track 5-8 Hip-Hop Kicks
- Four steady kicks with bottom and punch which stands for the body.

Track 9-10 Hip-Hop Kicks with room
- Two kicks with a little more length that are cut in the bass. All nine kicks lies through the record.

Track 11 Hard Hihat
- This comes in at the pre chorus. There’s no snare here but we have a hard closed hihat and the 2nd and 4th beat instead.

Track 12-15 Snare
- Sampled snare in the chorus.
Comes as all other sounds from our sound library. Four tracks that doubles the same thing.

Track 16-17 Clap
- One clap on 2 and 4. The other just on 4. Only in the chorus.

Track 18-19 Tambourines
- Comes in at the pre.

Track 20 Tambourine
- Clap tambourine on 2 and 4. In pre and chorus.

Track 21 Shaker
- Lies off beat. As some how like a house hihat,.

Track 22-25 Hihat
- Four channels open hihats on 4ths. 808 and cut live hihats to get a dirty sound. Just in the chorus.

Track 26-27 Tambourines
- 16ths tambourines that lies left-right. They are a bit side chained so they won’t feel so static.

Track 28 Cyms
- Cymbal panting. Comes from a live recording of a another song where we have borrowed it.
Sliced hard in the bottom. Only in the chorus.

Track 29-31 Lasers
- Three laser sounds on the first beat in the chorus. Like house laser. Quite low but never the less makes a great sublte sshhh that leads into the chorus. Three different sounds that plays on the same beat.

Track 32-33 Crash
- 909 - crash. Static. Sounds euro. Plays on 1st in every 4th bar.

Track 34 - Machine hihat
- Plays on 4ths in the break to get a modern twist against the acoustic guitars. Changes to 16ths in the end chorus.

Track 35 - Livedrums
- Sampled. Helps the snare in the last chorus. All bass has been turned down.

Track 36-38 Bass
- The first is a synth bass, Yamaha cs-01 which is turned all the down below 200 hertz to get that twisted sound. Then comes a Studio Electronics SE01. Ilbert usually complains about it: “Use a real Moog instead”. It has the right bass. As I understand it’s a heritage from Denniz Pop. He always used the SE01’en as bass. Then it’s a live bass, Rickenbacker 4001, played through AmpFarm. All bass tracks doubles each other.

Track 39-40 Guitar
- This is the riff you hear most clearly in the intro. A low octave and a high. The guitar is a Fender Jaguar through Waves GTR and it was the first time we tested any thing else than AmpFarm, but Martin fixed a nice sound while I played like crazy.

Track 41 Organ
- This organ is from a studio in Los Angeles. I think we have it in the plug. B3 it’s called. Lies only on one note in the chorus and a little later in the bridge.

Track 42-43 Guitar
- Two crunchy Telecasters who also just playing open chords in the chorus. AmpFarm. A Tele that was in the studio in Los Angeles and was really great.

Track 44-45 Guitar
- Gibson Les Paul that plays loops, sustained, in the chorus. Side chained in every other bar so the last note in loop hangs and pumps. Everything side chained is controlled by the kick. One low octave and one high. AmpFarm.

Track 46-47 Guitar
- Two rock guitars just playing fifths in the chorus. Les Paul/AmpFarm. Left-right.

Track 48-49 Acoustic Guitar
- Two lovely Michael Ilbert guitars, left-right, acoustic, that play open singer-songwriter chords in the chorus. Shit tight. Recorded with AKG 451EB.

Track 50-53 Acoustic Guitar
- Acoustic guitar, bridge, left-right. These were recorded in Los Angeles since we didn’t had the bridge in Stockholm. Plays on the lowest strings . When the drums come in two guitars come as well that doubles the first with full chords.

Track 54-55 Solina
- The string machine. Lies panned left-right in the chorus. Plays really straight. Gives a little atmosphere.

Track 56 Punk punches.
- These are sampled punches in the chorus: dooooonnggg, with cymbals and everything. And then we just pitched it so they match the chord. Also side chained with every second bar. Gives a nice rock band feeling.

Track 57 Guitar
- Fender Thinline that also plays the loop in the chorus. Also side chained in every second bar. Has an octave pitch upon it that gives a nasty frequency that blows your eardrum.

Track 58 Synth
- Yamaha CS01 again that makes a double in the loop in the chorus. Also side chained every second bar.

Track 59 Synth
- Side chained Roland Juno 106. Comes in at the B-hook in the chorus and sparkles. Really low in the mix.

Track 60-61 Guitar
-Is called “Crazy Guitar”. Simple principle where you play as fast as you can on one string and one note and then it’s pitched after the chord. Sound a bit like the guitar pick has been but on an air fan. Has delay and reverb and comes in in second pre and lies a little in the bridge and end chorus. On the next channel it’s the same guitar fixed pitched to another note. Comes in in the end chorus. Fender Jazzmaster. That’s how indie it can be.

Track 62 Solina
- Another solina. Doubles the melody in the B-hook and end chorus. Also side chained every second bar.

Track 63 Guitar
- Is called “Sad Guitar”. Also Libert that has recorded it. A Jazzmaster recorded with a real spring reverb in real amps and after that we have bit crushed it and side chained it every second bar. In the B-hook and end chorus.

Track 64-66 Piano
- Two sampled pianos and one Nord Piano. Puts a beat on the first beat in every 4th bar. Is heard really clear.

Track 67 Vocal
- Ad lib-channel. Pinks vocal ad libs. From second chorus. All vocals are recorded in Los Angeles and the vocal-chain is Telefunken ELA M 251 to a Nece 1073 DPA, Urei 1176 Black and Teletronix LA2A.

Track 68 Vocal
- Lead in verse and pre. A little distorded in EchoFarm to make it a little more vintage.

Track 69-70 Vocal
- Two channels that double the end word in every A-verse, “What’s the deli-o”, “Where’s the rock ‘n roll” and so on. Panned right-left.

Track 71 Vocal
- Doubles every other sentence in the pre.

Track 72 Vocal
-Lies the vocal in second pre.

Track 73-75 Vocal
-Lead in the chorus and doubles left-right.

Track 76-78 Vocal
-Three channels of a high harmony voice in chorus. Lies center, left and right.

Track 79 Vocal
- I, Martin, Pink and her boyfriend Carey Hart, who stand and sing “raise your glass”. “Hockey vocals”.

Track 80 Vocal
- This is named “talking shit” and is all the small comments in the song.

Track 81-83 Vocal
- Harmony in the chorus. Center, right, left.

Track 84-86 Vocal
- Three channels where she sings the backing vocals in the chorus. That’s the loop with text. Just the last chorus, last 16 bars.

Track 87 Vocal
- Top harmony in the bridge with flanging effect. Sounds like that Led Zeppelin song...

The aux are 4: Number 1 is with a quarter note delay, EchoFarm, number 2 is with another type of quarter note delay, number 3 has a half note delay, and the last is a reverb.

 

[storoi90]

Wow, this is great guys!

keep it coming


@Kcearl:

This is golden information for me, thank you so much.

Could i ask you where you got all of this wonderful information on the tracks?

I would never thought they used so many tracks for drums and vocals!


I am experimenting with all this layering right now, and i do find it to be much more sonically satisfying then say one track for Hi-Hat, one for Kick and so on.

The key is offcourse using the weapon of basic mixing to keep everything balanced, (panning, volume, EQ, Compression) since i´m a humble mixer.

 

[TimOBrien]

More tracks does not make you a pro.

You should be able to gel everything down to one track per instrument or voice.
Everything beyond that needs to be for a REASON.

 

[kcearl]

More tracks does not make you a pro.

You should be able to gel everything down to one track per instrument or voice.
Everything beyond that needs to be for a REASON.

they are there for a reason...

no one said more tracks makes you a pro...just that with the power in modern computers they can handle more tracks, and producers are utilising this on modern productions to get the exact sound they want

the Beatles managed it on four tracks, then eight etc etc...I bet if they were recording now theyd be using 60 tracks..because you can

 

[kcearl]

Wow, this is great guys!

keep it coming


@Kcearl:

This is golden information for me, thank you so much.

Could i ask you where you got all of this wonderful information on the tracks?

I would never thought they used so many tracks for drums and vocals!


I am experimenting with all this layering right now, and i do find it to be much more sonically satisfying then say one track for Hi-Hat, one for Kick and so on.

The key is offcourse using the weapon of basic mixing to keep everything balanced, (panning, volume, EQ, Compression) since i´m a humble mixer.

Sound on Sound is a good magazine for breaking down professional recordings...they generally spotlight on one track per issue...you can find some stuff on the net, but keep in mind its generally pop stuff

I agree with Tim that more tracks wont make you sound pro, but if you want to sound like modern producers Id try to replicate their methods to a certain extent


here's a protools breakdown of a Robyn track for interest

its a zip download in the top left


STUDIO - Mikrofon, hrlurar, ljudteknik, inspelning, ljudkort, mixning - En del av IDG.se

 

[fat_fleet]

30-40 tracks for a rock song with drums/guitars/vox...sometimes more.
They're not all firing at once.... there might be a certain group of guitars for one part of the song and a different group for another part etc. Vocals alone can go to 8 easy if there are alot of backup oohs and aahs - 8 tracks of wretched torture.

 

[miroslav]

On average my sessions consist of roughly 20-25 tracks, and i've heard about sessions that uses up to 100 + tracks.
My sessions consist of various things like piano, strings, drums, bass, synth's, organ, guitar etc.

What some people call "tracks" in DAW sessions are often no more than a short loop or maybe just a couple of words or a few played notes.
IOW...with DAWs, people really break apart tracks into small chunks so each can have it's own FX or processing...and then they spread the "chunks" out across individual tracks...so it ends up as huge track counts.

It's more about the type of music you are doing, the arrangements, the production goals...and not about track counts.
You can get pro mixes with 8 tracks same as you can with 80 tracks.
Just using a lot of tracks won't immediately improve your mixes...so yeah, you need a reason for using them, but having the extra tracks opens up a lot of possibilities.

I tend to keep it in the 24 track limit...mostly 'cuz I work with a tape deck mentality even when in the DAW, though when just using the tape deck...that's all I got...24 tracks.
When I use the DAW, even if I break up a track into chunks during editing...prior to mixing I will condense them back to whole tracks so I don't have to scroll through 80 tracks......

 

[JG96]

I don't see how people use so many tracks, for rock mixes and such I feel effects can be automated.

 

[kcearl]

Heres the article on "Cousins" unfortunately it only has the mix window of the protools session not the track list (which it has in the magazine article)

Secrets Of The Mix Engineers: Justin Gerrish & Rostam Batmanglij

note for a relatively simple song it has 15 guitar tracks, from what Ive read of these sessions (im not a guitarist really) this is not an uncommon amount

bear in mind because of the pretty much unrestricted track counts in todays productions, what wouldve been automated originally can now be treated in a track of its own...its also unnecessary to bounce anything..thats all adds to some of these staggering track counts

 

[kcearl]

I don't see how people use so many tracks, for rock mixes and such I feel effects can be automated.

thats what I just mentioned above, because of the power of modern rigs rather than automate they just give the part a new track...

 

[storoi90]

Thanks again kcearl, i know about SOS but it´s been a while since i´ve been there. I´ll go back and look for some more stuff

For those of you talking about rock´n roll, the beatles and 4 tracks and what not... that´s fine, but maybe not for modern music.
I´m not gonna tell anyone their methods is wrong, cuz it´s music.. it´s made in a bunch of different ways, and it all represents different emotions.

One thing you don´t want to do is debate over how to make rock´n roll, with some one who LOVES rock´n roll.
I know a bit of rock, since i used to play in a band, and to me a rock production is more about the attitude and sort of grunchy feel to it, then the "glossy"
and heavily compressed modern sound that´s on the radio.

For me personally, i am growing to like the idea of more tracks. The reason is it gives me more control when building a track, and it gives me more freedom
to manipulate that same track once it´s built. And my music is modern music, not rock productions.
And i know a lot of the tracks (from looking at Pro Tools sessions) don´t have a lot on them.
Like for instance an effect that hits at one part in a chorus, and they have an entire track just for that one hit, that fits the entire length of the chorus as well.
But to be honest i like that idea.. it makes everything look more neat and tidy.

It´s like building a house. If you take your time with it, and build it layer by layer, you add precision and detail in your work.
And once it´s built, you know EVERY part of the house, so you can easily adjust details here and there if you need to. It´s all there.

A musical example would be what i´ve just been doing.. adding strings, but splitting it into different sections. lows, highs and mids.
I can now add these to taste as i compose the song, and more important, i know what every element is doing!
I know why the lows are there as support, i know why the highs are there and how they effect the vocals etc.

Before i would just add string parts, horns, piano like crazy, and not really evaluate the harmonic content of those tracks at all.
So for me, i love the idea of more tracks. It also helps me envision the entire track as more bold and compact.
Although your ears should guide you of course, it does not hurt to use other senses when composing.. at least for me

 

[kcearl]

I think the trick is not knowing that you are listening to so much...small additions/layers can make a snare pop, or the bite of a bass cut through, without it sounding like its layer upon layer...just remember to give things room and use busses to treat parts with the same FX


There is no right or wrong imo but at least nowadays track count doesnt have to be a restriction

 

[grimtraveller]

I´m not gonna tell anyone their methods is wrong, cuz it´s music.. it´s made in a bunch of different ways, and it all represents different emotions.

There is no right or wrong imo but at least nowadays track count doesnt have to be a restriction

I think the beauty of music production of whatever style is that you do what you need to to get your desired result. 142 tracks sounds excessive. Unless you have need for 142 tracks. 8 tracks sounds ultra minimalist. Unless you only have need for 8 tracks. I think it's irrelevant either way because neither guarantees a great song and neither condemns you to a shitty one.
But not being restricted by tracks is both a blessing and a curse. That said, I'd rather be cursed with more tracks than be blessed with not enough !

 

[kcearl]

yup track restriction helped bands become more inventive...but if youd went back and asked the beatles how many tracks theyd prefer I bet it wouldnt be four



(I dont think Ive ever mentioned the Beatles twice in one day...there should be a law on that like Godwins!)