More tracks... better?

R

RyderUK

New member
I used to think that more tracks usually led to a better result. However I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is not always the case. I have been working on a different version of some classical tracks... put to rock music (much like so many other people before me)... and found that having virtually unlimited tracks tempts me to use them... to the extent that finally mixing the track down has become a nightmare! Note to self: "Use fewer tracks wherever possible!!!"

However.... hello to you all....just a thought for the evening :)
 
And good thinking, too, because I agree with you. Lately, I have been try to scale back my productions to just the bare minimums and I think my songs are better because of it. (I'm also trying not to be such a reverb-junkie)

The one thing I found when going barebones on some songs is every little mistake shines through. And, unfortunately, I'm not the most meticulous musician. With unlimited tracks, flubs and fluffs can be well hidden in the mess.
 
More tracks are better up to a point. It really depends on what your start point was. I started with 4 tracks. That was lame. 8 were definitely better. Then I went up to 12 which is where I'm at now. But that's also a little misleading because I still think in an analog manner and those 12 tracks may well comprise of 60 tracks when you take into account all the bouncing and track sharing.

That said, I at least aim for as few tracks as possible. I think I've gotten over the novelty of having lots of tracks. Also, using all these tracks doesn't mean they're running all at the same time, all the time. Sometimes only 2 of the tracks may be being used.
As ever, it depends on the song and what elements are in it.
 
My track count is based around my 24-track tape deck, since I usually track to it, then dump to DAW.
Sometimes I may have less than 24 tracks, but sometimes I might record more, and then I'll do more than one dump to DAW. Often it's because of multiple takes of some things, like vocals....but occasionally it's because of additional/different tracks, though not counting the multiple takes, my mixdowns generally end up around that 24 track count....and that is also based around my 24-channels of A/D/A conversion, since I like to mix OTB from the DAW....so all I can do is bring 24 channels out of the DAW.
I do have a 4th 8-channel "extender" converter I can add to make it 32 channels....but I've yet had a need to.
24 tracks usually gets the job done. I've only had a couple of occasions where I went beyond that, and had to sub-mix in the DAW first.

I don't pay attention to the actual track count AFA getting a song done. I mean....I don't think that more or less tracks will make it better. I record as many tracks as I need for the song.
 
Greg_L said:
Track with as many tracks as you can. That doesn't mean you have to use them all.
Click to expand...

+1 . Song I'm tracking right now, I did 5 rhythm guitar tracks. Just doing an initial mix for reference, I put one guitar track 30% left and one 30% right. Tried adding an additional one for chorus and bridge and it just didn't sound right.
 
Greg_L said:
Track with as many tracks as you can. That doesn't mean you have to use them all.
Click to expand...

While I agree, I must say a problem with some tracking engineers is they think that more mics will cover up their shitty ability to record the instrument well in the first place. For example, there's the idiot engineer trick of the day: the "let's put a shit ton of mics all over a kit so we get an amazing massive awesome sound" school of thought. The engineer may throw up the oh's (likely out of phase with each other because it just looks right), then listen and realize "Hmm they sound like shit, oh well, I have two more sets of room mics, and 2 close mics on each drum and a shit load of triggers so i should be ok". Same goes for if they, let's say have 2 mics per tom. They might think "well that top mic sounds like shit, oh well, there's a bottom one too so i should be okay".

As opposed to spending the time to properly adjust each mic in order to get optimal sound from each of them and working great as a whole, they are spending all their time on all the damn mics they had to set up and route into the system.

I'm not saying to go all minimalist all the time either.
But that goes for actual recorded track count as well (like multiple guitar takes). But what is musical or exciting about sifting through 100's of guitar tracks you recorded, all half-lame performance-wise, because none quite sounded good in the first place? Spending hours comping and performing a bunch of clown-fuck tasks. Recording more takes/tracks won't make it sound any better, whether you scale it back or not. It just takes more time sifting through all the junk, only to find more junk. Haha

All in my very humble (not really) opinion.
 
RecordingMaster said:
But that goes for actual recorded track count as well (like multiple guitar takes). But what is musical or exciting about sifting through 100's of guitar tracks you recorded, all half-lame performance-wise, because none quite sounded good in the first place? Spending hours comping and performing a bunch of clown-fuck tasks. Recording more takes/tracks won't make it sound any better, whether you scale it back or not. It just takes more time sifting through all the junk, only to find more junk. Haha

All in my very humble (not really) opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with this so much.
I've discovered this after years of recording in a real studio. My clients that just got it right always sounded better than my comps.

Anytime I'm recording at home with a friend and there's a small flub, he asks if we can just comp it.

I tell him "it's 3 minutes long, we can do this the right way and it'll sound better."

Go figure, since then our tracks have been sounding better. xD
 
As someone that started out in the days of analog 16 and 24 tracks there are days that I am glad to have more tracks.
In general though it has diminished the the decision making process when creating a song. It depends on the producer and the project.
Often these days people don't really know what they have, and what they don't and assume it will all fit together in the mix.
Brad
 
I have to admit that I came from an analog background... and now, having a number of tracks only limited by RAM and computer capability, I am always tempted.

Mind you it does have its advantages... My son has been playing for a year or so now, and has built the home studio in the back garden.. like so many folks before him I guess. However: it always makes us feel better that we can record multiple takes of a solo and pick the best bits from each one - coming from a world of 8 track and 4track tascams this is a real treat!
 
Yeah, I made that mistake...too many tracks! A muddy mess! Especially because I'm so new to mixing, having lots of tracks leads to doom. But I still do it anyways, because I am thinking of the arranging step as separate from mixing. I want to get the arrangement the way I want it, and then later on I figure I can come back and improve the mix as I improve my mixing skills.

Also, I tend to put the same instrument on different tracks so I can manipulate different parts separately. (There is probably another way to do this but I haven't learned it yet!) (Logic Pro).
 
Jessica_X said:
Yeah, I made that mistake...too many tracks! A muddy mess! Especially because I'm so new to mixing, having lots of tracks leads to doom. But I still do it anyways, because I am thinking of the arranging step as separate from mixing. I want to get the arrangement the way I want it, and then later on I figure I can come back and improve the mix as I improve my mixing skills.

Also, I tend to put the same instrument on different tracks so I can manipulate different parts separately. (There is probably another way to do this but I haven't learned it yet!) (Logic Pro).
Click to expand...

With lots of tracks you really need to keep an eye on frequency build up - a major cause of mud. Filtering helps..
 
I love some minimalist recordings, and it does open up a mix when you only have a handful of tracks to deal with.

That said, there's noting wrong with more involved production as long as you can make it work, and I like to try and use as many tracks as the production calls for, and if it happens to be a good amount of stuff thats happening, it's a nice challenge to make it all work and get the right balance between many things going on at the same time, so that the key elements stand out, but the rest are not just an audio soup, and that even the backing tracks still have some distinction and can be identifiable in the mix without getting in the way.
Yeah, sometimes it takes work to make that work.
 
All of this more tracks vs less tracks comes down to the person working the tracks. Some people aren't mentally or technically equipped to work with a bunch of tracks, it fucks them up, and they poo-poo it forever. That's cool. But that's not the track count's fault. That's the dummy at the controls fault. Use as many tracks as you need. That can two or two hundred.
 
Greg_L said:
All of this more tracks vs less tracks comes down to the person working the tracks. Some people aren't mentally or technically equipped to work with a bunch of tracks, it fucks them up, and they poo-poo it forever. That's cool. But that's not the track count's fault. That's the dummy at the controls fault. Use as many tracks as you need. That can two or two hundred.
Click to expand...

^^^ Yup..
 
Interesting question.

When I start recording things may sound small and my nature seems to be to "fill up the sound" but when I'm down to mastering and everything gets "loud" I often realize I don't need as many tracks. A good bass and drum sound can fill up a whole tune.

Overall, I agree the number itself is meaningless, if I need a lot of tracks I use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top