Track Count : What am I missing???

[nwsoundman]

Just finished a mix that had a track count of 168. ProTools HD 6 was about to break. Took 12 minutes to load the session. Was longer than that but a upgrade to a more powerful G5 reduced that to around 8 minutes. Forget about mounting or ejecting a drive while the session was open. That took around 5 minutes for each task.

This was a movie though.

My rock mixes end up around 24 to 30 or so tracks.

 

[STAT1STICK]

I would actually suggest exactly the opposite.

As my techniques have refined, I have cut way down on the number of tracks required to get a good mix. Nowadays if I have a standard 5-piece rock combo with full vocals, if I wind up with more than 18-20 tracks total before mixdown, I know I'm doing something the wrong way and usually then step back and rethink the session.

There are two reasons track counts have gotten higher these days; an excessive dependance on a large number of microphones placed badly instead of a smaller number of microphones used wisely, and, the emergence of hip hop, which often needs huge amounts of layering on the vocals to make up for the sonic sparsity of the instrumental arrangements.

G.

I meant start with the basics. For example: If you have a pretty standard rock song, don't fill it up with a whole bunch of extra sounds/instruments that will more than likely not be heard or don't belong anyway. Start with what you think is needed. After you have what you need, go through and decide if any additional pieces would sound good if they were added. But, I do agree that you shouldn't fill up the song with tracks containing badly placed microphones or un-needed background ambience. Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Just finished a mix that had a track count of 168. ProTools HD 6 was about to break. Took 12 minutes to load the session. Was longer than that but a upgrade to a more powerful G5 reduced that to around 8 minutes. Forget about mounting or ejecting a drive while the session was open. That took around 5 minutes for each task.

This was a movie though.

Ouch. That's a huge session!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I meant start with the basics. For example: If you have a pretty standard rock song, don't fill it up with a whole bunch of extra sounds/instruments that will more than likely not be heard or don't belong anyway. Start with what you think is needed. After you have what you need, go through and decide if any additional pieces would sound good if they were added. But, I do agree that you shouldn't fill up the song with tracks containing badly placed microphones or un-needed background ambience. Sorry if I wasn't clear before.

Yeah, I'll agree with all that.

I could probably stand to clarify myself a little bit too. Track count of course depends upon the nature of the material being produced and the end effect the producer is looking for. If you wanna play Phil Spector (unarmed, of course) or are building a Taj Mahal out of synths a la Tomita, or are sessioning with a world sound band like Poi Dog Pondering or David Byrne, your track count of course needs to be high.

But when I hear headbangers racking up 25 tracks for a four-piece garage band, that is a big red flag either that the mix is going in the wrong direction, that the engineer is using their DAW inefficiently, or that they are trying to make up for lack of quality with a saturation of quantity (which of course never works.)

You're right, it's good to learn how to handle a large number of tracks. The organizational skills and engineering skills that one picks up by being able to do so are fantastic. But then the old Taoist addage kicks in, "Learn everything there is to learn, then discard what you've learned." Most people think that's nonsense because they misinterpret what it means. In this case it means, "learn how to work with a large number of tracks, then to move to the next level, learn how to do without those tracks."

The skills on acquires in learning how to get a great mix out of several dozen tracks are invaluable. But when you can then learn to get the same quality or better mix by reducing the number of tracks to a dozen, then you have really moved to the next level of quality.

G.

 

[timboZ]

is to use too much everything...tracks, compression, reverb. Sure signs of inexperience.

Damn you RAMI. Quit listening to my music.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I have a 24 track recorder, and for a 5 piece band I'm almost always hurting for an extra 2 or 3 tracks. This is studio work BTW. I do tons of live recording as well and I can always make that work in 16 or less tracks.

It's little guitar overdubs and background vocals and keyboard parts-stuff that usually gets dropped durring a live performance-that eats up the tracks.

 

[curtiswyant]

Jeez. I thought I was going overboard when my latest song had 14 tracks
I typically use 3-4 tracks for drums and don't multiple/stereo mic stuff...my last album was just me (as a full band) and I did everything on a 388 with no bouncing.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Honestly most bands/songs could do with a lot less tracks and parts. I guarantee I can accomplish 100% of what I do with most bands in under 24 tracks and it would sound the same.

Mostly I record so many tracks for "safety." In other words, I put up more mics/sounds than I think I will need just in case the band changes its mind about something, or wants more this, less that.

Good example: china cymbal mics. Every time a drummer has a china cymbal they will want more of THAT in the mix... which can be a pain if you didn't specifically mic the sucker. Nowadays if they have a china I just mic it for the inevitable "can you make the china louder?" requests.

 

[darnold]

I average about 30 tracks for the stuff i record. I will have 16-20 mics just on the drums.

It just depends on how many options you want or need to have later on in mixing.

Danny

 

[IronFlippy]

Honestly most bands/songs could do with a lot less tracks and parts. I guarantee I can accomplish 100% of what I do with most bands in under 24 tracks and it would sound the same.

Mostly I record so many tracks for "safety." In other words, I put up more mics/sounds than I think I will need just in case the band changes its mind about something, or wants more this, less that.

Good example: china cymbal mics. Every time a drummer has a china cymbal they will want more of THAT in the mix... which can be a pain if you didn't specifically mic the sucker. Nowadays if they have a china I just mic it for the inevitable "can you make the china louder?" requests.

Hmm, usually people want more cowbell in the mix.

As everyone's said before, it all depends on the complexity of the song.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Hmm, usually people want more cowbell in the mix.

I've had clients joke about that and I always pretend to take them seriously as I reach for the cowbell samples and fire up SoundReplacer. Usually I'll also pitch shift the vocals up an octave for that Alvin and the Chipmunks vibe too. You gotta let the customer know that in the studio you're the boss.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Tell them it's their cowbell's fault and tell them they need one of these if thet want to sound good:

http://www.radmonkeycowbells.com/

G.

 

[jkokura]

If you just wanna lower the number of tracks...bounce stuff into stereo mixes...

for instance, I've used up to 8 mics on one guitar track - when I found a mix of them I wanted, I bounced them to one track for final mixing and effects...I made sure to save the original wav files in case I wanted to rework it later...just an idea...worked for me.

Jacob