Virtual Tracks.

  • Thread starter Thread starter NLAlston
  • Start date Start date
NLAlston

NLAlston

New member
What are the actual benefits for "Virtual Tracks"? Some say that these tracks allow the user to record alternate 'takes', and then utilize the ability to choose just one of those to record onto a dedicated track. So, if a recorder offers 10 virtual tracks for one actual track, that is to say that only one of those takes can be used. Contrary to this, there are others who say that the virtual tracks can be used to 'layer' sounds on a given recording track. So, is this to say that one could record a 3-part background harmony on three of the ten virtual tracks for, say, track one - and then layer them all onto that same recording track? Someone please elaborate on this for me.

Blessings,

Nate.
 
Yo Nate:

Kind of an interesting question. If you buy the AWG 16 you will have 8 virtual tracks for each track. It is true you can use the virtual tracks to, say, let a vocalist do the cut a couple of times or more and then choose the best take to mix.

I would assume that if you wanted to do harmony, it would be easier to use the empty tracks to add on the two or three part or more part harmonies.

I'm not sure if you can dump the virtual tracks or layer them but I'll bet someone out there knows.

Since you can only play one dedicated track or your choice of a virtual cut at a time, I don't see it working unless you bounce tracks. Seems to me that doing this would make it very difficult to get it all together.

When I have a singer who wants to add in a harmonic track, I just use an empty dedicated track since I have 16 spaces. It's easier to get the main vocal or solo down first, then add other stuff.



Green Hornet :D :cool: :confused:
 
Green Hornet,

Yeah, I kind of leaned toward the first method mentioned: Utilizing the virtual tracks for alternate takes, whereby the best one could be selected for actual recording. I guess that I asked because there were conflicting explanations as to what the VT's actual functions were. And, you are right: with 16 dedicated recording tracks, why would there be a need for more room?

Blessings,

Nate.
 
WELL, IF YOU DO NEED MORE ROOM, YOU CAN ALWAYS COMBINE SOME TRACKS AND MAKE ROOM.
 
I guess it depends on the talent of the artist but for me virtual tracks are a crutch.

Computer editing has caused a lot of musicians to save dozens of takes because they can't or are not willing to commit to a decision. So they save take after take as a "just in case" they can't get a better take.

But, when you are working with talented musicians who know how to play or sing then they know what they want and what sounds right.

I generally will save one or two takes but if the track is not right, its not right. Which means I might as well burn the track and write a good take over top.

Engineers who approach tracking with a tape based mentality will not burn up a bunch of wasted tracks. They will do punch in's on a track to get a good track or maybe comp a track or two, but I don't normally seem them keep a bunch of virtual tracks.

Also, if you do your mixes weeks or months later and you have a bunch of virtual tracks, this makes the mix process a lot more complicated. In the long run I believe you actually take up more time putting off the decisions to the mix process instead of commiting to getting good takes during tracking.

Lee
 
Virtual tracks could be used for variations of a take, as well.

Let's say your guitarist likes to record solos 'on the fly'. He/she may have a framework for a solo in mind, but nothing in concrete. Virtual takes allow you to call each one up and make the decision later. If you simply punch in over the top of the previous one... you remove your options.

Same goes for vocals... say your vocalist has several ideas for a particular part - they can all be recorded, and the decision of which to use can be made later.

When it comes right down to it, multitracking is a crutch, too. It would be far easier to record straight to stereo... but you're stuck with what you get. Virtual tracks are simply the next evolution of choices.
 
another little thing bout virtual tracks is you can mess up (especiallywit vocals)but finish the track do another take mess up somewhere else maybe and so on but work thru your mistake.then piece together the parts that came out cool. by placin markers cut,coppy,paste so on. Saves time for me
 
Doug Quance said:
When it comes right down to it, multitracking is a crutch, too. It would be far easier to record straight to stereo...
Click to expand...

Actually multi tracking is required. While v-tracks give you options for different takes, multi-tracks ARE REQUIRED for getting the final mixdown. Balancing instruments and adding eq and effects are what separate most home recordings from professional ones. It's the time you take to get the proper separation and balance that makes a one recording sound better than another.

One of the best pieces of advise I ever read was on the internet. I searched out getting in front of recording companies to get a contract. They stated that the biggest mistake that was made was the final mixdown of the recordings that they receive. The article stated that what you should do, is get a professional cd that has the sound that you want, and try to make yours match it in dynamics and clarity. This is something that can only be done in the final mixdown.

Just separating the drums from a drum machine into separate tracks can make a wold of difference. You may want louder symbols in one part of the song than another, or subdue the bass drum when the bass player line is something you want to emphasize.

Remember, the v-tracks give you some options when assembling the song but the multi tracks are what give you the final sound quality.
 
Well, I guess we can agree to disagree.

Multitracking is not required. It is preferred because of the options it presents that would not be available without it.

Mixing can be done, in real time, live to two-track. Does it limit your options? Sure. But that doesn't mean it can't be done... it can. It was done for years before multitracking (or stereo, for that matter) was popular.

How do you think live sound reinforcement is handled? I know, because I've done my share of it. The engineer becomes one of the band... sometimes more important than any other member. Van Halen used to pay their house engineer more than any individual member for their live gigs... and he earned every cent of it.:D
 
You are correct Doug. Multi tracking is not required. You can just record it once and cut a CD.

On the other hand, in my case and I believe many others in the forum, are a band in themselves. I am the bass player, guitar player, drummer and keyboardist. Overdubbing is a necesity for me.

Incidentally, I do have a great respect for the sound engineer. He/she is the one who brings it all together in a live performance.
 
Another way to look at it is real tracks vs. virtual tracks. In other words, instead of looking at the virtuals as alternates, use the the virtuals as additionals. For example, my Fostex FD8 has 24 tracks total, but only plays back 8 at a time. But I only use my FD8 for tracking and not mixing. So I fill up all 24 tracks and dump to the PC for editing/mixing/mastering. Sometimes I'll make a rough cut mixdown on the FD8 so that I can dump the remaing to the PC and start afresh. That way everything stays in sync and I can get unlimited tracks from my 8 track digital recorder.
 
Doug Quance said:
When it comes right down to it, multitracking is a crutch, too. It would be far easier to record straight to stereo... but you're stuck with what you get. Virtual tracks are simply the next evolution of choices.
Click to expand...

I just realized I misspoke... I meant to say "It would be far more difficult to record straight to stereo..."

And that is because of the many challenges that have to be faced in real time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top