Back to basics: 8 track maximum for real rock music?
- Thread starter niazmet
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
JohnH
Well-Known Member
Some things sound great in a 'sparse' mix, however many tracks the technology had available.
Beatles on Revolver and Rubber Soul, even into some of Sgt Pepper, can sound like its not just a recording of a performance or a composition, it's actually the four of them singing and playing their instruments plugged right into the back of your own speakers, a very direct and simple sound.
Beatles on Revolver and Rubber Soul, even into some of Sgt Pepper, can sound like its not just a recording of a performance or a composition, it's actually the four of them singing and playing their instruments plugged right into the back of your own speakers, a very direct and simple sound.
Greg Rogers
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 47
Charles Thompson recorded the Frank Black and the Catholics albums in the studio live to 2 track with no edits! Such great energy. If someone flubs something the whole band either does another take or they left it.I mean real music by something that is captured on studio that can somehow be reproduced live
When I see things like this
then I realize we are using AI in the sense of fake/artificial music for decades and no wonder we reached a fatigue point.
Yes 8 track recordings can have all sorts of compression and eq techniques but at least you limit the craziness of the engineer and the indulgence of band members lol
I think having the option to chose 30 different microphones + hundreds of cabinets + hundreds of effects is already too much. Modern metal, new metal and etc was the natural consequence of overusing reverb and fake drums (Ac/DC 80s albums come to mind. Plus Van Halen, Motley Crue and Queen)
If I had to build a recording studio today I would certainly not have a 24 track mixing console + dozens of outboard gear. I'd limit myself to 8 track and maybe 1 eq and 2 compressors. I'd happily go bankrupt if that would be the case lol
niazmet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2023
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 262
Can you post more info about the recording? it sounds really decent, a bit loud guitars but that is expected. Good sound overall
Clifdawg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 364
- Reaction score
- 860
Young’un here (relatively). I’d like to offer a different take - the technology that has trickled down to the home user has made music creation more accessible than ever.
I’m a guitarist, lyricist, and vocalist. Not a drummer. But I can use one track to program some very convincingly realistic drums.
I can also track my rhythm guitars two tracks each, panned hard left and hard right, then run each through different amp/cab/mic/EQ combinations to give them a wider soundstage and fuller sound. I can then track certain parts rather than the whole as many times as I need to in order to get them absolutely perfect. Sometimes that means running 4 or even 6 rhythm tracks so I can get the best possible take. Additionally, I can track my vocals and bass guitar between 2 tracks each, working with each portion of the song. Then, I might add 2 or 3 vocal harmony parts at various points. Then I can add my lead and solo guitar work in individual tracks with whatever selection of reverbs, delays, or modulations I want for each. Even after cleaning up all the excess tracks, I’m usually left with 12-16 tracks for a single song, all tracked individually or (at most) two at a time.
Yeah, I know that’s not the “real rock and roll” way of doing things, and someone is going to tell me to buy better gear and “git gud” and learn to play all of my parts flawlessly for the entire song in a single take.
But that’s not what I want to do. I’m not a gigging musician. I don’t have a band to practice or perform with. I just want to create good music that people want to listen to. I work a full time job, I’m in grad school, I have a family, and music is a hobby. The ability to run 18 tracks at one time on a laptop and record silently with amp and effects modeling software at 11PM when the kid is asleep enables me to enjoy recording and producing almost-professional songs in my spare time.
Would I like to have a band that I’ve practiced with enough to show up in a studio and perfectly lay down an album in 11 hours with only 8 tracks to work with? Sure! But that’s not most of us any more.
That’s not to say that limitation can’t breed creativity - it very often does. But a limitation applied to force an artist to think outside of the box is different than a limitation that prevents an artist from being able to produce what he intends.
So I say - do whatever helps you make the music you want to make. If I’m not making “real rock and roll” because I’m using software instruments and 18 tracks of various takes, then okay, whatever - I’d rather make fake rock and roll than nothing at all.
I’m a guitarist, lyricist, and vocalist. Not a drummer. But I can use one track to program some very convincingly realistic drums.
I can also track my rhythm guitars two tracks each, panned hard left and hard right, then run each through different amp/cab/mic/EQ combinations to give them a wider soundstage and fuller sound. I can then track certain parts rather than the whole as many times as I need to in order to get them absolutely perfect. Sometimes that means running 4 or even 6 rhythm tracks so I can get the best possible take. Additionally, I can track my vocals and bass guitar between 2 tracks each, working with each portion of the song. Then, I might add 2 or 3 vocal harmony parts at various points. Then I can add my lead and solo guitar work in individual tracks with whatever selection of reverbs, delays, or modulations I want for each. Even after cleaning up all the excess tracks, I’m usually left with 12-16 tracks for a single song, all tracked individually or (at most) two at a time.
Yeah, I know that’s not the “real rock and roll” way of doing things, and someone is going to tell me to buy better gear and “git gud” and learn to play all of my parts flawlessly for the entire song in a single take.
But that’s not what I want to do. I’m not a gigging musician. I don’t have a band to practice or perform with. I just want to create good music that people want to listen to. I work a full time job, I’m in grad school, I have a family, and music is a hobby. The ability to run 18 tracks at one time on a laptop and record silently with amp and effects modeling software at 11PM when the kid is asleep enables me to enjoy recording and producing almost-professional songs in my spare time.
Would I like to have a band that I’ve practiced with enough to show up in a studio and perfectly lay down an album in 11 hours with only 8 tracks to work with? Sure! But that’s not most of us any more.
That’s not to say that limitation can’t breed creativity - it very often does. But a limitation applied to force an artist to think outside of the box is different than a limitation that prevents an artist from being able to produce what he intends.
So I say - do whatever helps you make the music you want to make. If I’m not making “real rock and roll” because I’m using software instruments and 18 tracks of various takes, then okay, whatever - I’d rather make fake rock and roll than nothing at all.
PelliX
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2020
- Messages
- 7,178
- Reaction score
- 14,615
Weeeell.... is it really one channel if you can swap out the kick half way through because you change your mind? Or decide the snare needs some reverb? I'm just saying there's some 'abstraction' at that level.
It is/was for many others, though... no harm in multiple takes. Double tracking is *hard* in a single take anyway...
All4Tone
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2010
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 156
If you wanna pull that whole “real music“ card out, then you say you need eight tracks for recording, it sounds a bit ridiculous. I have done several recordings where we have used two tracks, because it was live off the floor into a stereo dat machine. That’s real music, two microphones, two channels, one take.
That said, I used to record as many channels as we felt was necessary, because when you create real commercial marketable music, you are building a product to sell and sometimes you have to use all the tools of the trade to make that product.
I see no problem with having 24 or 48 tracks, or 85 tracks if that’s what you want, but in the end, it’s the result that matters.
That said, I used to record as many channels as we felt was necessary, because when you create real commercial marketable music, you are building a product to sell and sometimes you have to use all the tools of the trade to make that product.
I see no problem with having 24 or 48 tracks, or 85 tracks if that’s what you want, but in the end, it’s the result that matters.
DumpsterChicken
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2022
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 19
The Beatles produced mega hits on a 4 track
Alter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 640
Don't think it's the number of tracks that makes the difference. It's whether the band plays, grooves and records together or one by one over click tracks, whether the music is edited to the point that it sounds like it's played by computers, and whether there are some analog links left in the recording chain.
I would rather listen to an imperfect tune played by a real band, rather than a constructed and heavily edited one. Same thing for mastering, so much music today is destroyed by it.
I would rather listen to an imperfect tune played by a real band, rather than a constructed and heavily edited one. Same thing for mastering, so much music today is destroyed by it.
Doug S.
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2021
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 8
The more tracks available the less you have to repeat the performance or bounce down tracks. I've read all the books by the well-known engineers and producers of the 60/70's. They were using every trick in the book to get more tracks from their limited equipment. I just transferred a bunch of Fostex E-16 reels with track 16 SMPTE to slave a pair of Akai DR4d digital 4 tracks. They also had an Apple IIe running Performer following the SMPTE for a Juno 106 and a Oberheim Matrix 6. That was a complicated setup, it's much simpler now that everything is printed to its own track in the DAW.
Swelle
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2019
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 17
I've done a fair amount of recording with a Tascam 8 track cassette recording, some of which has come out on vinyl. Not only just 8 tracks, but you can only record four tracks at a time (pretty typical for the old Portastudios). To cut live backing tracks, I'd generally do:
1) bass
2) guitar
3) guitar
4) kick & 'heartbeat' mic bussed to one track.. this mic was usually a tube LDC, hovering over the kick and aimed at the snare
Overheads be damned, that mic would pick up most everything. I generally cover the kick drum with a quilted moving blanket
And then after basics, you have 4 empty tracks for vocals, leads, tambourine, etc. No bouncing required.
Don't forget that Nirvana's Bleach was done on an 8 track with two busted channels.. so it was effectively a six track recorder
1) bass
2) guitar
3) guitar
4) kick & 'heartbeat' mic bussed to one track.. this mic was usually a tube LDC, hovering over the kick and aimed at the snare
Overheads be damned, that mic would pick up most everything. I generally cover the kick drum with a quilted moving blanket
And then after basics, you have 4 empty tracks for vocals, leads, tambourine, etc. No bouncing required.
Don't forget that Nirvana's Bleach was done on an 8 track with two busted channels.. so it was effectively a six track recorder
DesolationBlvd
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2017
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 155
Seeing as I've moved from Cubase to a Fostex A-8 and Mackie VLZ Pro 1604 to reduce screen time, I'm now going to be limited to eight tracks. It's the original A-8, so only four tracks can be recorded at once. For me, eight tracks means a choice of four mics on drums (kick/snare/overhead, and then a choice of making it stereo or having the room mic) and a stripped-down rock instrumentation (choosing between a vocal harmony, rhythm guitar, or keyboard part as the final part), or a stereo drum machine track with reverb printed in, and a little more breathing room.
The first thing I'll buy after my first house (an impossible dream as I am a Millennial) is a Fostex 16-track and a bigger mixer.
The first thing I'll buy after my first house (an impossible dream as I am a Millennial) is a Fostex 16-track and a bigger mixer.
Tatzmann
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2021
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 4,435
You should have upgraded to the 688 Midistudio. 8 simultaneous, full midi tape syncing , dbx...those were the days.
Nowadays i use a 388 and mixdown mono.
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8
Last edited:
Masker of Puppets
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2022
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 36
IMHO 8 tracks just isnt enough, I mean you could bus,bounce and pan your way into 16 tracks, but why make it so difficult? The best sounds came from a 24 track SSL console, particularly the SL E-4000 from 1979. I think thats when the engineering, peaked and declined from there. 8 tracks will not get you the headroom, the subtleties, the attack or the movement, it becomes a volume war. Most likely your mix will be too hot or lifeless with only 8 tracks. Unless your an OI punk band.I mean real music by something that is captured on studio that can somehow be reproduced live
When I see things like this
then I realize we are using AI in the sense of fake/artificial music for decades and no wonder we reached a fatigue point.
Yes 8 track recordings can have all sorts of compression and eq techniques but at least you limit the craziness of the engineer and the indulgence of band members lol
I think having the option to chose 30 different microphones + hundreds of cabinets + hundreds of effects is already too much. Modern metal, new metal and etc was the natural consequence of overusing reverb and fake drums (Ac/DC 80s albums come to mind. Plus Van Halen, Motley Crue and Queen)
If I had to build a recording studio today I would certainly not have a 24 track mixing console + dozens of outboard gear. I'd limit myself to 8 track and maybe 1 eq and 2 compressors. I'd happily go bankrupt if that would be the case lol
I think I can make 8 tracks work, but I'm using all I can.
My recent projects have over 100 tracks. They're not all individual audio tracks, but everything; multiple mics, duplicate tracks, parallel processing, sub-groups, groups, FX sends, etc.
When I'm almost done with the mix I'll end up with close to 100 or over 100 tracks.
Why? Because I can.
My recent projects have over 100 tracks. They're not all individual audio tracks, but everything; multiple mics, duplicate tracks, parallel processing, sub-groups, groups, FX sends, etc.
When I'm almost done with the mix I'll end up with close to 100 or over 100 tracks.
Why? Because I can.
Hi,
I used to work as a professional audio engineer, but to this day I also have a home recording studio.
The statement that less is more is only partly true.
I started with a C64 sequencer synced by click to a Yamaha MT44D 4-track recorder.
Btw. I have the service manual for this 4-track recorder and a device to demagnetize it. For all the false memories and romance of the good old days, please never forget that no matter if it's professional equipment or not, this stuff has to be maintained. We used to solder and program in assembler, before we were called audio engineer.
If you sync to a click, you can't get in the middle of a recording.
At that time I lived in a house with plenty of room.
Less tracks but much room and much knowledge. No compressor at all, but an EQ for almost each channel.
Later I used an Atari 520ST, but it was expanded to 4096 MiB with PC RAM. You can't see the SMPTE thing in the photo, just the RAM tinkering and an 80286 hardware PC emulator, but the PC emulator has nothing to do with the music.
The ST was synchronized to the same 4-track recorder, but via SMPTE. So SMPTE now allowed to enter in the middle of a recording and moreover the ST had additional independent MIDI interfaces via the SMPTE interface, so that there were no more data jams and I could even send non-realtime SysEx to e.g. a Matrix-1000 quasi in realtime.
By the way, the C64 and Atari ST had no MIDI jitter, synchronization was in hard realtime, something we no longer have today. This has to do with the design of the computers and that they didn't have operating systems as we define them today.
At that time I had DAT-recorders, so I recorded 3 audio-tracks together with the MIDI-stuff and afterwards I transferred 2 tracks from DAT to the 4-track recorder and could record 2 more tracks without suffering from a terrible loss of quality.
Today I live for rent in a very cramped apartment.
I use an audio interface with 8 full analog audio inputs and outputs and, just in case, another 8 are available via ADAT with word clock sync.
I am very much in favor of only using a 4-band parametric EQ for each channel and avoiding compressors if possible. By the way, the surgical use of an EQ means that you can get by with a few bands by using an EQ, not that you use 100 bands like a butcher because you don't know what you're doing.
And that brings me to the point. If necessary, you can use your fantasy to create something great from just a few tracks. If you have an unlimited number of tracks at your disposal, then there are no limits to your fantasy.
For certain approaches you can follow the Beatles and old Oi bands, but if you don't want to imitate the Beatles and old Oi bands, but are an artist with your own ideas, then you use 8 tracks if it fits, but also 80 tracks, if it suits your own ideas better.
Btw. I for example love the "Irish Tour '74" and "No Sleep 'til Hammersmith", but you can't do this in a professional or home recording studio. However, even if it would be possible to imitate this by studio work, why should we imitate an old Rory Gallagher or old Motörhead live recording or even a Beatles or Oi studio recording in a studio in 2023?
I love this old music, this is the reason for me to make music, too. Listen to them, learn from them, but make your own thing, with the tech available today.
Regards,
Ralf
I used to work as a professional audio engineer, but to this day I also have a home recording studio.
The statement that less is more is only partly true.
I started with a C64 sequencer synced by click to a Yamaha MT44D 4-track recorder.
Btw. I have the service manual for this 4-track recorder and a device to demagnetize it. For all the false memories and romance of the good old days, please never forget that no matter if it's professional equipment or not, this stuff has to be maintained. We used to solder and program in assembler, before we were called audio engineer.
If you sync to a click, you can't get in the middle of a recording.
At that time I lived in a house with plenty of room.
Less tracks but much room and much knowledge. No compressor at all, but an EQ for almost each channel.
Later I used an Atari 520ST, but it was expanded to 4096 MiB with PC RAM. You can't see the SMPTE thing in the photo, just the RAM tinkering and an 80286 hardware PC emulator, but the PC emulator has nothing to do with the music.
The ST was synchronized to the same 4-track recorder, but via SMPTE. So SMPTE now allowed to enter in the middle of a recording and moreover the ST had additional independent MIDI interfaces via the SMPTE interface, so that there were no more data jams and I could even send non-realtime SysEx to e.g. a Matrix-1000 quasi in realtime.
By the way, the C64 and Atari ST had no MIDI jitter, synchronization was in hard realtime, something we no longer have today. This has to do with the design of the computers and that they didn't have operating systems as we define them today.
At that time I had DAT-recorders, so I recorded 3 audio-tracks together with the MIDI-stuff and afterwards I transferred 2 tracks from DAT to the 4-track recorder and could record 2 more tracks without suffering from a terrible loss of quality.
Today I live for rent in a very cramped apartment.
I use an audio interface with 8 full analog audio inputs and outputs and, just in case, another 8 are available via ADAT with word clock sync.
I am very much in favor of only using a 4-band parametric EQ for each channel and avoiding compressors if possible. By the way, the surgical use of an EQ means that you can get by with a few bands by using an EQ, not that you use 100 bands like a butcher because you don't know what you're doing.
And that brings me to the point. If necessary, you can use your fantasy to create something great from just a few tracks. If you have an unlimited number of tracks at your disposal, then there are no limits to your fantasy.
For certain approaches you can follow the Beatles and old Oi bands, but if you don't want to imitate the Beatles and old Oi bands, but are an artist with your own ideas, then you use 8 tracks if it fits, but also 80 tracks, if it suits your own ideas better.
Btw. I for example love the "Irish Tour '74" and "No Sleep 'til Hammersmith", but you can't do this in a professional or home recording studio. However, even if it would be possible to imitate this by studio work, why should we imitate an old Rory Gallagher or old Motörhead live recording or even a Beatles or Oi studio recording in a studio in 2023?
I love this old music, this is the reason for me to make music, too. Listen to them, learn from them, but make your own thing, with the tech available today.
Regards,
Ralf
Last edited:
niazmet
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2023
- Messages
- 311
- Reaction score
- 262
I might be wrong but I think the whole reason why SSL consoles had high and low pass filters was that you could cut the high frequencies bleed in a mic going to the kick drum for instance
Then as time went on most engineers realized dedicated eq equipment was better and they would leave all eq knobs in the preamp console at default and later mess with it
but that didn't produce better results in the end. Dave Jerden would start his rough mixes using console EQ and limiters even though he had unlimited budget to spend 4 months mixing and recording a single album
There is also a caste system in the audio industry where most studio owners will select the type of gear engineers can use, and they won't even allow the use of those expensive speakers that hang on studio walls
Then as time went on most engineers realized dedicated eq equipment was better and they would leave all eq knobs in the preamp console at default and later mess with it
but that didn't produce better results in the end. Dave Jerden would start his rough mixes using console EQ and limiters even though he had unlimited budget to spend 4 months mixing and recording a single album
There is also a caste system in the audio industry where most studio owners will select the type of gear engineers can use, and they won't even allow the use of those expensive speakers that hang on studio walls
Exaggerating, one could say that the loss of pleasant near-field monitors is not a bad thing, as it is best to mix directly for portable Bluetooth speakers, since nobody nowadays still owns decent amplifiers or decent speakers.
I very rarely think back wistfully to the good old equipment. Some things used to be better than they are today, but all in all, even a poor artist can get (nearly) professional equipment today that only very rich people could afford in the past. Recording and mixing rooms are still a problem, but when it comes to the finished recording, the difference between cheap and expensive equipment hardly matters. Prosumer equipment for the poor artist has gotten cheaper and better, while at the same time consumers have traded in their hi-fi systems for portable Bluetooth speakers.
Bouncing down 8 digital tracks IMO is still better than using a phonograph cylinders or bouncing down analog tracks. However, it was never a wanted basics to be limited to a 8 track maximum for real rock music.
OTOH more modern phonograph cylinders are worth considering. A mobile phone's microphone and a software filter and you can "Make your own vinyl records at home":
I very rarely think back wistfully to the good old equipment. Some things used to be better than they are today, but all in all, even a poor artist can get (nearly) professional equipment today that only very rich people could afford in the past. Recording and mixing rooms are still a problem, but when it comes to the finished recording, the difference between cheap and expensive equipment hardly matters. Prosumer equipment for the poor artist has gotten cheaper and better, while at the same time consumers have traded in their hi-fi systems for portable Bluetooth speakers.
Bouncing down 8 digital tracks IMO is still better than using a phonograph cylinders or bouncing down analog tracks. However, it was never a wanted basics to be limited to a 8 track maximum for real rock music.
OTOH more modern phonograph cylinders are worth considering. A mobile phone's microphone and a software filter and you can "Make your own vinyl records at home":
Last edited:
