Quote:
Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave  This is the kind of thing I was wondering - if bouncing etc is necessary, then surely more tracks obviates the need for going through the whole bouncing process etc.
I'm sure Terry Date and Deftones would have been able to get close to White Pony on 8 tracks, but what compromises would have been made? |
i dont know if viewing this as a compromise is correct.... there's a 4 track multi of some old Beatles songs floating around the internet which is a wonderful education as far as laying out tracks, bouncing, punching in sounds, etc.... the hotel california multi is quite an education too... as far as using a tape machine and studio for arrangement purposes.
bouncing is sort of like "flatten" in Photoshop... use it to make layers. yes, you do lose a lil bit of immediacy when you bounce, but this is often a GOOD thing... it helps with depth and pushing sounds back... its a way to combine a bunch of sounds into one layer... and then if you EQ that layer coming back off tape it holds together in a different way than it would if the sounds were still on separate tracks....
there are real benefits to working this way... less can be more
one example.. there's no undo with a bounce (unless you keep safety reels and/or have multiple machines) but there's often no NEED to undo a bounce... there's nothing wrong with it if you do it correctly... you're going to have to make the decision at some point in production anyhow... so the earlier this is done the more mental space you'll have to make other decisions down the road.
its a way to cut down the number of variables during mix. the decision is already made.. cant do anything now.. so it either works or doesnt. clarity.
humans can only really distinguish about 4 sounds at any given time... more than 4 is exceptional... so 100 tracks doesnt really buy you that much extra... it doesnt have to be a limitation if you know what you want and can get it...
i guess what i'm saying is that most ppl use more tracks than they need because the tendency is always to put off decisions until mix time...... well, details get forgotten this way... better to make decisions early, i think... because you CAN reach a point of certainty about what you're doing.... it takes a long time (for me about 15 years) to reach this point, but i'm glad i did... its made me a lot better engineer.
i think my dream format is 16 on 2" @ 15ips. it's all you really need and sounds HUGE. if you cant make the song grab someone with 16 tracks you have to keep practicing... because all the important stuff should be able to fit.. you can do it with 4, but you're gonna have wimpy drums... 8 is tight, but doable... 16 gives some margin for error.. 24 is HALF the tape width (of 16) and wimpy again.. so i think 16 on 2" is the best compromise between tape width and track count... it's eight 1/4" machines in parallel, essentially
the other thing you can do with a tape machine and bounced layers is tweak the bias/EQ so the top end saturates differently on different groups... hint hint... i wouldnt setup all the tracks to be the same, at least not during mix.... you'll find different settings work for different instruments... if the bias is a lil bit off, you can "shrink" the track to your advantage... less of one means more space for something else etc.... mixing is all about contrast and glue... or Sum and Difference.... if everything sounds the same there is no contrast.... let me just say that you can use tape like a
bokeh effect in photography.
am i giving too much away?
