At a bit of a crossroads with my mixes (the ol' 2 vs 4 tracks milarky. Need opinions)

Mattayus

Mattayus

Sir Groove-A-Lot
Jan 31, 2010
2,056
23
38
40
Cambs, UK
www.numbskullaudio.com
Just thinking out loud here so bear with me, I will get to my point...

The Darkadian album is coming on strong, we're making a lot of headway and starting to write some new material as well as re-record some old stuff. But after a long chat with my bassist tonight I'm at a crossroads with whether to stick with quad tracking, or take 2 of the guitars away...

I guess to start I could list some of the possible pros and cons, at least to my mind...

With quad tracking it just sounds massive. Really destroys worlds and sounds unfathomably thick and juicy. Also you can experiment with mixing amps/tones a lot more. On the other hand it can get a little cloudy at times, and tends to not let the central instruments like bass have its own place, kind'a wrestles with it to some degree.

Dual tracking is much more defined, has more clarity and to a certain extend more aggression, particularly with fast stuff. We have some thrashy songs and I think they would definitely suit the dual tracked thing a lot more, especially with some of the Fear Factory/Divine Heresy machine gun riffing we have in places (I believe Dino only dual tracks these days? Someone correct me if I'm wrong). It gives the mix more breathing space and to be honest, sounds a bit more modern if that makes sense?

Now I know you can make the characteristics of both work either way if you mix it right, but there is an inherent quality to each one that simply can't be achieved with the other. And there is my problem - I just can't make my mind up. I've tried both, and I love both, and just for pure convenience (if nothing else) i'm leaning towards deleting 2 of the guitars out of the 4 songs we have recorded already...

Here is one of my all time favourite tones. Can someone tell me if it's quad or dual tracked? I think it's quad because of its thickness but sometimes it just acts like dual tracking...



That's the kind of vibe I'm going for guitar-wise anyway. Not sure if it's achievable with just 2...

Anyway, discuss/halp/love me!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mattayus said:
Sorry, I just became aware of how retarded this thread is without examples of our music...

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4128689/Darkadian - Exhumed Alive.mp3

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4128689/Darkadian - Limb.mp3

Also, another diagnosis is in order here...
Quad or dual tracked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWYv1S-us3s&playnext_from=TL&videos=0T2BOsS8QNk

I'm hearing quad...
Click to expand...



What ever your doing sounds pretty good to me. I'm pretty much having this exact conflict, quad vs dual for a while now. I'm starting to lean towards dual for fast tech stuff and quad for more grindy parts.

Yeah, I'd love to know more about the production on Organic Hallucinosis if anyone knows. I love pretty much every sound on this album.
 
Maybe you could just use quad-tracking as an "effect," so to speak, to make certain parts have more impact as is appropriate, and let the faster parts breath with dual-tracking, and also let the busier sections of songs breath where they need to and not take anything away from the other instruments that have to live in the same space as the guitars.

There's nothing that says that you have to choose to strictly always quad-track or never quad-track. Use it as it's called for, and don't use it as it's not.

Just my two cents.
 
I like quad tracking unless in really fast songs where I usually dual track to earn clarity and let the song breathe more. For your songs I would suggest to quad track. As for the Chimaira song you posted, I think they quad tracked in every disc, from "Impossibility of Reason" to "Infection", I don't know anything for the Decapitaded one though
 
I don't know... I think I prefer the clarity of dual tracking most of the time... at least for faster paced music. Just sounds cleaner to me. Even some of the Nevermore stuff sounds a little mushy/unclear to me on some of the faster parts where you can really hear the 4 separate tracks overlapping, and Loomis is a really tight player. I think some guys on here have the mindset that quad tracking is always better, and I don't think I agree with that...
 
Matthias King said:
Maybe you could just use quad-tracking as an "effect," so to speak, to make certain parts have more impact as is appropriate, and let the faster parts breath with dual-tracking, and also let the busier sections of songs breath where they need to and not take anything away from the other instruments that have to live in the same space as the guitars.

There's nothing that says that you have to choose to strictly always quad-track or never quad-track. Use it as it's called for, and don't use it as it's not.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

im with this guy
 
Anybody know what all albums Andy has mixed that were just double tracked? off the top of my head I just know The Ills of Modern Man by Despised Icon...
 
Quad. The reason your bassist said he doesn't like quad is that he thinks he will be crushed in the mix.
 
I'll post a clip of one of our songs later, one with dual, one quad, so we can really chew the fat on it!

ttrentt said:
Quad. The reason your bassist said he doesn't like quad is that he thinks he will be crushed in the mix.
Click to expand...

Haha no man it was totally incidental, my bassist knows nothing of mixing or anything so he has no idea what quad/dual tracking will/won't do to his bass. I just meant that after talking to him about certain bands mixes that we like it dawned on me that I should face the possibility, that's all.

For the most part I prefer quad tracking merely for its tonal properties. It just sounds deeper and richer, and to a degree less demo-like, more "pro" if you will. But I know Unearth only dual track, and their guitars sound fucking HUUUUUGE, so if I could perhaps experiment with the right balance of size vs clarity then I'm all for taking it down to two. As I said, I shall experiment and post clips! :kickass:

Also digging this tone lately...



Sounds only dual to me, but it's crunchy enough to be pulled off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mattayus said:
Sorry, I just became aware of how retarded this thread is without examples of our music...

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4128689/Darkadian - Exhumed Alive.mp3

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4128689/Darkadian - Limb.mp3
Click to expand...

Whatever you did here works IMO. the bass isn't buried...And if you wanted to argue that it was, I'd say that the bassline is just mimicking the guitars, so it's not going to stick out that much anyway.

Maybe everyone has different perceptions of fast paced, but I thought your material on these clips wasn't really fast faced at all and suited the idea of thick quad tracked guitars.

That said, I don't think quad necessarily interferes with bass any more than dual, you just have more texture to work with.

Also, if you think the thickness is too much, I'd take a look at the tone you have going. It sounds great in these clips, but put that tone in a 200bpm song with galloping 16th's and yeah, it may get too muddy.
 
I think in many cases, many engineers would love to have quad tracking happening, but can't either due to time constraints, various other reasons, but probably most importantly, because the guitarist doing the rhythm parts sucks too much fucking cock to even play two tracks well, let alone 4.
You sir, CAN PLAY, and I'm sure tracking and mix engineers all over the world would love to actually work with a guy who has such tightness and precision in their playing such as yours.
Your band seems to be mostly going for the slower tempo, groove metal style stuff, and with your chops, quad tracking fits the bill perfectly.
I like both double and quad tracking, but there's nothing quite like a groove metal song goosed up with quad tracked guitars.
As long as you get the frequency balances right in the mix, track everything well and tightly, and get the mix mastered well, there should be plenty of breathing space in the mix so it doesn't sound cluttered and cloudy.
 
Matthias King said:
Maybe you could just use quad-tracking as an "effect," so to speak, to make certain parts have more impact as is appropriate, and let the faster parts breath with dual-tracking, and also let the busier sections of songs breath where they need to and not take anything away from the other instruments that have to live in the same space as the guitars.

There's nothing that says that you have to choose to strictly always quad-track or never quad-track. Use it as it's called for, and don't use it as it's not.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

I agree with this mentality. Quad track those riffs that you want to be massive, and dual track the tighter/faster ones.
 
Thanks guys some really inspiring posts in this thread! As I stand at the moment I'm definitely leaning more towards quad tracking the majority of stuff.

Here are some clips of one our songs, dual tracked and then quad tracked

Dual

Quad

nwright said:
Maybe everyone has different perceptions of fast paced, but I thought your material on these clips wasn't really fast faced at all and suited the idea of thick quad tracked guitars.
Click to expand...

Ah no man I didn't mean the songs I posted, I was merely saying that we do have some fast material, upwards of 210bpm, blast beats etc, real deathy, but even so I still think I'll quad track those!

Harry Hughes said:
I think in many cases, many engineers would love to have quad tracking happening, but can't either due to time constraints, various other reasons, but probably most importantly, because the guitarist doing the rhythm parts sucks too much fucking cock to even play two tracks well, let alone 4.
You sir, CAN PLAY, and I'm sure tracking and mix engineers all over the world would love to actually work with a guy who has such tightness and precision in their playing such as yours.
Your band seems to be mostly going for the slower tempo, groove metal style stuff, and with your chops, quad tracking fits the bill perfectly.
I like both double and quad tracking, but there's nothing quite like a groove metal song goosed up with quad tracked guitars.
As long as you get the frequency balances right in the mix, track everything well and tightly, and get the mix mastered well, there should be plenty of breathing space in the mix so it doesn't sound cluttered and cloudy.
Click to expand...

Thanks my man, means alot! Like I said, I'm probably gonna stick with the quad tracking. I mean, I still pull two tracks away during solos and that kinda thing but for the majority of rhythm work I'll quad I think.
 
nwright said:
That said, I don't think quad necessarily interferes with bass any more than dual, you just have more texture to work with.
Click to expand...

The only real reason I think it does is when you start panning the guitars into 80% or so from 100% it definitely starts to cover up the bass some. I usually try and be a little thinner on the tone on the tracks panned closer to center.
 
Mattayus said:
Sorry, I just became aware of how retarded this thread is without examples of our music...

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4128689/Darkadian - Exhumed Alive.mp3

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4128689/Darkadian - Limb.mp3

Also, another diagnosis is in order here...
Quad or dual tracked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWYv1S-us3s&playnext_from=TL&videos=0T2BOsS8QNk

I'm hearing quad...
Click to expand...

Thats one of my favourite albums, for the music, and for the production haha, I'd really like to know if this was double or quad tracked as well :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H-evolve
Is there a quad vs dual track album compendium?
Replies
12
Views
2K
F.O.H.
H-evolve
H-evolve
Sean in Silence
Dual and Quad Tracking
Replies
10
Views
2K
F.O.H.
NicholasDWolfwood
N
S
Your Approach on QUAD TRACKING
Replies
14
Views
2K
F.O.H.
mephisto_loh
M
doclegion
What will give a better guitar sound?? Dual Track or Quad tracked?
Replies
18
Views
7K
F.O.H.
colonel kurtz
C
doclegion
What will give a better guitar sound?? Dual Track or Quad tracked?
Replies
0
Views
530
F.O.H.
doclegion
D
Top Bottom
Back