Does anyone prefer dual tracked rather then quad?
- Thread starter JonWormwood
- Start date
I've been a faithful quad-tracking lover for a long time. But recently I've been seeking ways to get that wall of sound with only two tracks. A lot of the bands around here that I record aren't tight enough or are just plain too freakin' fast and technical to do quads.
The "thickness" everyone likes about quad tracking is the slight human offness that is the effect of playing the same thing 4 times. Each one will be just a smidge off, be it a ms or two early or late, but that is what makes something thicker. It's the same principal behind doubling your vocal track and shoving one of them like 2ms ahead of the original, or 2ms later, either way. Same effect. However, when it comes to high-gain amplifiers with tech-death riffage...it can get super muddy and cloudy. While Opeth may have had 8 tracks (can't remember if that was 8 per side or 4 per side) and they have an awesome tone...their stuff isn't exactly technical. I have started to accept the fact that some styles are going to have to be double tracked and other can be quad. From now on I'm going to be double tracking anything that requires a lot of gain or that is fast and/or technical as hell. But I will be reamping a lot more often than I ever have because of it. No biggie.
~006
The "thickness" everyone likes about quad tracking is the slight human offness that is the effect of playing the same thing 4 times. Each one will be just a smidge off, be it a ms or two early or late, but that is what makes something thicker. It's the same principal behind doubling your vocal track and shoving one of them like 2ms ahead of the original, or 2ms later, either way. Same effect. However, when it comes to high-gain amplifiers with tech-death riffage...it can get super muddy and cloudy. While Opeth may have had 8 tracks (can't remember if that was 8 per side or 4 per side) and they have an awesome tone...their stuff isn't exactly technical. I have started to accept the fact that some styles are going to have to be double tracked and other can be quad. From now on I'm going to be double tracking anything that requires a lot of gain or that is fast and/or technical as hell. But I will be reamping a lot more often than I ever have because of it. No biggie.
~006
AdamWathan
Member
Can anyone site some examples where a single take was reamped through 2 setups to create 2 tracks per side? I've been wondering for a while how much that thickens up the tone while still being perfectly tight vs. doing another take completely... What about reamping through a different rig and THEN delaying the track ever so slightly? Would this maybe create a thicker tone while minimizing the potential phase issues that would come along with copying and pasting the same track and delaying it since you are using a different rig?
i usually use one take per side, then reamp through 3 amps for a tech death band i record. it turns out well imo. i find peaveys have nicew bite, and rectifiers have nice low end, compressed tone. marshall jmp is compressed, more high end. tone is huge when all are combined!!!
i wouldnt consider delaying tracks to achieve the same effect as dual or quad tracking, because the imperfections in the tracks are not consistent which is what gives them their effect.
Necro Nick
axe man
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
I just did the quad-tracked guitar thing for the first time this past weekend. Band wasn't that heavy in comparison to some of the bands you guys listen to, but it's got the chugga-chugga thing going and the groove is a bit slower and fat.
Anyways, I've never had such a big guitar sound! I was amazed that heaving two guitarists double their rhythm tracks tightly made such a huge sound that was not a mess.
We ran a Gibson SG into a Marshal JCM 2000 head into a Mesa 4x12, miced with an I5 and KSM44. The other guy used an Ibanez something-or-other into a Triple Rectifier rig. Same mics. The parts themselves were not exactly the same but man the sound made everyone happy, which is good enough for me!
Anyways, I've never had such a big guitar sound! I was amazed that heaving two guitarists double their rhythm tracks tightly made such a huge sound that was not a mess.
We ran a Gibson SG into a Marshal JCM 2000 head into a Mesa 4x12, miced with an I5 and KSM44. The other guy used an Ibanez something-or-other into a Triple Rectifier rig. Same mics. The parts themselves were not exactly the same but man the sound made everyone happy, which is good enough for me!
spioraid
Fancy a pint? Or two?
really can't say I use one over the other. it all depends on the band and the song. I've done some single take metal tracks and some quad tracking with a Bob Dylan-style band.
I think Petrucci was saying when he did Train of Thought his tracks were single takes with 3-4 ms delay between left and right.
at the start and end of this riff you can tell http://www.johnpetrucci.com/mp3s/John_Petrucci_Dream_Theater_AsIAm.mp3
I think Petrucci was saying when he did Train of Thought his tracks were single takes with 3-4 ms delay between left and right.
at the start and end of this riff you can tell http://www.johnpetrucci.com/mp3s/John_Petrucci_Dream_Theater_AsIAm.mp3
_Brutalism_
Member
- May 14, 2008
- 581
- 0
- 16
This is the first time I've read in detail about quad tracking and double tracking, but sorry if this is a stupid question,
theoretically, won't duplicating a single track for as many times as possible produce a louder effect if placed exactly in phase as when double/quad tracking? If, theoretically speaking, a musician plays his piece exactly as the previous take won't the wave form be the same as the previous, meaning that duplicates of the first take would produce the same results? What are the differences and benefits over the other?
Please excuse me if this is a stupid question/statement but I am a novice and don't have much experience recording full projects yet.
Thanks!
theoretically, won't duplicating a single track for as many times as possible produce a louder effect if placed exactly in phase as when double/quad tracking? If, theoretically speaking, a musician plays his piece exactly as the previous take won't the wave form be the same as the previous, meaning that duplicates of the first take would produce the same results? What are the differences and benefits over the other?
Please excuse me if this is a stupid question/statement but I am a novice and don't have much experience recording full projects yet.
Thanks!
Well it's simply due to the fact that it's impossible for someone to ever play so tightly as to sound remotely similar to duplicating the track - there are so many variables (other notes ringing, transitions between notes, how hard the player hits each note/chord, even pick position when striking the strings) that it will always sound better than duplicating the track (and it's not just to make it louder, it's to make it fuller by having different parts accentuated by virtue of another performance - if you want to make it louder, that's what a fader is for 
)
)
_Brutalism_
Member
- May 14, 2008
- 581
- 0
- 16
Yes that's what I meant, fuller and more fulbodied, giving the impression of loudness (unless they are placed in phase at the same level.
?
Please tell me you're recording twice and not just copying and pasting...
Jeff
No I was merely trying to see what the difference is. I will have to experiment personally to really aurally comprehend the difference but I understand what you are talking about Metaltastic. But the problem is, what do you do if the musician isn't good enough to track his song again perfectly? I doubt it would be viable to tell him off or cancel the session. Would duplicating be the way to go?
And again, this extra tracking doesn't apply for live drums does it?
?
Please tell me you're recording twice and not just copying and pasting...
Jeff
No I was merely trying to see what the difference is. I will have to experiment personally to really aurally comprehend the difference but I understand what you are talking about Metaltastic. But the problem is, what do you do if the musician isn't good enough to track his song again perfectly? I doubt it would be viable to tell him off or cancel the session. Would duplicating be the way to go?
And again, this extra tracking doesn't apply for live drums does it?
Drums, definitely not, because they need to be as tight as humanly (or inhumanly, in the case of sample replacement) possible. Multiple overdubs are usually limited to guitars, vocals, etc., to make them more full, because they don't need to be as perfectly tight as a drum hit. And if the musician isn't tight enough to do four takes (meaning, quad-track), he should be tight enough to do two takes (double-tracking, one left, one right), which I honestly prefer, because while well-done quad-tracking will sound better than double-tracking, poorly done quad-tracking sounds phasey and muddy, so I stick to double-tracking and it makes me happy!
No, don't bother duplicating at all- it only makes it 3 db's louder, thats it, it won't thicken anything, it won't make it sound more full, any difference you hear is it being louder. By duplicating I mean copying and pasting.
You can do a fake double tracking thing by copying the audio into a new track, shifting it by a few milli seconds and then pitch shifting it by cents. Mix it in to taste with the original. I don't like this on guitars but it can be handy sometimes on vocals for effect.
I got stuck doing a session with a friend of mine in college who means really well by doesn't really know much about audio and recording, he told the band while I wasn't there that we could layer everything and make it sound huge by copying and pasting. I found this out when we were at the mix stage and he turned to the band and said- "its alright we can layer the fuck out of it now" and they were all excited and going, yeah, yeah lets. They kept asking for " that double tracking effect" and "make it sound like I'm singing it twice" , I explained it to them that it just doesn't work like that that they should have said they wanted that earlier and he could have actually sung it twice instead, even after this they STILL kept asking for it and my friend still kept telling them we could do it in the mix. I ended up having to use that ADT trick all over the E.P
No, I wasn't attacking you, I meant the neverending confusion as to what exactly 'dual tracking' means.
Jeff
Jeff
TomAwesome
I LIKE JUICE!
Dual for me. Then I usually pan about 70% to 75% to either side. The way I see it, if you need to quad track to get it to sound thick, your time would be better spent working on the sound you're using. That being said, a good quad tracking can create a nice wall of sound effect if that's what you're going for.
Similar threads
