Quad tracking question

[Damage, Inc.]

I disagree. Back when I used to play in bands and shit I used parts that I could pull off live but took forever to track in the studio. Luckily we tracked in our singer's studio

1. If this is the case, I'm guessing that if you had a really good live recording, like with every instrument miked properly, you would hear that you didn't really pull the parts off as well as you think.

2. A track full of edits and time corrections invariably sounds lifeless. I don't think it's necessary to record each track from the beginning to the end in one take, but there is a point where it's so full of edits that you might as well have soft-synthed the part. In that case, why bother playing it yourself?

 

[Harry Hughes]

With Necrophagist, it's more for the effect of having little-to-no pick attack and it ends up sounding super smooth. Veil of Maya does the same sort of thing, but partially for tonal reasons and partially because Keene is a lazy dick.

I can't even get why they'd want to do that. The sound of a great player furiously destroying the strings is one of the things that makes metal guitar great for me and I imagine many others, that glorious percussive chunk.

 

[JoergieN]

1. If this is the case, I'm guessing that if you had a really good live recording, like with every instrument miked properly, you would hear that you didn't really pull the parts off as well as you think.

2. A track full of edits and time corrections invariably sounds lifeless. I don't think it's necessary to record each track from the beginning to the end in one take, but there is a point where it's so full of edits that you might as well have soft-synthed the part. In that case, why bother playing it yourself?

I don't disagree with either of those points. But what I'm saying is that I was able to pull it off to sound good live. Whether or not I have a harder time in the studio where it has to sound not just good, but perfect, it changes the game completely.

I just disagree with the point that if a guitar player has a hard time playing that part "perfectly" in the studio, that doesn't mean he should get rid of that part completely since he has shown that he is able to play it. And for me and a lot of other guitar players, it's not that we can't just play certain riffs or solos but able to play all of our other parts. It's just that we don't naturally have that sense of rhythm that a lot of you guys have. Practice does help but we are still challenged in that department. If we have a more difficult time tracking, does that mean we should just quit playing guitar completely?

Like I said, I can shred on the guitar to no end, but even on simpler things I still have more trouble than most of my friends playing perfectly in time. I'm getting a lot better, but I still have a more difficult time than most. Quad tracking is still out of the question for me, but I'm not putting down my guitar because of it

So no offense Damage Inc, but I not only do find your post snobbish, but ignorant as well. If I were to go out on a limb, I would guess that you are one of those guitar players who have phenomenal timing like most of my friends do and you just simply don't understand that we all are not as fortunate to be born with that skill. Nothing wrong with that, but now you know. And if it becomes a problem when you're recording a band, just charge hourly and let them take the hit for it.

 

[koalamo]

lolz guise wasn't this thread supposed to be about quadtracking......

 

[Damage, Inc.]

Lol, told you I was a snob. If you need to do a bunch of takes to get the track tight, then that's what you need to do. No biggie, happens to me too; and yes, I do feel like I have a pretty good sense of time. I can quad track fairly easy. What I'm against is overuse of computer editing to tighten your tracks for you. I hate Autotune for the same reason. If you can't sing, don't fucking sing for a living.

Sorry OP for derailing your thread!:zombie:

 

[RichS]

Sorry OP for derailing your thread!:zombie:

No prob, I got the answers I sought. Thanks.

 

[SimonTaddio_Qc]

If I were to go out on a limb, I would guess that you are one of those guitar players who have phenomenal timing like most of my friends do and you just simply don't understand that we all are not as fortunate to be born with that skill.

I think you're missing the point, buddy. It's not about what happens at your birth, but your dedication to music/guitar AFTER your birth that counts.

 

[Erratic]

I'm surprised to hear that, seeing how YouTube proves they actually pull it off live flawlessly

Sure thing, I wasn't pulling them down, It's just the fact that lots of new bands wanna achieve this sound by tracking this way, I feel that it lacks balls to tape shit like this, in skills and sounds, listen to Epitaph and tell me how even each notes is!!, masterpiece anyway.

Also, playing the same song for more than 8 years help to be tight as fuck, some song they never played live like Symbiotic in Theory, and I mean not even once, it's shocking!

 

[black.death]

On the topic of quad tracking with DI's:

Do you record four separate DI's of the same song then re-amp each one separately?

Or

Do you record four separate DI's then copy and paste these over into one single DI track then re-amp this one track?


If neither of these are correct, would someone please tell me how quad tracking with DI's is done.

Thanks

 

[The Unavoidable]

The first one.

 

[Spiritbeast]

I know it's sorta "wrong", but I've found myself snapping things to the grid as far as guitar DI's go, to make sure the double tracks match perfectly. Since I'm going for that whole "perfect" sound, it really helps.

Honestly, we can play the parts really tight live, but the difference in effort to get 90% tightness and 100% tightness is big. This is why some skilled players who can play things well and tight still have to punch in and quantize - because when it comes to recording, "good enough" is never good enough.