Quadtracking, really worth it?

[Nuno Filipe]

I´been doing quadtracking since the first time I tried. So, it´s like forever. I am asking this, because I know that a quite few guys that were doing this, changed their minds and returned to double tracking only.

Everyone who tried this, know that this is very time consuming. So my question, is, it is really worth the differences in the sound? What´s your opinion?

When I tried, I really thought that was something that deserved some sacrifice. Because the sound was more fatter, more dense, more meat. Nowadays I am not so sure and only after making some real tests, with a single riff/riffs with same music and almost same processing, I will see if really worth the time that I use to spend on this.

 

[wishtheend]

For me it depends on the style of music. I've been doing more rock riff stuff lately, and I'm finding just one solid take per side, then reamped and panned 100/80 gives me a thick/wide enough sound, but gives me that freedom of going raw with just one track. Stuff where you can embrace the subtle differences rather than focus on making every performance exactly the same.

 

[Heabow]

In my experience, quad tracking gives you a slightly phasey sound and "massive" while double tracking gives a sharper, more precise result. So quad tracking does not fit every music and/or every player. I like it for hardcore suff but for fast riffing, I prefer to double track even if the player is good - even if this meant quadtracking certain parts like chorus for example.

 

[crillemannen]

I track rythm 3 times. Its like you get that beefy quad sound without the phasey sound. Total win!

 

[egan.]

I feel like I post this every time it comes up but quad tracking is absolutely worth it if that's the sound you want. It's not going to make something heavy that isn't and it certainly requires tight playing but there is no faking that sound.

 

[ashgallows]

its an aesthetic choice like anything else. doubling sounds kind of "punk" to me whereas quad tracking sounds like ships from independence day are coming down through the clouds.

 

[Jormyn]

I'm a big fan of quadtracking, with the second pair playing the same parts in a different voicing. So if the first set are playing Em, maybe the second set are playing it 3rd-5th-Octave, etc. Chugging power chords on the low E? Chug them on the A an octave higher.

Rammstein do this all the time, it's a big part of the thickness they get.

 

[Plendakor]

Quad tracking is totally useless... you need to octo-track !!

 

[alex-sonic]

Personnaly I tried both and I prefer quad tracking I think i'm pretty tight in my playing to do this, and DAW let's you play your track again and again, even if it's pretty time consuming I think it worth it!
I tried another proejct on double track, sounds good but didn't had this wall of sound I like in metal!

 

[Keregioz]

Like every one else said, depends on the track and the kind of sound you want. There's definitely a difference. I always quad track myself.

 

[Nuno Filipe]

In my experience, quad tracking gives you a slightly phasey sound and "massive" while double tracking gives a sharper, more precise result. So quad tracking does not fit every music and/or every player. I like it for hardcore suff but for fast riffing, I prefer to double track even if the player is good - even if this meant quadtracking certain parts like chorus for example.

Yeah, that´s one of the things that annoys me, that phasey sound but it´s the price to pay to have a wall of massive guitars!lol

I track rythm 3 times. Its like you get that beefy quad sound without the phasey sound. Total win!

Serisously? 3? One at center?

Quad tracking is totally useless... you need to octo-track !!

I always do octo with my jazz fusion project.



I know that quadtracking guitars dont fit any context or style, my main question was, if the final result worth the time spent on this. Because as I already said, it´s very time consuming and of course, sometimes frustrating to get 4 good takes.:Smug:

 

[Fox Mulder]

IME, not worth the effort. And bands think I'm trying to eat up their time

 

[~BURNY~]

Awesome when done right.

 

[mickrich]

My way of working is normally:
1 guitar player - double track
2 guitar players playing the same thing - double track
2 players playing different things - quad track and have them both left and right Bolt Thrower style.

I am not a fan of having a guitar panned middle (apart from leads) so I will usually double harmony guitars left/ right so certain sections will be quad tracked even if the song is mainly double tracked.

 

[Heabow]

I track rythm 3 times. Its like you get that beefy quad sound without the phasey sound. Total win!

I received tracks from a band once with this technique but I find tricky to set the volume throughout the song. Too much and the guitars sounds "centered", not enough and it's useless or fight with the bass. Matter of habits I guess.

Yeah, that´s one of the things that annoys me, that phasey sound but it´s the price to pay to have a wall of massive guitars!lol

It's not always very obvious, depends on the playing/part really. And if use pretty different tones you can avoid the phasing.

I always quadtracked with the same tone for my own shit (death metal sometimes pretty technique) and it always worked very good. I'm a dictator about my playing tho But I like to use my VS8100 for the second take to get sharper attacks. Does not work for eveything but that's another way to use quadtracking. I prefer than reamping the same take twice.

 

[Jormyn]

Triple-tracking can be useful if you have a two-part harmony and want to emphasize one over the other. Maybe the L/R tracks are playing the "root" and center is playing the harmony, etc.

 

[SirKnucklesmd]

Didn't have the patience to read every single commenter but to the OG poster I think you have a good understanding of how it's a matter of personal stylistic opinion and truly doubt that there is too much anyone else can add past that. In regards to your question is it worth the time? I say no, but greatly depends on the style being played however and the kind of seperation you want. I find it very difficult to separate your bass tone when quad tracking without doing some serious eq carving. Your guitars take up the most amount of frequency real-estate in just about any mix so loading it up with all the different slight annotations and harmonics can be… overkill and not leave much room for any of your other instruments to stand out. If the music is to be loud, fast and heavy, just double track and leave room for your drum transients to come through. If the music is slow and softer, you can beef up the space with more guitars. (Now for me to impose my obvious superior reign of what I do because in this comment box I am God) What I like to do is copy or send my guitar tracks to an aux and shelf down the highs and lows, parallel compress, bring the faders in to about 80 and mix that in to taste. I honestly use very little of it but gives it a little more "stick" to my guitars.

 

[Heabow]

In most of the cases, it's not that time consuming. If your track riff per riff - because of the tuning issue for example - just record the same stuff twice and go to the next part. Then proceed the same way with the other guitarist (if there's only one guy track all the rythm, let's do it four time). It takes way longer if the guy cannot play properly but you don't want to quadtrack bad players, do you?

 

[Nuno Filipe]

^ I am not a great player but also not a bad one but man, I record riff by riff, sometimes just a few seconds here and there, just to avoid shitty noises but the thing is, I do at least 20 takes for a riff and only then, I choose the better ones.

So I cant see a player that nails his parts with only 4 great takes for every riff. I will not say that there arent great players capable of doing that but it´s extremely rare. Because sometimes, just a fucking string noise, it´s enough to fuck a good take, and man that shit happens a million times!lol

That´s why quadtracking is so "boring".

 

[~BURNY~]

Well recording IS boring (from a musician standpoint).
A guitarist recording with me will never know if he's quad tracking or double tracking though. I avoid discussing these sort of things before the session. I will just make him redo the takes as long as I think it's necessary (pretty often with quad tracking in a corner of my mind).
The phasey sound is more of an issue if you use the exact same amp chain for each take but I think of it as a part of the deal.