Quadtracking, really worth it?
- Thread starter Nuno Filipe
- Start date
AudioGeekZine
arsehole know-it-all
Mike Moriarty
Member
- Oct 24, 2009
- 82
- 0
- 6
From my experience it depends on how technical the music is. For slower stuff quad tracking is nice but for more technical music you're going to get tighter results dual tracking.
Last interview I watched with Sneap he said lately he has just been "turning up two".
Last interview I watched with Sneap he said lately he has just been "turning up two".
LBTM
Proud Behringer User
- Feb 19, 2012
- 897
- 0
- 16
quad tracking the same thing doesn't worth it IMO. try adding more elements in there and it will sound huge. these being guitar, synths or percussion. think what musically would make the song sound better. just don't overdo it and create a mess. sometimes a pad synth playing the same thing as guitars and being "inaudible" in context is all you need.
This makes me think, I'm doing all sort of automations lately but I don't know shit about doing that and macros in Reaper so maybe some of you would know:
Have a hot-key to take a take where you recorded/stacked a few loops and select the one you wants then it'll just drag them to the other tracks ?
Have a hot-key to take a take where you recorded/stacked a few loops and select the one you wants then it'll just drag them to the other tracks ?
newamerikangospel
Member
- Nov 6, 2005
- 320
- 29
- 28
For what it's worth, I am no where near any of the other people on this forum, but for everything I have played around with, quad tracking has become my go to. I have started playing around with two takes (left and right) with two guitars (four takes total), and then either using different amps or different channels on the same amp for each guitar. It lets me blend amps/cabs without having to worry about mic/amp phasing issues of only having two takes, and since all four tracks aren't the same tone, it keeps the other phasing/washy issues out of play (with my experiences) so you just get performance variation.
And I think the phasing/washy issues come from four takes with same guitar/amp/mic/speaker/cab accentuates strong points or peaks in the amp/mic/speaker/cab, which causes them to inadvertently blend to perceived mono. When I do mid/side Eqing on my master bus, it seems that two guitars/two amps/four takes have a lot less middle information jumping around than when I was doing one guitar/one amp/four takes, even with the same stereo separation chain.
And I think the phasing/washy issues come from four takes with same guitar/amp/mic/speaker/cab accentuates strong points or peaks in the amp/mic/speaker/cab, which causes them to inadvertently blend to perceived mono. When I do mid/side Eqing on my master bus, it seems that two guitars/two amps/four takes have a lot less middle information jumping around than when I was doing one guitar/one amp/four takes, even with the same stereo separation chain.
xTomx
Member
Totally part dependant.
I play in a pop-rock band (Taking Back Sunday etc) and we just recorded a song with two meaty distorted sides (Les Paul through a Marshall Plexi, 1960B, AEA+ Royer mics)
+
Two jangly upper mid sides (Tele through a Bad Cat, Ampeg cab, 421s).
Only worth while doing if the additional tracks are sonically contrasting, the playing is tight/the part isn't very busy.
I play in a pop-rock band (Taking Back Sunday etc) and we just recorded a song with two meaty distorted sides (Les Paul through a Marshall Plexi, 1960B, AEA+ Royer mics)
+
Two jangly upper mid sides (Tele through a Bad Cat, Ampeg cab, 421s).
Only worth while doing if the additional tracks are sonically contrasting, the playing is tight/the part isn't very busy.
I think quadtracking is a complete waste of time, unless you're using two completely different rigs (heads, cabs, mics, etc.) as long as the tones complement each other.
Pharaoh's Curse
Member
- Nov 11, 2013
- 232
- 20
- 18
schwinginbatman
It's shittay!
I did it once for my thrash band's first demo, never again. That was a huge pain in the ass for little sonic reward. For a death metal project, I could probably see the benefit.
bryan_kilco
Member
I only do it for bigger choruses and, like mentioned, sections that aren't too busy where the song could benefit.
lelahel
Member
Keregioz
Kimon Zeliotis
I've done quad tracking for acoustic. The reason was that the riff was doubled with a harmony, but I didn't want for them to be one left and one right instead I needed to have both guitar parts at both sides. So I had to track 2 times each and pan them left right to get an effect similar to a 12-string acoustic. Here's the track (I also quad tracked the same parts with an electric guitar clean sound, mixed a little lower for ambiance, so technically it's eight tracks):
Last edited by a moderator:
greyskull
Member
- Mar 22, 2006
- 6,072
- 7
- 38
It totally depends on the style of music and the arrangement.
I tend not to do it these days, favouring parts to be separated out left and right. If one guitarist is playing a lead and the other a rhythm I will double the rhythm, and MAYBE the lead, but again. Depends what it is.
I tend not to do it these days, favouring parts to be separated out left and right. If one guitarist is playing a lead and the other a rhythm I will double the rhythm, and MAYBE the lead, but again. Depends what it is.
Legend is, for Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, Billy Corgan did 40 separate guitar tracks.
So, octo-tracking is for pussies!
bryan_kilco
Member
Pretty sure that was the track "Soma" off of Siamese Dream that had 40+ tracks, except they weren't all simultaneous. I could very well be wrong.
Mellon Collie definitely had a lot going on, and both Corgan and Iha are known for having ridiculous collections of obscure fuzz pedals.
Of course it does worth it. Quad-tracking does worth it. Yes, a synth worths it too.. it's like some worthcester sauce.
Seriously tho, pretty sure you could have 100 guitars on each side and get a beautiful mix.
