Stupid Question About Quadtracking

G

GhostUnholy

Member
Aug 16, 2007
70
0
6
So I keep reading that a lot of you quad track your mixes and pan 2 tracks hard L/R and two 80% L/R... but I need clarification on something, I apologize if this is a very stupid question.

Assuming two guitarists, does each guitarist perform his part 4 times? and then each guitarists' parts are panned as mentioned? giving a total of 8 performances?

or does each guitarist perform his part two times, then those tracks can be copied onto other mono tracks and panned as mentioned about, giving a total of 4 performances? or is this double tracking?
 
I prefer having one guitarist record all four takes. But if both guitarists can play consistently with each other, then just record 2 takes from each, which you will pan to one side.

Oh, and don't copy and paste tracks.
 
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear what I meant.

Does quad tracking mean, 4 performances per guitarist, or 4 total?

By copy/paste I meant, if there are 8 performances (4 each) you could pan two tracks from each guitarist 100% L/R and 2 tracks from each guitarist 80% L/R.

If there are 4 performances, 2 each, you could duplicate all the tracks so that theres 4 performances but 8 tracks, so you could then pan two from each guitarist hard L/R and 2 more tracks from each guitarist 80% L/R

Or do you simply have 2 performances per guitarist, with one guitarist's two tracks panned hard LR and the other guitarist panned 80%LR? The reason I ask is i think this way might strange with harmonized riffs and stuff. Maybe pan both guitarists 100% LR?
 
You're over thinking this. :) Again, stating in the collective Sneap forum voice: Do not copy/paste. This is not multi-tracking. Either record 1 guitarist 4 times...panned 100/80/80/100 (but this is not a hard and fast law...open up to 100/100/100/100 if you like)... or record 2 guitarists (if they can play tight and consistently), two performances from each guitarist, and pan as above. Now, whether you pan all performances from one guitarist to the left and the other to the right, or mix them up...that's a whole other debate. I personally favor each guitarist on his own side to keep things tighter.
 
What up bro,

QUADTRACKING = 4 seperate performances PER PART

If each guitarist records 2 takes of the same thing, and you pan guitarist 1 to 100/100 and guitarist 2 to 80/80, then it will sound fine. It will NOT be "quadtracked" it will be "double-tracked".

If each guitarist records 4 takes of the same thing, etc... then you have quadtracking. Guitarist 1 goes 100/100 (all 4 tracks) and Guitarist 2 goes 80/80 (all 4 tracks)

I think quadtracking works better for the rhythm. I don't like quadtracking leads, or even the "2nd guitarist" part (i.e. harmonizing with the rhythm). But then, I've never had Randy Rhoads in my studio either...

If it sounds good double-tracked, no reason not to leave it at that! It takes a very good player who has his parts DOWN to quadtrack and make it worth the time and effort.
 
Thanks for the quick answer.

If you put one on each side, and say they're playing parts harmonized in thirds, don't you think it would sound strange especially for people listening on headphones to have one ear playing a third higher than the other ear?
 
Darkening said:
What up bro,

QUADTRACKING = 4 seperate performances PER PART

If each guitarist records 2 takes of the same thing, and you pan guitarist 1 to 100/100 and guitarist 2 to 80/80, then it will sound fine. It will NOT be "quadtracked" it will be "double-tracked".

If each guitarist records 4 takes of the same thing, etc... then you have quadtracking. Guitarist 1 goes 100/100 (all 4 tracks) and Guitarist 2 goes 80/80 (all 4 tracks)

I think quadtracking works better for the rhythm. I don't like quadtracking leads, or even the "2nd guitarist" part (i.e. harmonizing with the rhythm). But then, I've never had Randy Rhoads in my studio either...

If it sounds good double-tracked, no reason not to leave it at that! It takes a very good player who has his parts DOWN to quadtrack and make it worth the time and effort.
Click to expand...

This it the answer I was looking for. Thanks man! :headbang:

EDIT: On that note, do you just single track your leads and stick them right in the center?
 
Darkening said:
What up bro,

QUADTRACKING = 4 seperate performances PER PART

If each guitarist records 2 takes of the same thing, and you pan guitarist 1 to 100/100 and guitarist 2 to 80/80, then it will sound fine. It will NOT be "quadtracked" it will be "double-tracked".

If each guitarist records 4 takes of the same thing, etc... then you have quadtracking. Guitarist 1 goes 100/100 (all 4 tracks) and Guitarist 2 goes 80/80 (all 4 tracks)

I think quadtracking works better for the rhythm. I don't like quadtracking leads, or even the "2nd guitarist" part (i.e. harmonizing with the rhythm). But then, I've never had Randy Rhoads in my studio either...

If it sounds good double-tracked, no reason not to leave it at that! It takes a very good player who has his parts DOWN to quadtrack and make it worth the time and effort.
Click to expand...

Wait...no. I mean, it's all a matter of opinion, but for quad-tracking (if I ever were to do it), I'd still have one guitarist L100/L80, and the other R100/R80 - if you have both guitarists on both sides, then you lose any kind of stereo image, which just sounds mono and boring. And listen to...christ, I don't know, Behemoth's "Mysterium Coniunctis: Hermanubis" off of Demigod (totally random example, one of bajillions), and you'll hear that there's often two different riffs going on, one on each side.

Double tracking, though, definitely do NOT have one guitarist at L100/R100 and the other at L80/R80, as I think Darkening was suggesting - L100/R100 is the same as Center, and I don't know what L80/R80 is, but it's just as bad. Double tracking, one guitarist L100, one guitarist R100. Very simple.
 
GhostUnholy said:
EDIT: On that note, do you just single track your leads and stick them right in the center?
Click to expand...

Yep, I HATE the sound of doubled leads (and that includes Randy Rhoads, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms :)) - if they're trading solos, though, I usually pan one around L25 and the other around R25, so the contrast between the two is heightened (while still having them mostly in the center). Also, if they're going on with vocals, then I'll offset 'em a bit.
 
Metaltastic said:
Wait...no. I mean, it's all a matter of opinion, but for quad-tracking (if I ever were to do it), I'd still have one guitarist L100/L80, and the other R100/R80 - if you have both guitarists on both sides, then you lose any kind of stereo image, which just sounds mono and boring. And listen to...christ, I don't know, Behemoth's "Mysterium Coniunctis: Hermanubis" off of Demigod (totally random example, one of bajillions), and you'll hear that there's often two different riffs going on, one on each side.

Double tracking, though, definitely do NOT have one guitarist at L100/R100 and the other at L80/R80, as I think Darkening was suggesting - L100/R100 is the same as Center, and I don't know what L80/R80 is, but it's just as bad. Double tracking, one guitarist L100, one guitarist R100. Very simple.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think it is the same as center if they are different takes... If one take were copy-pasted it would sound centered... I mean what would you do if the band only has 1 guitarist and 1 part (no lead/harmonizing riffs) ??? You're gonna have to pan 100/100... there is no other guitarist to put on the other side. As long as the takes are unique, the stereo image is fine.

I like different amps on each side too.

Someone else correct me too if i'm spouting noob-ness, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

:p
 
Metaltastic said:
Wait...no. I mean, it's all a matter of opinion, but for quad-tracking (if I ever were to do it), I'd still have one guitarist L100/L80, and the other R100/R80 - if you have both guitarists on both sides, then you lose any kind of stereo image, which just sounds mono and boring. And listen to...christ, I don't know, Behemoth's "Mysterium Coniunctis: Hermanubis" off of Demigod (totally random example, one of bajillions), and you'll hear that there's often two different riffs going on, one on each side.

Double tracking, though, definitely do NOT have one guitarist at L100/R100 and the other at L80/R80, as I think Darkening was suggesting - L100/R100 is the same as Center, and I don't know what L80/R80 is, but it's just as bad. Double tracking, one guitarist L100, one guitarist R100. Very simple.
Click to expand...

Huh? l100 r100 center? If you would copy paste, you would get the center indeed but 1 track on l100 and one on r100 wouldn't give you a center idea right? i've recently done my first my band recording and definatly don't like putting each guitarist on one side. I double tracked with two amps one going l 100 and r100 both guitarists and one amp on 80/80 both guitarists. So you would get:

amp1: Line 1 @ L 100
amp1: Line 2 @ R 100
amp2: Line 1 @ L 80
amp2: Line 2 @ R 80

Definatly prefer this over:

amp1: Line 1 @ L 100
amp1: Line 1 @ L 100
amp2: Line 2 @ R 100
amp2: Line 2 @ R 100
 
Then you quad-tracked dude, not double-tracked, if I understand you correctly. Either that, or you reamped/split the signal, which is still double-tracking - but to use two guitarists, each going through two amps, you had to have guitarist 1 play through Amp 1 and then Amp 2, and guitarist 2 play through Amp 1 and Amp 2.

In short, this is what I prefer, and what I think is the most common:

Two guitarists (each one playing a different part)

Double track - Guitarist 1 L100, Guitarist 2 R100
Quad Track - Guitarist 1 L100 and L80 (or L100 as well), Guitarist 2 at R100 and R80 (or R100 as well).

In short, regardless of how many tracks, each guitar part gets its own side. This is how almost every recording I can think of does it (the above Behemoth example, Iron Maiden harmonies, Job for a Cowboy's Genesis, Nevermore, jesus christ, EVERYTHING), cuz having each part on both sides sounds, as I said, boring and mono.
 
What darkening suggested is what I had been doing, putting both guitarists on both sides, half their takes on each side... it definitely sounds different to me than if I were to leave all the tracks in the center... Though I'll try putting one guitarist on one side and one on the other when i get home from work today and see what it sounds like though

I'll pay more attention to where stuff is panned too when im listening to cds i guess, see what other bands have going

Thanks for your replies guys!
 
Metaltastic said:
Then you quad-tracked dude, not double-tracked, if I understand you correctly. Either that, or you reamped/split the signal, which is still double-tracking, but to use two guitarists, each going through two amps, you had to have guitarist 1 play through Amp 1 and then Amp 2, and guitarist 2 play through Amp 1 and Amp 2.
Click to expand...

Wait now I'm confused... from what darkening said i thought i understood that quad tracking meant 4 tracks per part so i guess 4 per guitarist... but having 2 per guitarist is what im hearing now? or is this assuming that both are playing the same thing?
 
Yeah, two per guitarist, absolutely - jesus christ, if you had 4 per guitarist, that'd be 8 takes playing total! :puke: Mud-city, as far as I know this has NEVER been done (except for special effect), and with good reason

HOWEVER, it's important to clarify that if you have one performance, and split the signal or reamp through like 3 different amps, even though you now have 3 tracks per guitarist, that's still double-tracking, cuz there are only two performances
 
Metaltastic said:
Yeah, two per guitarist, absolutely - jesus christ, if you had 4 per guitarist, that'd be 8 takes playing total! :puke: Mud-city, as far as I know this has NEVER been done (except for special effect), and with good reason

HOWEVER, it's important to clarify that if you have one performance, and split the signal or reamp through like 3 different amps, even though you now have 3 tracks per guitarist, that's still double-tracking, cuz there are only two performances
Click to expand...

No.

the DEFINITION of QUAD is FOUR...

And there are a SHITLOAD of modern albums with 8+ tracks of guitar. Maybe not in techy/fast metal, but in hard rock/metal, yeah... you better believe it. Seriously. I've seen it with my own eyes. Even up to 6 takes of the SAME THING (3 per side) for choruses.

One take = tracking
Two takes = double-tracking
Three takes = triple-tracking
Four Takes = quad tracking

It isn't that complicated....

If you have 2 guitarists with two takes each that is DOUBLE TRACKING.

I don't know why there is such confusion over this.


1, 2, 3, 4, etc...

A, B, C, D... uh... E?

:puke:
 
Darkening must be recording some pretty damn convincing guitarists if they can manage to play eight tracks total and still keep it tight ;)

Quad-tracking is definitely what Metaltastic said, at least for me and the people I have discussed guitar tracking.

EDIT: By saying "manage to play eight tracks total" I naturally don't include the 'spice' tracks, leads over rhythm guitars etc. I often put small effect-like licks here and there on their separate tracks, but I'm not calling it n^2 -tracking :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Question
Replies
15
Views
713
F.O.H.
ArthurD
A
C
Mixing Metal Guitars
Replies
9
Views
3K
F.O.H.
guitarguru777
G
maklin
One EQ do tweak them both?...or..
Replies
9
Views
870
F.O.H.
mharwood
M
C
SSD multi out and FOP trigg
Replies
3
Views
612
F.O.H.
cerealf
C
TheStoryteller
Guitar EQ question, my ears are getting old...
Replies
11
Views
2K
F.O.H.
RoTo
RoTo
Top Bottom
Back