Stupid Question About Quadtracking
- Thread starter GhostUnholy
- Start date
As far as I know, they did it on the last two albums, but sometimes with 16 tracks all for guitars all together (not counting clean-guitars or stuff, just 16 tracks for the main distorted guitar-sounds) - for example just take the first two songs. But I have to commit - no really big thing, with this kind of guitar-riffs
That´s the way I prefer to record guitars. On my band´s latest album (see signature-link) it was guitardude 1 -> 2 amps -> 100 % L and guitardude 2 -> same two amps -> 100 % R . But esp. with metal guitars that do more then three chords I would never tell one guy to play his part four times on tape.. duuude, that´s really "mud-city" and it even doesn´t sound good at all.
Cheers,
Seb
The Unavoidable
jättebög
I have always thought multi tracking is about how many times you double a part, not how many tracks. Which means double tracking is when one guitarist (or two) dub their part once, like a double take. Why would you call it double tracking if there are two guitarist playing different parts? Then you wouldn't be "double:ing" anything, then it would just be.
Dual tracking would be a better term, since double refers to there being two tracks of one, not just two tracks. In the same way, quadruple tracking would mean four tracks of the same thing. But then again, quadruple could also mean simply four of something, so in that case it might be more of a interpretation issue.
Dual tracking would be a better term, since double refers to there being two tracks of one, not just two tracks. In the same way, quadruple tracking would mean four tracks of the same thing. But then again, quadruple could also mean simply four of something, so in that case it might be more of a interpretation issue.
AdamWathan
Member
We're talking about rhythm guitars in general. Sure, the guitar parts on each side are different, but only in certain single note harmonies and shit, the bulk of the riffs being played on each side are still the same, hence why we call it double tracking. We're not talking about lead guitar vs. rhythm guitar here and calling it doubling.
The Unavoidable
jättebög
But that doesn't make any sense. A second guitar playing harmonies etc should be considered it's own instrument, not just as a backing to the first one since removing it would be removing a part of the song. Even if 90% of the notes played are the same they should still be treated as completely separate instruments. If you mic four toms with one mic on each, recording to four tracks you don't say "yeah, we quadtracked the toms" since that would imply that you dubbed the tom hits.
The same would apply to guitars. But I agree with Darkening, saying "both guitars are doubled tracked" makes the most sense and doesn't confuse anyone. And saying both guitars were quadtracked would imply 2x4 tracks.
You're right Unavoidable, "Dual Tracking" would be the more appropriate term by definition - HOWEVER, you, Darkening, and JJO are the only people I've ever seen get confused by this, so in certain cases I'm prepared to suck it up and accept the standard, cuz I think our way is actually less likely to confuse people than yours (as evidenced by this thread)
Essentially this has deteriorated into a debate over semantics, and while I agree with your interpretation, in this case I go with the status quo,
Essentially this has deteriorated into a debate over semantics, and while I agree with your interpretation, in this case I go with the status quo,
schismatic
Kintsugi is coming
I've had a fair bit of success triple tracking for a single part, i record the amp using an SM57 and pan it L100, then i record it with a rode m3 and pan it r100 and finally a slightly less trebly recording with an SP B1 for a bit of air and that stays in the centre. I then apply impulses to each track (sometimes the same one, sometimes different on each depending on taste). The center track is usually lower than the two panned and is there for a bit of backup fullness really. All these tracks are then bussed to a group channel in Cubase where I apply some tape saturation before compression (having success with andy's c4 setting here). I get a pretty alright sound I reckon for a bedroom!
Wait... three separate mics, all across the spectrum, with impulses added (despite the fact that they're already mic'ed signals), shoved into tape saturation and then compression?
You simply must post a clip. Unless you've somehow inherited every ounce of awesome that ever existed anywhere there is simply no way that can be anything but the wrongest thing ever done.
Jeff
You simply must post a clip. Unless you've somehow inherited every ounce of awesome that ever existed anywhere there is simply no way that can be anything but the wrongest thing ever done.
Jeff
ahjteam
Anssi Tenhunen
Jarkko Mattheiszen
The FU guy.
Yeah, definitely post clips. I must say I'm quite doubtful of the results, but I'm interested as hell in what such a brutal smashing sounds like
