Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'F.O.H.' started by Emdprodukt, Mar 16, 2011.
Fuck it. I did it until now and started to hate it with a passion. That's it.
Pretty much +1. Especially with not-so-good musicians.
I think I'll go with double-tracking in general, but quad-tracking the chorus, or the breakdown.. or whatever part could need it, so you can bring in the third and fourth track very subtle yet still make everything a bit thicker when needed. (This is also what Joey said and I liked the idea, plus I realized it was done on As I Lay Dying's "The Powerless Rise" a lot)
yup, that's the way I'll do it in the future.
Yep. Quadtracking entire songs sucks to me, especially cause of the smearyness of the combined takes. Jipchen is dead on.
I like to slave amps. Kind of get the benefits of quadtracking without doing the rythm's x4
+1 on this one
What I find annoying/confusing sometimes is when a band has 2 guitarists, both playing very different rhythm parts, so the only option I have to make it sound remotely good is to quad track, otherwise one guitar will sound weak
I usually talk with the guitarist/band and tell them to put their ego aside and choice the best guitarist for rythms. It is all about getting the best result. And 99% of the bands understands that.
i still don't get the benefit of quad tracking, can someone explain?
Jamie King has this doubling effect that he uses with protools so he only needs guitars to be tracked once. Might be something to look into since I suck at tracking 4 times
With tight playing > bigger sound (if needed)
yeah. I stopped quad tracking a while ago.
the only exception for me is if there are rhythms that are added as harmonies & breakdowns. then I just change the levels of everything as the 3rd & 4th guitars come in & out.
My best guitar sounds were tracked with rythm left and right and leads in the middle.
I also gave up on quad-tracking its fucking OVERRATED.
I also have the feeling that you have to eq the guitars strange so the 4 takes work together and sound together right. But when you want only one take to play it sounds like ass...
Here's where I get confused, is it quad-tracking if you record two tracks of each guitar for ,say a verse riff, where one is playing the main part, and the other playing the harmonies?
Would it be better, even with tight playing, to only do one take of each and only record two of each during choruses and heavy sections as mentioned before?
This is exactly how I do it/see it.
When I do have to quad track its for say, just an example, strummed parts in a beat down. Except I'll turn the strumming parts down quite a bit and they will be the more inward panned guitars.
quad tracking is having 1 guitar part, exactly the same, panned hard left and right, and the other guitar part, exactly the same, panned slightly inwards.
E.g in Logic
Guitar 1 = L64
Guitar 1 = R64
Guitar 2 = L45
Guitar 2 = R45
Each part has to be played separately though. No copy pasta
Thanks man. I'm not so noobish as to copy and paste tracks, thankfully.
What I've been doing was
Guitar 1 (playing same part): 100L 80L
Guitar 2: 100R 80R through the whole song.
Quad tracking may be good for certain styles or as already said for some parts (choruses or whatever...)
But double tracking ensures a tighter result and avoid phasing. It is actually possible to get a big sound with two guitars only, like The Haunted for example.
Everything ive ever played on has been quad tracked, the biggest turnoff for me is that it takes 200% more time....thats the reason i'll be double tracking my future album.