The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?
Old 12th September 2002
  #1
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?

Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
I think Jules, the deal is not the 96K thing, what's gonna break the camels back are the track counts you get at 44.1K/48K. For better or worse, we will have to deal with songs that are 128 tracks and up. As crazy as that sounds I've been seeing them more and more. I think to get that many tracks on a Mix Plus takes almost (2)systems. While in HD its possible.
For some reason this really scares me. How many people are really getting projects to mix that are over 48 tracks? I travel in a different world but it's rare when I have all 24-tracks filled up on 2". To be honest I think it's only happened once this whole year. And if I ever do run out of tracks on the reel I'll fire up the Adats or DAW and lock 'em together. Maybe it's just the music I get to record but does anyone really need 75 tracks for a song to be a song? What happened to the days when a song wasn't a song unless you could play it on a guitar or piano and sing? Are they gone forever?

To bring it back to the gear for a second, I think that if track counts continue to climb like this the days of having a large console are numbered. How feasible is it to have a 128+ channel console in all but the largest rooms. I can think of many problems with summing, cooling, maintence, physical space and just paying for the damn thing. If I was getting projects like that to mix I'd sell my 2" deck, Trident and whatever else in a second and buy a new DAW every two years or so like a lemming. Maybe I should count my blessings...

Thoughts?
Old 12th September 2002
  #2
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
i have no ****ing clue man. i top around 35. i think 40 was the MOST i ever hit, and on that one i was wasting tracks [iow, i didnt NEED 40]

i can make a record with 16 tracks.
Old 12th September 2002
  #3
Lives for gear
 
drundall's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I am being asked to mix a project that the client tracked at home and he
told me on some songs he was up to 50 tracks. I have no idea what he's
doing, but I have a bad feeling about it. We talking rock here, guys, not
R&B or massive harmony laden pop.
I know the film guys might welcome the 128 track count but most music
guys I know are scared...
Old 12th September 2002
  #4
Lives for gear
 
3rdpath's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
isn't there a law that states only roy thomas baker can use over 48 tracks....

if you can't do it in 36 tracks( i'm being generous in case of unbounced bg vocals)...then theres too much information. does anyone really need 14 channels of drums....8 guitars, two bass tracks etc.

we have the option not to use our options...
Old 12th September 2002
  #5
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The projects I'm dealing with nowadays generally have 40 to 60 tracks.

With that plus 20-28 effects/comp returns, I find myself sometimes getting close to using all 96 inputs available on the desk.

I reckon the bigger the console, the larger the track counts of the projects that come in. The size of clients' projects always expands up to the capacity of your facility.

Whether that's good for the music or not...I don't think there is a black or white answer.
Old 12th September 2002
  #6
Lives for gear
 
C.Lambrechts's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by jon
I reckon the bigger the console, the larger the track counts of the projects that come in. The size of clients' projects always expands up to the capacity of your facility.

Whether that's good for the music or not...I don't think there is a black or white answer.

couldn't agree more
Old 12th September 2002
  #7
Moderator emeritus
 
🎧 15 years
Admittedly, I like to track things in stereo - acoustic guitars, electrics (if there are effects coming from the guitarist), keyboards. That eatys up a lot of tracks. But I use 8 tracks for drums (9, if you count the click). I rarely go over 35 or 40 tracks, unless I've got one singer doing all of the vocals, and he's doing a big Backstreet Boys kind of thing. Then, tracks get eaten up fast. I think the largest number of vocal tracks I've ever done on are 1 track for lead vocals (We don't comp - we punch our way to success), 1 for single part BGV's on the verses, 1 for improv vocals (the scat thing that R&B singers think that they need to do), a 'telephone' track (Waves Q10...) main background vocals (4 parts, doubled), answer background vocals (since these bleed onto the main BGV, I had to use another 8 tracks), and 4 tracks which were unison yells (think of the 'Hey hey hey' tracks on the new Rob Zombie's "Demon Speeding") the last 4 were duplicated and then offset by a frame in Pro Tools. So even though the instrumental track on this song was fairly simple, (a drum loop, a sequenced keybopard part and about 3 guitars), I ended up with about 28 tracks of vocals.

I was able to fly a bunch of the BGV's around, but the song had a modulation into the last chorus so I had to have all the background parts done in two keys. A couple of hours work, definitely!
Old 12th September 2002
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Fibes's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I usually have many more tracks on output than input due to multing splitting and the occasional Haas effect. I used to have the same problem pre DAW, but, I agree some things have gotten out of hand. ThanK Mithra that I don't live in that world.
Old 12th September 2002
  #9
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Vocals can really use up a lot of tracks, especially if you enjoy splitting them out and putting different effects on different lines. Not that you NEED to do that to make a record, but then a dog doesn't really NEED to lick his balls, either.

-Rick
Old 12th September 2002
  #10
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?

Quote:
Originally posted by Jay Kahrs


How many people are really getting projects to mix that are over 48 tracks? Thoughts?
Almost all the time. I wish all engineer's would secretly make a pact to tell everyone that they can't go over 48 tracks. From a production stand point, you just don't need most of that stuff IMO. Producers get pissed at me all the time when I start mixing their song, and I mute the "fat".
Old 12th September 2002
  #11
Lives for gear
 
C.Lambrechts's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by posterchild
..... but I refuse to move to WinXP, for a number of reasons... Don't get me started madd )

hate to get you started but why ??? since windows XP I have bought a PC again. My last one dates from the 386 processor time. wasn't interested in one ever since .... but windows XP is my internet computer now .... and I'm starting to tranfer my office stuff to it too.
Old 12th September 2002
  #12
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
Today I was working quickly, gonzo engineering guitar overdubs on a gonzo band. Several times I printed Di tracks as well as amp and seperate ambience tracks as I thought I might dig the chance to re amp or SansAmp some of the sounds later and improve on em.. Thats DOUBLE the tracks right there...

I had a 5 track bass sound a while back, - it was amazing...

That , 13+ drum mic's, stereo samples & massive b vox is how it can add up...

Doesnt take long....

Old 13th September 2002
  #13
Gear Guru
 
NathanEldred's Avatar
 
7 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Re: Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?

Quote:
Originally posted by Jay Kahrs


For some reason this really scares me. How many people are really getting projects to mix that are over 48 tracks? I travel in a different world but it's rare when I have all 24-tracks filled up on 2". To be honest I think it's only happened once this whole year. And if I ever do run out of tracks on the reel I'll fire up the Adats or DAW and lock 'em together. Maybe it's just the music I get to record but does anyone really need 75 tracks for a song to be a song? What happened to the days when a song wasn't a song unless you could play it on a guitar or piano and sing? Are they gone forever?

To bring it back to the gear for a second, I think that if track counts continue to climb like this the days of having a large console are numbered. How feasible is it to have a 128+ channel console in all but the largest rooms. I can think of many problems with summing, cooling, maintence, physical space and just paying for the damn thing. If I was getting projects like that to mix I'd sell my 2" deck, Trident and whatever else in a second and buy a new DAW every two years or so like a lemming. Maybe I should count my blessings...

Thoughts?
I think you are completely on the right track Jay. I enjoy a good DAW, but I treat it like it should be, like a recorder that can automate not a fricking be all end all. With high track counts in a DAW you won't, or don't need a discrete (as in seperate) channel for each virtual track on the actual physical mixer. I sum in Nuendo like crazy then D/A into the console....things like distorted guitars (I like a lot of those in stereo too, guitars generally get 10 tracks in a typical rock band just for thickness...4 x stereo distorted [8 tracks], 2-4 clean), inside/outside kick, top/bottom snare, Bass Amp/DI, multiple backup vocals, more than two toms...those right there take up 22 tracks seperately, but can easily be summed into eleven on the physical console from the computer. This is good too because I can rely less on plugins and use outboard on the summed tracks (ie outside/inside kick can be summed and thrown through a trakker so I don't have to have two of them...makes things gel better sonically too). I haven't found a need to go over 34 tracks and that's a band with two guitars and some synth. Combining a DAW with a traditional mixer has given me the best of both possible worlds. I don't have to have automation on the mixer (which would be VCA, which IMO would kill the sound), I can automate effects so I'm not limited to the tradition auxillary send/returns on the console (just use those for my lexicons), but I get high quality summing and the ability to use my outboard gear latency free as opposed to actually inserting the outboard into a computer.
Old 13th September 2002
  #14
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Sorry Jay, But i deal with high track counts all the time. I mixed a pop record last year for the Indian/Ballywood market that had over 48 tracks of stacked Bckgounds alone!!! It took (2) Pro Tools systems synced together to mix this one. Most modern Rnb, dance, pop and alternative pop uses a full 64-72 tracks alone. I know i've contributed to this also, cause some of the stuff that I've produced has been very track dense. Yeah, analog consoles are getting bigger all the time. With the track returns,efx and mults and splits it gets pretty hectic. A film console is a different animal, where you have more than one person mixing at the same time.
Old 13th September 2002
  #15
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
This is interesting. If I'm running on 24 tracks I get my drums down to 10 tracks or less. Sometimes 11 if I'm forced to put up a hi-hat mic or maybe get the ride cymbal. If I'm on 16 tracks I'll get the drums to 6 or 7, maybe 8 tracks if I know there won't be a lot of overdubs. My normal track sheets look like this

Inside and outside kick - 1,2
Snare - 3
Toms - 4,5,6 (stereo rack and floor, sometimes summed to a pair)
OH - 7,8
Room L & R - 9,10

After that I'll have a bass amp and DI for two more tracks, then fill the rest with guitars, vocals and whatever else is needed. I need track 24 for SMPTE so that leaves me with 13 tracks to fill after drums. If I know I'm going to need more then that I'll get the drums down to less tracks right from the start or submix right after basics. I'm not afraid to submix 6 or more tracks of background vocals down to a stereo pair. Same thing with lots of percussion. So yeah, sometimes it calls for a little bit of track management like not recording 7 guitars until all the BGV's are done but in those cases I can make a slave on an Adat and keep going then dump them back onto 2" later. If I had 8 tracks of guitars being four clean and four dirty I'd bounce them down to 4 tracks rather then having 8 tracks at mix time. It's just less **** to deal with later. I also never track things like acoustic guitar or synths in stereo unless I feel that it might be important later. I dunno, guess I listened to too many Beatles albums or something while growing up.

I guess part of it has to do with the way I mix. I don't like having to comp vocals together or switch and mute keyboard parts and stuff when it comes time to mix. I want my lead vocal on one fader rather then coming up on three. Of course if I used one mic for the verse and one for the chorus it's a different story, but then it's still only two tracks.

Jules, what's the 13 tracks of drums look like?

And Posterchild, I'd change the way I work. If you need to print effects maybe get a small console to sum and use some outboard to free up tracks. I print effects all the time when I need to or I spent a lot of time creating something that I don't want to recreate later in a remix but that's kinda rare.
Old 13th September 2002
  #16
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
The introduction of the DAW has broken the world up into two views of the world IMHO.

Pre-Daw, a good engineer spent most of their time working on what happens before they ever hit the big red REC button. It was all about "getting a sound". Most of us would go through an entire mic locker looking for the right sound that was going to fit into the mix.

In the Post-Daw world it appears most people spend most of their time worrying about what happens after they hit the red Rec button. The DAW was developed as a post production tool and it does very well in that enviroment. Especially in television production but this "fix it in the mix" mentality is what causes the need for 128 tracks.

It seems the DAW mentality is almost a lack of self confidence in their own abilty or decisions. I see guys recording dozens and dozens of "just in case" tracks. Because there is less focus on the sound before it prints to tape/disk and more focus on this and that plug-in.

Don't get me wrong digital hd recording is a great tool and certainly offers a wide of choices. But I believe there are two potential side-effects. The first is the more dependent some one becomes on a post production tools the more the pre-record skills needed become atrophy.

The second and possible the more difficult problem is one that is rarely talked about and that is dependence a single platform. The DAW centric record industry is a slipperly slope and one that mirrors the software industry. Most people are not familiar with how the software industry makes money but the short answer is it is driven by continous features and multiple upgrades. The PC is the razor and the software is the blade.

The problem is this is the exact oposite of what is good for a studio owner. Stablity and ROI are key. The longer you can keep a piece of gear the better chances of profitablity.

But out of all of this what surprises me the most is pop music is getting more and processed, requires more and more tracks, gear, gizmos etc. and the technical quality is dismal. With all these so called advances the CD's being produced have no dynamic range and are so harsh sounding they could break glass.

Maybe there is some thing to be said for specializing in Jazz or at least a market where the consumer still cares about the audio quality as well as the musical talent. And muscians can actually play a whole song without the need for chopping and pasting. :D

Lee
Old 13th September 2002
  #17
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I think the big question is why and what are you recording? Are you a musician doing demos or are you trying to engineer a whole releasable song and play at the same time? The more hats you wear the harder things get. I can play and record guitar or bass at the time but it's kind of tough. I'd rather just be playing and let someone else worry about the engineering end of it.

Do you really need 20 tracks for reverb and effects? Most of my mixes usually have two reverbs (stereo) and a handful of delays, maybe two or three in mono and sometimes a special effect or two like a flanger or ring modulator. So let's see that's maybe 9 inputs for effects. Then again if the clients wants it I'll have three verbs, three-four delays (including a stereo), detuning on the vocal plus a flanger on the odd guitar part here or there but I still have no more then 14 or 15 inputs for effects. Try using two reverbs and a delay to mix and see if your mixes gel together better. Less is more in my book. If you play guitar or piano it'll be like those exercises my teachers made me do. Like soloing with two fingers or three strings. Kinda makes you think a bit more and it made me a better engineer.
Old 13th September 2002
  #18
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by 20db.com
Pre-Daw, a good engineer spent most of their time working on what happens before they ever hit the big red REC button. It was all about "getting a sound". Most of us would go through an entire mic locker looking for the right sound that was going to fit into the mix.

In the Post-Daw world it appears most people spend most of their time worrying about what happens after they hit the red Rec button. The DAW was developed as a post production tool and it does very well in that enviroment. Especially in television production but this "fix it in the mix" mentality is what causes the need for 128 tracks.

It seems the DAW mentality is almost a lack of self confidence in their own abilty or decisions. I see guys recording dozens and dozens of "just in case" tracks. Because there is less focus on the sound before it prints to tape/disk and more focus on this and that plug-in.

Don't get me wrong digital hd recording is a great tool and certainly offers a wide of choices. But I believe there are two potential side-effects. The first is the more dependent some one becomes on a post production tools the more the pre-record skills needed become atrophy.
Very true. I've had quite a few home studio DAW guys come to me to either mix consult or just out and out mix their projects. I'll transfer their tracks from my DAW to either 2" or Adat and mixing from those through the Trident. So many times there isn't good documentation and I'm looking at "VOCAL 1" through "VOCAL 8" and they don't know which one is the right one. Or I get things with the guitar solos on three different tracks and I'm using track 2 for the first 4 bars, track 3 for the next 4, then over to track one for the last 8. WTF? Just bounce 'em all together. Take care of that stuff before mixing and the mixing will be easier, not only that you'll save your track count. If I got a project to mix with 48 tracks of stacked backgrounds like Thrill Factor did I'd bounce them down to the smallest number I could get away with before mixing. Maybe not a stereo pair, but I'd think you could get them into 3 or 4 pairs without a problem.

I'm 24 but I started assisting when I was 18 and had been working with a 4-track since 8th grade. So I guess I just don't have a problem committing to sounds early on. Sometimes I do like to keep things as separate as possible for as long as possible but overall I'll get a sound and go with it. I guess I'm almost a rebel these days.

So how about the DAW replacing a console in medium to large rooms? Is it happening already or do you think it will never happen?
Old 13th September 2002
  #19
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by 20db.com
The introduction of the DAW has broken the world up into two views of the world IMHO.

Pre-Daw, a good engineer spent most of their time working on what happens before they ever hit the big red REC button. It was all about "getting a sound". Most of us would go through an entire mic locker looking for the right sound that was going to fit into the mix.

I guess you've never heard of the Beatles. Do you think if they were around today they wouldn't take advantage of the extra options of multi tracks? Part of the reason we were forced to do stuff before hand, was the limitations of the multi track. That's where bouncing tracks and syncing up machines(a nightmare in itself) came into play.


In the Post-Daw world it appears most people spend most of their time worrying about what happens after they hit the red Rec button. The DAW was developed as a post production tool and it does very well in that enviroment. Especially in television production but this "fix it in the mix" mentality is what causes the need for 128 tracks.

It seems the DAW mentality is almost a lack of self confidence in their own abilty or decisions. I see guys recording dozens and dozens of "just in case" tracks. Because there is less focus on the sound before it prints to tape/disk and more focus on this and that plug-in.


Sorry have to disagree again. Its just another color in the pallete. Sure less forces you to work smarter, but no necessarily better. Sometimes is a limitation thing. I rather have the option of more, than being forced or limited to less.

Don't get me wrong digital hd recording is a great tool and certainly offers a wide of choices. But I believe there are two potential side-effects. The first is the more dependent some one becomes on a post production tools the more the pre-record skills needed become atrophy.


I totally agree with this statement. Tracking is becoming a lost art form. Ask anyone that has to mix other peoples tracks.

The second and possible the more difficult problem is one that is rarely talked about and that is dependence a single platform. The DAW centric record industry is a slipperly slope and one that mirrors the software industry. Most people are not familiar with how the software industry makes money but the short answer is it is driven by continous features and multiple upgrades. The PC is the razor and the software is the blade.

The problem is this is the exact oposite of what is good for a studio owner. Stablity and ROI are key. The longer you can keep a piece of gear the better chances of profitablity.

But out of all of this what surprises me the most is pop music is getting more and processed, requires more and more tracks, gear, gizmos etc. and the technical quality is dismal. With all these so called advances the CD's being produced have no dynamic range and are so harsh sounding they could break glass.

Maybe there is some thing to be said for specializing in Jazz or at least a market where the consumer still cares about the audio quality as well as the musical talent. And muscians can actually play a whole song without the need for chopping and pasting. :D

What is the biggest selling Jazz album to date? Its not a traditional album..its Kenny G's Christmas album(I know this is not Jazz, but that's they way its marketed). I think produced by Walter A and Mixed by Mick G. It was recorded in Pro Tools with a bunch of midi tracks. What does this tell you about your statement? Consumers will just buy what they think they like or what someone tells them to like. Its not about the music anymore. We live in a different age. Its hard for the traditionalists to accept it. Things wil never be the same(like the old days). The old days weren't that great either. I guess its true, make people eat stale bread everyday in the desert and they will want to go back to the slavery where they get their fresh leeks and meat(or something like that in the bible) Why not just accept it and move on. We live in the age of disposable everything, from contact lenses, to cell phones and computers. Music and film is up there now. I have friends that work with the so called next generation of classical musicians(Juilliard). For their auditions and recordings, they cut and paste passages all the time. No one plays from the beginning till the end. They all want the perfect takes. So is the a good thing? Who knows, but its what we have to work with at this monent.

Lee
Old 13th September 2002
  #20
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
thethrillfactor, I think you might have missed every point I made but thats ok.

Also you just made my point by your use of "tools" offered by the forum. Having a lot of bells and whistles don't automatically translate into better music.

You might want to check out this link.

HELP

Your post is very difficult to read. It is kind of like a mix buss on a daw, it mushes everything together.

Lee
Old 13th September 2002
  #21
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Re: Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?

Quote:
Originally posted by NathanEldred


I enjoy a good DAW, but I treat it like it should be, like a recorder that can automate not a fricking be all end all. Combining a DAW with a traditional mixer has given me the best of both possible worlds.
Agreed.

Just one exception: Auto on the console with motors/flying faders (instead of VCAs) will sound better than auto inside the DAW.

VCA auto versus DAW auto is a case of picking the lesser of two evils.
Old 13th September 2002
  #22
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Tracking is becoming a lost art form. Ask anyone that has to mix other peoples tracks.
I agree.

Not sure if it's a lost art form...it's often a case of artists or producers recording at home on a DAW without an engineer...frequently compounded with crappy mics & mic pres and unsuitable rooms/spaces.
Old 13th September 2002
  #23
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Hi Lee,

What I am trying to say in a nutshell is, don't blame the tool, its the guy using it who determines its purpose. I am a composer/producer as well as an engineer. In my mind I don't differentiate between the two(that is why i think I ended up as a mix engineer, where u need both sides of the brain working together). The more options and choices u give me, the better chances I have to deliver what you hear in your head. If you limit me, it limits your chances to get what you want in the end, because you are forcing me to work in a box. Sometimes people abuse their right of extra DAW tracks(I know we've all seen this), but a lot if times its needed. What if you the artist used plugins on your tracks that are crucial to your sound? Isn't it better to track them? Also what if use a lot of midi tracks in your composition? Are u going to drag your whole midi studio down to the mixing facility so I can have access to your tracks? Hell no!!! Basically it comes down to the task at hand and its needs.



Quote:
Originally posted by 20db.com
thethrillfactor, I think you might have missed every point I made but thats ok.

Also you just made my point by your use of "tools" offered by the forum. Having a lot of bells and whistles don't automatically translate into better music.

You might want to check out this link.

HELP

Your post is very difficult to read. It is kind of like a mix buss on a daw, it mushes everything together.

Lee
Old 14th September 2002
  #24
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I suppose I had more tracks available in one place sooner than about anyone I know of.

Yes, as soon as I got 128 tracks a couple of years ago, I noticed that all my skills vanished, and my records immediately went to crap.

My musical taste also vanished, along with any sense of craftmanship I may once have had. Having those additional tracks available to use, or not use, as I saw fit was my downfall, ultimately. And that's why I can no longer get hired, I suppose.

Yes, exactly like getting a bigger hammer ruined the carpenter, or getting a bigger truck ruined the moving company, or having more pencils ruined the CPA, so did getting more tracks ruin the engineer/mixer.

Sad, really. After all, one would think it was merely a tool, and therefore still subject to the discretion of it's owner.


Regards,
Brian T
Old 14th September 2002
  #25
Gear Guru
 
NathanEldred's Avatar
 
7 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Re: Re: Re: Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?

Quote:
Originally posted by jon


Agreed.

Just one exception: Auto on the console with motors/flying faders (instead of VCAs) will sound better than auto inside the DAW.

VCA auto versus DAW auto is a case of picking the lesser of two evils.

Agreed usually...but not in the case of Samplitude or Nuendo. We did the following test in both Platform's on a wonderfully sung female vocal track and an acoustic guitar: Digitally reduced the gain on one version of the same track by 6 db (same as "automating" by using the automation "line" in the DAW), left the other digitally copied track where it was originally (a few db from digital zero on the meter, it was a nice hot 24 bit signal). Transfered them in real time to a DAT tape via AES. Put both back in the computer via AES and gained the lower one 6db. We played them both back and compared for a really long time and they were identical from what me and my other engineer could tell. No audible differences at all, and the waveforms of course looked the same too. According to the 'math changes the audio' theory there should have been some differences, but not at all to my ears.
Old 14th September 2002
  #26
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Re: Re: Re: Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?

Quote:
Originally posted by NathanEldred



Transfered them in real time to a DAT tape via AES. Put both back in the computer via AES and gained the lower one 6db. We played them both back and compared for a really long time and they were identical from what me and my other engineer could tell. No audible differences at all, and the waveforms of course looked the same too. According to the 'math changes the audio' theory there should have been some differences, but not at all to my ears.
I've done the same sort of tests with both Protools (Mix plus) and Digital Performer, with the same results. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. To test this you don't even have to go to such extremes. Just change your levels by .1 db and see if you hear a difference. That requires just as much "math" as an extreme level change.

Rick Krizman
KrizManic Music
Old 14th September 2002
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I think the reason peopl end up with so many tracks, is lack of a good song to start with. I find, that when I'm producing, if enough time is spent on working on individual parts, you don't need that much to make it sound "right". I've seen guys add on more and more stuff, filling up tracks to try and make it sound "pro".
Old 14th September 2002
  #28
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
Re: Re: Re: Re: Track counts, DAWs and is it really music?

What A-D converters were you using Nathan?

Thanx!

Quote:
Originally posted by NathanEldred



Agreed usually...but not in the case of Samplitude or Nuendo. We did the following test in both Platform's on a wonderfully sung female vocal track and an acoustic guitar: Digitally reduced the gain on one version of the same track by 6 db (same as "automating" by using the automation "line" in the DAW), left the other digitally copied track where it was originally (a few db from digital zero on the meter, it was a nice hot 24 bit signal). Transfered them in real time to a DAT tape via AES. Put both back in the computer via AES and gained the lower one 6db. We played them both back and compared for a really long time and they were identical from what me and my other engineer could tell. No audible differences at all, and the waveforms of course looked the same too. According to the 'math changes the audio' theory there should have been some differences, but not at all to my ears.
Old 14th September 2002
  #29
jon
Capitol Studios Paris
 
jon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Nathan and Kris,

Digital math approximating & modifying the audio is *not* just a theory -- you can hear it, and you can see it on your DAW screen. Gain and panning changes, plug-ins, bussing and summing in the digital domain all add to the deterioration/approximation/digitis you hear.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Suffice to say that I hear unsubtle differences with the DAW and monitors in my room, that you guys do not hear with the DAW and monitors you used where you did your test.

But who cares what I hear? Trust no one except your own experience and ears...tell you what, I sure wouldn't.

Jon
Old 14th September 2002
  #30
Founder
 
Jules's Avatar
"Jules, what's the 13 tracks of drums look like? "

kick
outer kick
sn
under snare
hh
t
t
t
OH
OH
Ride
room
room

(+ any alt drum room wierdness mic's if you choose)

Right now on a coupla backing track sessions I am doing back to back I am glad I havent "commited" and blended either the two kick mic's or snares - (I tried em seperate for a change) I dig the flexibility. It's not a PITA, it's just plain handy.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 72 views: 115729
Avatar for Nightshifter
Nightshifter 27th October 2015
replies: 577 views: 32641
Avatar for kdm
kdm 1st July 2009
replies: 295 views: 70867
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 175904
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump