Quad tracking: what's the point?

[axemeaquestion]

The kicker is that if you can't double-track SUPER tight, then don't even bother trying to quad track. It'll turn into a sloppy mess.

You can get around this by duplicating a single track and adding a barely detectable amount of chorus to it. Even better by reamping and using different amps/gains & minute chorus on each extra track.

That's the lazy man's way and merely introduces phase issues (I'm assuming you're slightly delaying the copied track).

No, you need to do true double tracking. Big difference in quality compared to your method.

 

[guitarslinger]

I think it sounds better.

I'm sure it could become tedious and muddy if you have problems with precision or tone.

If you're worried about diminishing returns, then why do double tracking?

Diminishing returns means that two might have a huge payoff, 4 may have some payoff but not as much as doubling. Eight may be a hair better than 4, but are you going to do it? That's diminishing returns.

I understand the law AMAQ.

I'm saying, if you have to ask if four is worth it, then, maybe two isn't worth it since one can do the job.

I'm simply saying, "MORE IS BETTER" assuming you don't suck.

I'm having such a shitty day, right now.

 

[Xabiche]

The kicker is that if you can't double-track SUPER tight, then don't even bother trying to quad track. It'll turn into a sloppy mess.

You can get around this by duplicating a single track and adding a barely detectable amount of chorus to it. Even better by reamping and using different amps/gains & minute chorus on each extra track.

That's the lazy man's way and merely introduces phase issues (I'm assuming you're slightly delaying the copied track).

No, you need to do true double tracking. Big difference in quality compared to your method.

It's the sloppy players way What does it really matter how you do it if you get something you like? I've doubled tracked stuff doing this and it sounds fine to me.

 

[axemeaquestion]

I think it sounds better.

I'm sure it could become tedious and muddy if you have problems with precision or tone.

If you're worried about diminishing returns, then why do double tracking?

Diminishing returns means that two might have a huge payoff, 4 may have some payoff but not as much as doubling. Eight may be a hair better than 4, but are you going to do it? That's diminishing returns.

I understand the law AMAQ.

I'm saying, if you have to ask if four is worth it, then, maybe two isn't worth it since one can do the job.

I'm simply saying, "MORE IS BETTER" assuming you don't suck.

I'm having such a shitty day, right now.

Two is so much better than one.

I couldn't tell the diff between 4 and 2 on the OP's clip.

 

[axemeaquestion]

The kicker is that if you can't double-track SUPER tight, then don't even bother trying to quad track. It'll turn into a sloppy mess.

You can get around this by duplicating a single track and adding a barely detectable amount of chorus to it. Even better by reamping and using different amps/gains & minute chorus on each extra track.

That's the lazy man's way and merely introduces phase issues (I'm assuming you're slightly delaying the copied track).

No, you need to do true double tracking. Big difference in quality compared to your method.

What does it really matter how you do it if you get something you like? .

Bragging rights in the forum. That trumps everything.

 

[Xabiche]

The kicker is that if you can't double-track SUPER tight, then don't even bother trying to quad track. It'll turn into a sloppy mess.

You can get around this by duplicating a single track and adding a barely detectable amount of chorus to it. Even better by reamping and using different amps/gains & minute chorus on each extra track.

That's the lazy man's way and merely introduces phase issues (I'm assuming you're slightly delaying the copied track).

No, you need to do true double tracking. Big difference in quality compared to your method.

What does it really matter how you do it if you get something you like? .

Bragging rights in the forum. That trumps everything.

Yeah, I guess.

 

[Anonymous]

I liked it, but it was hard to discern 4 separate gits.

Isn't that the point though? To sound like one thick badass guitar? I dunno...

How would that have sounded merely double tracked?

I dunno... I suppose I could just go back to the project and mix down two tracks...

And, did you use different patches or was it the same sound for all 4 tracks?

Two patches, each tracked twice...

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed, as long as color does not equal zero, since we know what happens when you divide something by zero.

I divide by zero on guitar all the time.

Yep, some of his best work involves divide by zero riffing!

Steve

 

[axemeaquestion]

I liked it, but it was hard to discern 4 separate gits.

Isn't that the point though? To sound like one thick badass guitar? I dunno...

How would that have sounded merely double tracked?

I dunno... I suppose I could just go back to the project and mix down two tracks...

And, did you use different patches or was it the same sound for all 4 tracks?

Two patches, each tracked twice...

Steve

Brother S, I could not tell the diff in brother Jake's 2 vs 4 comparison. Could you?

 

[dstroud]

One of these is quad tracked, one is double tracked, which is which?

https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=10025728

cool test!!! I'm going to guess the 1st pass is quad and the 2nd is double.

 

[Anonymous]

The kicker is that if you can't double-track SUPER tight, then don't even bother trying to quad track. It'll turn into a sloppy mess.

You can get around this by duplicating a single track and adding a barely detectable amount of chorus to it. Even better by reamping and using different amps/gains & minute chorus on each extra track.

No you can't. The minute differences in playing from one track to the next are the magic of multiple tracks... (I'm not talking about timing problems - there will be variation even on very tight tracks...)

Steve

 

[HeimBrent]

I remember reading an article about the recording of an album that I really liked the guitartone on. The guitarist had two 5150's going at the same time, one with almost no gain, the other with lots of it. And in addition to that, he recorded DI-signal from each amp. A few to many whiskeys later, I've forgotten what record it was, but that's really not the point. The point is it sounded great. And I think it is a much better way of doing it then recording those four sounds one at a time. Big and tight.

 

[Anonymous]

I liked it, but it was hard to discern 4 separate gits.

Isn't that the point though? To sound like one thick badass guitar? I dunno...

How would that have sounded merely double tracked?

I dunno... I suppose I could just go back to the project and mix down two tracks...

And, did you use different patches or was it the same sound for all 4 tracks?

Two patches, each tracked twice...

Steve

Brother S, I could not tell the diff in brother Jake's 2 vs 4 comparison. Could you?

I certainly woudn't be able to tell on my laptop speakers, but I'll check it out in my studio tonight. Prolly won't be able to tell which is which though, but I expect to hear some difference... Ah hell... I just like to make things harder on myself....

Steve

 

[axemeaquestion]

I remember reading an article about the recording of an album that I really liked the guitartone on. The guitarist had two 5150's going at the same time, one with almost no gain, the other with lots of it. And in addition to that, he recorded DI-signal from each amp. A few to many whiskeys later, I've forgotten what record it was, but that's really not the point. The point is it sounded great. And I think it is a much better way of doing it then recording those four sounds one at a time. Big and tight.

It certainly is faster, and easier.

But it's not true double or quad tracking.

 

[JakeAC5253]

I remember reading an article about the recording of an album that I really liked the guitartone on. The guitarist had two 5150's going at the same time, one with almost no gain, the other with lots of it. And in addition to that, he recorded DI-signal from each amp. A few to many whiskeys later, I've forgotten what record it was, but that's really not the point. The point is it sounded great. And I think it is a much better way of doing it then recording those four sounds one at a time. Big and tight.

I absolutely agree with this, but this is getting into the realm of tone blending. In my opinion, the technique of quad tracking is a mixing technique that has to do with layering identical tones with hopes of 'fattening up' the singular tone. Anything otherwise is what I consider tone blending. For instance, you play one performance per side, but double mic the cab with two different mics and mix in mono, two tracks per side. Quad tracking? I wouldn't consider it to be, no.

 

[HeimBrent]

But putting a slight delay between those two, or four, tracks would make the sound fatter, and be a certain way of ensuring that the final result is tight. It's a shortcut, but I'd say it's one worth taking.

 

[axemeaquestion]

But putting a slight delay between those two, or four, tracks would make the sound fatter, and be a certain way of ensuring that the final result is tight. It's a shortcut, but I'd say it's one worth taking.

Why take the shortcut? You're presumably recording your stuff in your own studio, so you've got the time.

 

[JakeAC5253]

But putting a slight delay between those two, or four, tracks would make the sound fatter, and be a certain way of ensuring that the final result is tight. It's a shortcut, but I'd say it's one worth taking.

Look up the definition of the word 'comb filtering'

 

[Anonymous]

But putting a slight delay between those two, or four, tracks would make the sound fatter, and be a certain way of ensuring that the final result is tight. It's a shortcut, but I'd say it's one worth taking.

In my experience, it does not achieve the same effect that multiple discreet tracks does and frankly, I don't like the way it sounds, but if it works for you, great! Certainly less time consuming...

Steve

 

[glpg80]

The kicker is that if you can't double-track SUPER tight, then don't even bother trying to quad track. It'll turn into a sloppy mess.

You can get around this by duplicating a single track and adding a barely detectable amount of chorus to it. Even better by reamping and using different amps/gains & minute chorus on each extra track.

thats a great idea!

re-amp it with a cleaner amplifier/lower gain.

really cool man, might have to try that sometime