Double vs Quad tracked

T

torkolort

Inspired
[soundcloud] https://soundcloud.com/asolberg/pull-me-under-tone-test [/soundcloud]

First one is the original. In the second part I recordered the same four times, two panned 80% left/right and two panned 100% left/right. The third part is the two takes 100% left/right.

Imho, the quad track sounds much closer. Anyone disagree?
 
In a mix both would be good. I actually think tha last one was a little closer, except lower output.

BUT i only had my iPad, so it's not science ;)
 
Volume is the biggest difference. The last clip has lower volume but if you boost that it doesn't really matter.
 
The double-tracked version sounds of course a bit tighter but really, both clips sound great and either route would work well in a mix IMO. :encouragement:
 
My experience is that sure guitars sound larger quad tracked when you only listen to guitars but that's not the reason you should be quad tracking.. guitars take all the space in the mix anyways so IMO the stupidest thing I would do is to try and take even more space.
 
But is the original clip really only double tracked? It doesn't sound like it. When splitting the original track to mono tracks and listening to the either one of them, it doesn't sound like a single track. I guess if it was panned only partly left/right they would bleed into eachother, but to me it sounds like it's more than that. But according to Wikipedia, Awake was the only album that was quadruple layered so maybe I'm wrong.
 
When I record guitars I always do 4 takes on every part (for rhythm anyways). That way I can experiment with 2-4 tracks to see what sounds best. Lately, it seems that I'm liking 4 tracks. I pan 2 hard L/R and the other 2 around 75-80%. I keep the volume on the 75-85% panned tracks about 2/3 of the volume of the hard panned tracks. The addition of these 2 other tracks at lower volume just seems to "fill in the holes" sonically speaking.

A lot of times I feel that simply having 2 tracks panned hard L/R sounds too thin, especially when recording direct at low volumes where you're not getting much guitar/speaker interaction.
 
And yeah, volume is obviously a difference here, I was just too lazy to adjust when I muted the other two tracks :) But still, I think the massiveness of the guitar in the original is better reproduced in the quad-version than the double-version..
 
Der JD said:
When I record guitars I always do 4 takes on every part (for rhythm anyways). That way I can experiment with 2-4 tracks to see what sounds best. Lately, it seems that I'm liking 4 tracks. I pan 2 hard L/R and the other 2 around 75-80%. I keep the volume on the 75-85% panned tracks about 2/3 of the volume of the hard panned tracks. The addition of these 2 other tracks at lower volume just seems to "fill in the holes" sonically speaking.

A lot of times I feel that simply having 2 tracks panned hard L/R sounds too thin, especially when recording direct at low volumes where you're not getting much guitar/speaker interaction.
Click to expand...

Totally agree about the 2 tracks sounding too thin. And I do play at fairly low levels since I'm at home. So maybe that's the reason the original sounds more massive, because he plays at intense high volume?
 
torkolort said:
But is the original clip really only double tracked? It doesn't sound like it. When splitting the original track to mono tracks and listening to the either one of them, it doesn't sound like a single track. I guess if it was panned only partly left/right they would bleed into eachother, but to me it sounds like it's more than that. But according to Wikipedia, Awake was the only album that was quadruple layered so maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe the answer is in the question here. If we can't really tell the difference when the guitars are soloed then how much of a difference will it make in a mix?

EDIT: Use the right IR and no "holes" need to be filled. Remember that if you're matching a tone from an album it's most likely EQ'd to fit that mix so you're not getting a pure match.
 
Clark Kent said:
EDIT: Use the right IR and no "holes" need to be filled.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. No "right" IR is going to be able to compensate for the minute timing differences that arise when there's 4 actual takes on a part vs. 2. Furthermore, most people put some variation between the tracks (slightly different EQ, IR, and/or cab). These timing and sonic differences, although subtle, are what I'm referring to in terms of "filling the holes".
 
Ah ok. Timing holes. Not spectrum holes. :) That's not what were talking about here though. "Quad tracking" IMO refers to playing the exact same thing four times and panning it differently.

Personally I've given quad tracking many tries but it's so much extra work for nothing really.
 
I have a confession. I'm likely not as good of a player as many of you are. It reveals itself when I try to record. For instance, I'll try to record a rhythm guitar track. In my mind, while I'm recording, it feels tight. But when I listen back, it doesn't sound as tight as I perceived.

So, I record a 2nd track. Then I pan them. Now it sounds "stereo" and is usable.
 
Hey

I think that original pull me under track have more than , only double guitar tracks. Metallica early big guitar wall sound in records ,was lots of guitar tracks. Many times there was ,at least 6 guitar tracks and lots of panning. And your quad track record ,have more balls than last record only doubler track. And yes quad tracks are ,more closer than double tracks.
 
Last edited:
Clark Kent said:
Ah ok. Timing holes. Not spectrum holes. :) That's not what were talking about here though. "Quad tracking" IMO refers to playing the exact same thing four times and panning it differently.

Personally I've given quad tracking many tries but it's so much extra work for nothing really.
Click to expand...


Isn't it the whole purpose of "Quad tracking" is that you can't play exactly the same thing four times?
 
levipeto said:
Isn't it the whole purpose of "Quad tracking" is that you can't play exactly the same thing four times?
Click to expand...

Hmm... isn't that the opposite of tight then?

It's just weird to me. It's a question I get many times: "That's all quad tracked right?" and my answer is always the same: "I didn't know anyone was quad tracking anymore?". I think that was one of the myths back 10 years ago when people were listening to all those metal core bands that the more tracks you have the better you will sound.

Play the part twice amazingly well so you can pan them to the sides and make it seem like it's just one guitar take without taking space from the center. If you want that "hole filling" vibe I suggest using different tones on the left and right side like f.ex. Dream Theater Overture 1928 or Slipknot. Guitars will end up extremely low in the mix anyways these days. Don't listen to them soloed, it's a bit amateur. :)
 
Most metal bands, i.e. Century Media, Nuclear Blast or Roadrunner, do tracking four times for rhythm guitar.

Clark, this info came to me from my last guitar teacher who now plays in Megadeth. I think he probably knows what he's talking about...
 
Last edited:
Sure. There's not "one right way" of doing things. I didn't see any advantage in quad tracking but some people might feel that there is. I could just as easily mention at least 50 bands with amazing sound and no quad tracking.
 
My experience of dual tracking vs. quad tracking is that most of the time a dual track will be enough. In my opinion, the most important thing when it comes to dense guitar mixes is the arrangement of the song and the different guitar parts (especially if you're adding different guitar parts on top of another guitar).

With that said, a cool thing that I like to use (wether it would be dual- or quad-tracking) is the Waves S1 Imager, this thing can ruin your mix if you're not careful tough, but it will give you the illusion of a bigger and wider guitar sound.

Another cool plugin is the Synchro Arts Vocalign, it will align your dubbed tracks. This is also something that you should be careful not to overdo, because you'll end up with a track that is too perfect and you can run into some phase issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom