What is the max number of Tracks that you have used in a song?

[jancivil]

When I was 12, for some reason there were two cassette recorders in the house, I was bouncing.
I was I think 14 when the Beatles broke up.

[robogone]

Legend has it (although it's probably apocryphal) that when Queen recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, they bounced down the vocals on a 16 track so many times that the final multi track had 4th generation recordings of the Operatic vocals. It's possible I suppose, but either way it shows that where there's a will, there's a way.

[RunBeerRun]

I'm the greatest psychic that ever/will live, so I require zero tracks.

[trimph1]

Legend has it (although it's probably apocryphal) that when Queen recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, they bounced down the vocals on a 16 track so many times that the final multi track had 4th generation recordings of the Operatic vocals. It's possible I suppose, but either way it shows that where there's a will, there's a way.

Kinda wonder about 10cc's "I'm Not In Love" track. What was it? 200+?

[trimph1]

When I was 12, for some reason there were two cassette recorders in the house, I was bouncing.
I was I think 14 when the Beatles broke up.

I was around 10 using a Heathkit sw radio and an old Wollensack reel to reel. Recording LORAN C beacons....

[thecontrolcentre]

Eleventy Twelve

[jancivil]

Legend has it (although it's probably apocryphal) that when Queen recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, they bounced down the vocals on a 16 track so many times that the final multi track had 4th generation recordings of the Operatic vocals. It's possible I suppose, but either way it shows that where there's a will, there's a way.

Kinda wonder about 10cc's "I'm Not In Love" track. What was it? 200+?

It's unclear to me, but the video documentary of it has the narrator estimating that 256 voices were recorded. There is a terrific amount of hiss, which is a feature, not a bug, of this record.

[jancivil]

When I was 12, for some reason there were two cassette recorders in the house, I was bouncing.
I was I think 14 when the Beatles broke up.

I was around 10 using a Heathkit sw radio and an old Wollensack reel to reel. Recording LORAN C beacons....

I was trying to write music, recording a drums part and a bass part and trying to sync the 'overdub' by hand.
Because my father was not a very reliable session man much to my dismay (he didn't actually play either but he was who was there that would put up with this)

The first time I got inside a recording studio was '72 or '73 and it was 8 tracks. I actually mapped out what was to be used for the drum kit as though to minimize bouncing and noise. The owner of the studio got the idea from that I was someone to talk shop with, I had very little idea of anything he said. He talked about 'too much compression nowadays'.

[cryophonik]

Track count is just a number. It's meaningless.

When someone runs into things her computer isn't handling, it's meaningful enough and to go into it is responsive to the OP. As more than one person has said, 'consolidate'. So rather than 200-some pieces of audio (which I had zero problems with), if one's modus operandi in the DAW is load into RAM in favor of using CPU one doesn't so much have, one would for instance glue events together into parts, thereby contained by fewer 'tracks' and less RAM is called.

Or if 'tracks' = MIDI parts each per a whole soft instrument instance, CPU cycles are gained by freezing/bouncing. If I wanted to do symphonic right, this will be a much higher MIDI track->instrument channel count than I have done, and I would have to distribute to cores better than I can which will mean a whole computer as a slave or a farm of them as it stands now.

All good points. My point (and yours), of course, was simply that track count alone doesn't tell much of the story. I have PT projects with 60+ audio tracks, where only a max of like 15 are playing at a time, with few plugins (mostly EQs/comps, a couple of reverbs and delays), and my CPU hardly breaks a sweat. OTOH, another 15-track project loaded up with some heavy plugins and automation on every track can make my CPU choke in an instant.

[jancivil]

It's certainly the automation and FX - automation OF FX - which I noticed makes me have to up the latency, and make decisions. I start typically with a larger setup than I ever use. It seems like once an instrument is called the software is aware of it as a potential user and it's a different situation now.

With me it isn't that the CPU is ever maxed out, it's a matter of distribution to its cores and 'ASIO' efficiency which being a remove from 'Core Audio' is not optimal.

[Hink]

Legend has it (although it's probably apocryphal) that when Queen recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, they bounced down the vocals on a 16 track so many times that the final multi track had 4th generation recordings of the Operatic vocals. It's possible I suppose, but either way it shows that where there's a will, there's a way.

that I am very proud to say is the story of my life and why I am that DIY kinda guy, sadly I can do it with physical things, building things, fixing things but sometimes stupid obstacles in my mind (like doctors/needles) prevent me from finding the will on basic things in life. When it comes to recording I do miss those days (like on the workbench of a 200 year old farm using a drill and a chisel to install a kahler tremolo in a vintage black 72 tele custom ), the reason I mixed down instead of bouncing was because I could have my drums in stereo with bass an rhythm guitar leaving me two more tracks for lead and vox. Or how about "we'll add that at mixdown"? Another way of stretching tracks. I loved finding workarounds whether it be recording or building something for a task myself

I often think if I had what I have now back then, but the truth is I feel bad for those starting out today with everything available to them. I learned so much by trying to find a way to do things and tbh discovery is a great learning tool for me. I can be taught something and truly understand it, but understanding comes much quicker for me when the learning is by way of discovery. I wouldn't want to trade those days for anything, in fact sometimes I see an old porta-studio for sale and think I should snatch it up for S&G...truth is I finished a hell of a lot more stuff then than now. So all this great gear we have today is both a blessing and a curse for me and I wouldn't change that either

[Hink]

All good points. My point (and yours), of course, was simply that track count alone doesn't tell much of the story. I have PT projects with 60+ audio tracks, where only a max of like 15 are playing at a time, with few plugins (mostly EQs/comps, a couple of reverbs and delays), and my CPU hardly breaks a sweat. OTOH, another 15-track project loaded up with some heavy plugins and automation on every track can make my CPU choke in an instant.

well the question was how many tracks do you use (or that's how I took it) not how many tracks do you mixdown. For me I think all my projects can be done with 16 tracks (maybe not counting multi-out VSTi's), for years I had an Akai dps12 which I loved the virtual tracks and that's more along the lines of what I was talking about. I just like it when I can have one song with finished guitar tracks (which again is typically 4 mono tracks and one stereo track for every guitar part) and then throw up 5 more tracks to try something different and then A/B them...it's just sometimes I get carried away and end up A/B/C/D/E'ing them

[BERFAB]

Legend has it (although it's probably apocryphal) that when Queen recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, they bounced down the vocals on a 16 track so many times that the final multi track had 4th generation recordings of the Operatic vocals. It's possible I suppose, but either way it shows that where there's a will, there's a way.

Kinda wonder about 10cc's "I'm Not In Love" track. What was it? 200+?

It's unclear to me, but the video documentary of it has the narrator estimating that 256 voices were recorded. There is a terrific amount of hiss, which is a feature, not a bug, of this record.

I believe 256 is correct (16 x 16). This was touted back when that track was first released.

[robogone]

Legend has it (although it's probably apocryphal) that when Queen recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, they bounced down the vocals on a 16 track so many times that the final multi track had 4th generation recordings of the Operatic vocals. It's possible I suppose, but either way it shows that where there's a will, there's a way.

Kinda wonder about 10cc's "I'm Not In Love" track. What was it? 200+?

It's unclear to me, but the video documentary of it has the narrator estimating that 256 voices were recorded. There is a terrific amount of hiss, which is a feature, not a bug, of this record.

I believe 256 is correct (16 x 16). This was touted back when that track was first released.

It's certainly likely to be high, but listening to it, I would think that they probably used some of those 16 tracks for the backing (drums, bass, electric piano, acoustic piano, acoustic guitar) and the lead vocal has a clarity that wouldn't come from successive generations of tape.

The drums and bass lack some clarity, so they could have been bounced down, but I would guess that it's more likely to be 11x16 or 176 available at most (disclaimer - just my guess based on listening to it - not going to defend the number if anyone feels like arguing). Still a hell of a lot of tracks though.

[BERFAB]

Legend has it (although it's probably apocryphal) that when Queen recorded Bohemian Rhapsody, they bounced down the vocals on a 16 track so many times that the final multi track had 4th generation recordings of the Operatic vocals. It's possible I suppose, but either way it shows that where there's a will, there's a way.

Kinda wonder about 10cc's "I'm Not In Love" track. What was it? 200+?

It's unclear to me, but the video documentary of it has the narrator estimating that 256 voices were recorded. There is a terrific amount of hiss, which is a feature, not a bug, of this record.

I believe 256 is correct (16 x 16). This was touted back when that track was first released.

It's certainly likely to be high, but listening to it, I would think that they probably used some of those 16 tracks for the backing (drums, bass, electric piano, acoustic piano, acoustic guitar) and the lead vocal has a clarity that wouldn't come from successive generations of tape.

The drums and bass lack some clarity, so they could have been bounced down, but I would guess that it's more likely to be 11x16 or 176 available at most (disclaimer - just my guess based on listening to it - not going to defend the number if anyone feels like arguing). Still a hell of a lot of tracks though.

The 256 number has been around since the track was released. If you can, check out the documentary which was released decades later and confirms the original number. The process is fascinating. They were really pushing the envelop on the available technology.

-B