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

[ghettosynth]

What the "track" is doing is far more important to your track limits than just a simple number. For raw audio with no effects any modern computer should be able to handle hundreds of tracks without any problem. I wouldn't worry about it at 40 or 50. If you have concerns, bounce any inline effects.

I don't ever count tracks because I don't think like that. tracks get mixed as a group/bus and, depending on what I'm working on, I have fairly strict group limits that I like to work with, never more than 16, but for most stuff I prefer to work with 8. Those limits are more about my process than technology, however, other than they map more easily to hardware, which has some input to my process.

[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.

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

I watched a doc on the making of a night at the opera and was stunned that they didn't mention a word about what I consider to be one of the best Queen songs ever...The Prophet Song, again a song that pushed the limits.

[PatchAdamz]

1265 but I could have just used 10 or so.

[Arglebargle]

over 9000.

[Tricky-Loops]

Always when I have more than 40 tracks, my computer shuts down with a blue screen and the message: "Stop! The Beatles made great songs with only 4 tracks!"

4 is too few, but indeed I think there is nothing wrong with limiting things to, say, 8 tracks (plus automation tracks, but I don't really count them as tracks) plus a few vocal tracks.

Some years ago I've tried to use more and more tracks, and in the end I had about 50 tracks which were all fighting against each other.

Nowadays I try to reduce my tracks to 30 tracks, if possible. It makes mixing much easier.

Yesterday I read some lines in a book from Mike Senior who says that a listener cannot listen - or let's say: "pay attention" - to more than 3 (main) elements simultaneously and that the arrangement should be kept as minimal as possible. So why should I shell my listeners with 100 tracks? Music has to breathe!

(Well, if you're using Synth1 for your epic trance lead and you need 30 instances of it to make it sound like Dune 2, then it might be a problem... )

[thecontrolcentre]

I rarely use more than 8 for my own music ... am currently mixing an album for an acoustic act which uses a max of 12 (no drums).

[trimph1]

I am recording a band right now in my partially redone barn. Recording around 20 tracks...

[Turello]

I've recorded a Punk Band with 2 condenser mics= 2 Tracks and great result!

@Tricky-Loops: IMO you use 9 trakcs for the music and 21 aux\bus for delays... ahahahahahahah

[V0RT3X]

I should point out that my huge track count was'nt really a song it was more of a stress test.

[Touch The Universe]

can't believe no one commented on my remark of having a 79 gigagbyte project file with more thant 2000 samples ,, maybe think I'm joking?

[Turello]

@V0RT3X: You gave me the idea and one of these days I'll do it the same to see where I can get...
anyway often it's the intensive loading of plugins to weigh down the workflow

[Satasha]

Thanks for the replies, especially ghettosynth. I have bounced and consolidated. Down to about 30 now.

I am using a lot of tracks just as storage for the original, unprocessed tracks as I experiment with different offline editing and fx. I will nuke those when I am sure I don't need them.

[V0RT3X]

@V0RT3X: You gave me the idea and one of these days I'll do it the same to see where I can get...
anyway often it's the intensive loading of plugins to weigh down the workflow

Do you use Reason?

I used to use it for everything! Ableton Live & reason was my setup and it was incredibly efficient. I think if i needed a system for live shows I would probably use that. I don't really like the synthesizer sounds, so i would probably rely on the samplers and samples for everything.

[Numanoid]

So what is the max number of tracks you have had going at once? If more than 50, what are the specs on your computer?

Don't you know: Less is more

[Turello]

@V0RT3X: no no, I use Nuendo 5, Studio One 2 and FL Studio 9, I have Reason 3 too but I've stop use it some years ago when I'm boring of libraries, refills etc etc... Anyway IMO the best programmed Sequencer!