Number of tracks... How many you need?

[Markku]

When I see videos of pros making songs, those songs seem often to have 50-100 tracks. I have read from mastering engineers that there can be twice as many.

While I can understand that with good gain staging, panning and EQ you can somehow fit all those tracks, I am seriously beginning to wonder, if all that is really necessary.

I do understand that not all tracks are active concurrently. Also, there are (probably) sounds that are composed from several parts, like kicks with separate transient and sub parts etc.

But often just ten tracks seem to have enough content to fill whole spectrum. So. I'm wondering what is really going on here...

Am I missing something completely? Or is due to some technique I am unaware? Like having dry and wet sounds from effects in separate tracks?

[.jon]

I usually need less than 8 plus 2 sends. Track count really depends on the material, someone making orchestral soundtracks needs way more than I for my minimalistic ambient. I'm using Live Intro because I can fill the spectrum with few tracks and use a standard template controlled by Korg Nanokontrol (9 faders & knobs plus mixer buttons).

Some people use one midi track for drums, some split them on separate tracks, purely matter of workflow preference but has big impact on track count.

I don't think there's any sensible guideline, use as many or few as you like. Or if you see some useful methods or tips involving more tracks, go for it?

[donkey tugger]

Am I missing something completely? Or is due to some technique I am unaware? Like having dry and wet sounds from effects in separate tracks?

A lot of these will probably be along those lines - spot effects and special effects. A lot of the time it's easier to duplicate tracks to do this than try and do it with automation. Particularly true for things like vocals where they tend to become more effected and layered in choruses etc.

[thecontrolcentre]

The last track I mixed had 9 tracks and used 2 FX sends. That's usually enough for me.

[elxsound]

Am I missing something completely? Or is due to some technique I am unaware? Like having dry and wet sounds from effects in separate tracks?

A lot of these will probably be along those lines - spot effects and special effects. A lot of the time it's easier to duplicate tracks to do this than try and do it with automation. Particularly true for things like vocals where they tend to become more effected and layered in choruses etc.

+1

And to just add on... A good (simple) example is when you want the last note played before a break, pass through a delay (FX) to be heard over the next section.

Yes, you could add a delay plugin and automate it to turn on/off at just the right moments, but its much easier to spot that one played note to a new track and then add the delay to just that track.

Yes you have more tracks in the long run, but 1) its easier to make adjustments should you desire a change, 2) it quicker to create a new track in most case than it is to set automation 3) It opens up more options should you need that same effect at different point or that same effect with a different sound source and 4) automating plugins on/off can sometimes lead to unwanted artifacts.

[AnX]

Less is more

The bigger, the better

You decide

[Markku]

I understand the point in doubling tracks for effects like Haas and having each separate drum sound on it's own track, but... 100 tracks? That seems to be really difficult to mix.

10-20 tracks is usually hard enough to mix for me.

That orchestral music point is valid, there are probably three mics per instrument -- but I've seen big EDM in-the-box projects shown with unholy track counts.

And yeah, copying tracks idea is good too -- if you want new part without messing up an existing one... That would make sense.

[donkey tugger]

Lazy people like me will use effects to thicken things like vocals and guitars. Not so these bigwigs. I remember watching some BBC documentary where Trevor Horn said he routinely hired backing singers to beef up a main vocal track by having them singing the same thing 20-30 times.

A lot of this type of thing will go on with the guitars in modern metel as well. There's always the anecdotal story about when Oasis recorded their first album and there was 10 tracks or so left on the tape for each song - Noel Gallagher allegedly said something along the lines of, '"fook off we've paid for this", and proceeded to record guitars on all the remaining tracks.

[skipscada]

+100 tracks, but through a managable number of busses. Many also mix per section, which means the number of active tracks at any given time will usually be a lot lower.

[donkey tugger]

+100 tracks, but through a managable number of busses. Many also mix per section, which means the number of active tracks at any given time will usually be a lot lower.

Blimey, I start getting confused when it's over 25 (usually in the 15-40 range, depending on what it is). That's a hell of a lot of tracks!

[e@rs]

<25. But I'm no pro.

[Aleatoriac]

Always one more

[Scotty]

Setting up independent channels for drums, vocal doubles, guitar layering and spot effects can easily add +40 tracks to a song.
I am trying to make songs with far fewer tracks now. In terms of managment I hit the wall after 100 tracks.... also I am counting stereo tracks as 2 per instance and stereo groups as 2 per instance just like you would have to if it were tape.

[do_androids_dream]

Daniel Lanois once said 'if you need more than 24 tracks to make your statement you're doing it wrong'.. I kinda like that.

[Scotty]

I guess Queen got it wrong then... they layered over 180 tracks for Bohemian Rhapsody ... you know that little tune? ... I kinda like that.

Daniel Lanois once said 'if you need more than 24 tracks to make your statement you're doing it wrong'.. I kinda like that.