Most tracks you've mixed?

[CedarSound]

So, I am getting close to finishing an album with a six piece band, and have really been enjoying it. Within the next couple of weeks, we should complete tracking, and it will be time to start mixing. A lot of the songs are built on top of the keyboard player's sequenced tracks in his Roland and Korg keyboards. When we started loading his parts in my DAW, I wanted to record each sequenced track separately, so I would be able to balance all of the tracks at mix time. A few of these had over 20 tracks from the start, so now I find myself looking at almost finished songs with track counts up in the 40s and 50s.
I have to admit that it's a bit intimidating to have that many tracks looking back at me.. I have never had this many sounds to mix into one cohesive end product before... I have been thinking about subtractive eq'ing and other methods to make everything fit together, as well as cutting things out as needed.. so, I guess I am just curious.. What is the largest amount of tracks you guys have ever had to deal with at mix time? If it was a huge amount, any advice or tips based on experience to approach this in a helpful way? Thanks

[JGriffin]

I think ProTools used to max out at 72 tracks or something like that, and I know I mixed some sound-design stuff where I hit that ceiling. Don't think I got there on a music mix, though I know I've hit 48 with music.

[Nick Sevilla]

Hi,

Just remember that those 70 tracks will not play all the way from the top to the bottom of the song.
If they are, kill the producer and / or arranger on the spot.
They did not do their job.

The issue is mainly when things will play together. That is when you'll need to use techniques to make things interesting.

Cheers

[farview]

I had a song last year that had 183 tracks. It was a 13 minute (just looked it up, 16 minute 43 second) progressive doom metal tune with a zillion instruments.

I had to freeze a bunch of stuff to get it to play, that took forever just to freeze everything. Then I would unfreeze the stuff I was working on, then freeze it again, unfreeze something else, freeze it again, etc...

http://thelivingfields.com/ The song is called 'Running out of Daylight'

[MoreSpaceEcho]

i've hit 100 tracks before, but they weren't all playing at once...a bunch would be muted entirely...it'd be stuff like all the vocal takes, reamped guitar experiments with 4 mics on separate tracks, a couple different multimic'd drum takes, etc.

usually i can get stuff down to 32 tracks or less for the final mix.

i would say try and submix as much as you can as early as you can. it's just much easier to keep track of 30 tracks of crap than 80.

i'm almost afraid to ask, but what kind of stuff does the keyboard player have going on those 20 separate tracks?

[donny]

eight

[cjogo]

Our machine only has 48 channel/ faders - so that's where we stop. No bouncing/submix

[CedarSound]

i'm almost afraid to ask, but what kind of stuff does the keyboard player have going on those 20 separate tracks?

It's a different approach than what I've worked with in the past, but basically he wrote three or four songs and then brought them to the rest of the band.. There are some drum tracks he sequenced by hand, keyboard bass, and lots of weird ambient keyboard tracks.. It mostly just creates this ambient bed that the rest of the guys wrote their parts over.. I know it sounds like total chaos, but the band is very mellow, so it works for them very well.

Yeah, the crazy track count is coming from the sequences, a couple mics on each amp, plus a DI track for reamping later if need be, along with the guitarists wanting to try different ideas (ie 3x5 = 15 before you know it!)

I am going to start busing this stuff and maybe play with collapsing tracks into folders just to make it easier to look at all of it.. I really am having fun with this project, I am just used to smaller track counts! Comes from my tape days, I guess

[CedarSound]

Oh, and in response to Nick's comment..

I will definitely not be using all of these tracks at once. My approach has always been to record lots of tracks, including percussion and ear candy type stuff and bring certain elements in and out of the songs as it goes to keep the listener interested and hopefully add some life to the track.. so, you know, arranging..

One of my favorite examples of this would probably be the song "Wait" off of Rubber Soul. Starts with single tambourine, then shaker comes in, then drums...builds builds... breaks back down... tambourine, then shaker, then drums again... The part is basically repeating, but the arrangement builds it up and adds energy... I love that stuff.

[Jeff White]

I think that no matter how many tracks you have in a mix, it is imperative to create a master mixing template to accommodate organization by using buses for major instrument groups, parallel compression of drums, reverb(s), etc. I've even started supplying a TRIM plug-in inserted on every track because folks always record way too hot (24-bit tracks RMS/peaking at much louder than -18dBfs to -12dBfs). Anyway, I'm always putting my sense in that less is more. If evolving over time, I have no problem with a song having X-amount of tracks. But if anyone bought me something with tons of tracks playing at once and train-wrecking due to, well, 20 tracks of guitars or something like that I would open discussion about arrangement. There's just no way that that kind of information is going to be perceived as individual parts for a piece of music that ultimately needs to collapse into mono. Call me cranky.

I'm all about bigger track counts, but only if they are for the song/arrangement. I believe in mixing by subtraction (as well as addition).

Jeff

[vvv]

I've never exceeded 50 when mixing for someone else.

When mixing for me, I've never exceeded 30.

I probably average around 15 for my stuff.

But if we count partial tracks (say, where the track only exists for each chorus), then the numbers may be 50% higher.

[cjogo]

i.

i'm almost afraid to ask, but what kind of stuff does the keyboard player have going on those 20 separate tracks?

We use a good deal of electronic drums ( played from Roland or Trap Kat pads ) -- so there at least 8 min. -- Half of our bass tracks are keyboard orientated --
Solo strings are usually mixed with live tracks -- A quality sampled horn accompaniment will require 4 individual tracks , since we don't really use pads. Piano & organ here or there . 20 keyboard channels > before you know it.

With the mics we start :: acoustic guitar, 2 channels ... Vocal > Lead , Double, One-on One , then 4+ harmonies..

Geez -- how did the Beatles do it ?-- Still remember bouncing those mono/dual track reels > from one machine to the other ...

[farview]

But if we count partial tracks (say, where the track only exists for each chorus), then the numbers may be 50% higher.

I was counting stuff like this. In my example, the middle section has 40 tracks of instrumentation and 7 vocal tracks that are only used in that section. The tracks that are used in the rest of the song are not playing at that point.

But, how could you not count that?

[vvv]

Didn't wanna seem like I was looking to blow up the stats.

And because even tho' there might be 4 chorusii and so 4 track sections, one singer's track sections may all "line-up" in one track.

[joelpatterson]

... I am just used to smaller track counts! ....

Lately I've been seeing the "advantage" of just two tracks, however hamstringing it is in theory. For this video, I propped my handheld Sony PCM D-50 right up inches from the band, you can see it at the bottom of the frame in all its sleek silver glory.

Mixing is still an involved operation... but instead of mixing tracks, I'm mixing frequencies on a stereo bus. Should this be terrifying?.... I guess so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiNsssmsKCA