Re: Why more than 16 or 24 tracks on tape and 64 or 80 channel strips on console?

You needed all those tracks so the producer could put off every decision
'till later, (bouncing-down on 8 & 16 track as you went certainly sharpened
you up, and made the erasure of one side of a bounced 12 track crash guitar
chord pair, a very lonely experience - anyone ever drop-in on a Scully?)
Dropping-in little bits and pieces in between vocals, solos etc and then
getting every-one into the CR for the mix performance - you pan this then,
switch that now, unmute this, mute that... get that vibe into the mix. The
louder the monitors the longer the fade, some went on forever.
SSLs were more like an ironing board - smooth it all out (except for the
nasty crunchy eq - or 80's sound as it's sometimes known). The client paid
for and owned what you did, after SSL when you put that big floppy disk in
with the 2inch they thought they owned how you did it too. those were the
days! It's much better now.

(If it's Neal Peart's kit and you put every mic on a track I don't think 80
would be enough.)

"Richard Smol" <richard.smol@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1189151634.916865.7390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 2, 2:50 am, raphael...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi all.

For me 16 or 24 tracks on tape is enough, what kind of music does
really need
48 tracks??? And I am not talking just about today, since in 80's we
got the PCM-3348 and double 2" 24-tracks... And why huge consoles with
64, 80 or even more channel strips? I cannot imagine some music that
need so much tape tracks and channel strips...

I usually need far less tracks myself as well. It all depends on your
needs and wishes.I can imagine that you can fill up huge loads of
tracks easily when you use a seperate track for every part of a drum
kit, for instance.

RS



.

Relevant Pages
Loading