The draw to recording a single Stereo track over multitracking? Or vice versa?

The Lounge General Discussion
#1

Having flip flopped a few times between interface multitracking and capturing a single stereo track from a mixer I am once again drawn to change up my workflow. In this case I’m thinking of going back to the single stereo track and cutting back again on the computer’s involvement.

When I think about the pros and cons, it seems like multitracking has most of the pros, especially for editing purposes and, I suppose, transforming a sketch into something more refined. But I find that just the fact of having several individual tracks after I record leads me to spend more time post-mixing and mastering then I did playing the music in the first place. And, being a player at heart, the stereo track calls me back purely because of the limits. Play, record, move on. Sounds so refreshing.

Curious to hear others’ philosophy about this.

10 Likes
Which Elektronauts (or famous techno/electronic producers) don't use multitrack recording?
#2

I try to separate tracks whenever possible. Usually whatever sounds good on my headphones or monitors won’t sound good in my car or a different set of speakers. I try to separate at least the bass drum, as that can be the make or break element.

There’s a third way- the zoom recorder I have lets you record up to six tracks. I will use this method to capture the immediacy of performance and then import to DAW for further editing. Sometimes I do nothing to it, most of the time a little bit of EQ, some changes to level.

It’s up to you though! I know some folks get the rush from being DAWless, I feel accomplished when I make some quick noise and use that to finish a track, which for me often involves some extra work.

1 Like
#3

2-track out from my mixer to my Canon M6. Press record (on the camera), press play on the lead sequencer, wait, upload done.

This limits the complexity of what I can produce, but then I’m not a particularly skillful producer, so it’s probably for the better.

6 Likes
#4

I’ve started to record the stereo out of my mixer, out of being overwhelmed with complexity and wanting to have fun. I do my share of computer work, I mix tracks for people on the computer, precision work.

For my music making, I’m much more productive with my jamming setup, it’s pleasurable, and I train to get something good out of the stereo. Work in progress.

Me thinks that it’s a matter of practice. There are loads of electronic music that’s been done this way. The end result can’t be as surgical as some music we hear, I believe, so it’s a commitment, for me, to a certain esthetics but I’m very happy with that. For now :slight_smile:

6 Likes
#5

I think it depends where you are coming from. As a live instrument player (percussion), I am mainly interested in performance, playing with sounds, sequences, etc. I record jams and ideas from my mixer (L/R out), but more as a sort of diary or notebook. I work on a live set, but have no interest in publishing polished tracks. I believe this might be the opposite if one comes more from the music production/sampling/construction side.

5 Likes
#6

Whatever works best is best, I generally favour stereo recording. When I started out in the 80’s there was not much chance of multi-tracking electronic music digitally for nobodies like me, so getting everything right and recording the stereo outs from the mixer was the only way to do it. In the early 2000’s I dabbled in multitrack recording as it became affordable, but I fairly quickly realised that for me, in most cases it was not enjoyable and not worthwhile.

I think multitrack has a lot of creative uses, so when I specifically require something like that then I will use it, but most of the time capturing the vibe before I get bored yields better results than micro managing tiny details which most people won’t care about.

14 Likes
#7

I do both. I record all tracks individually and the master out of my mixer. Most times the jam is enough. But sometimes if I really like the jam I recorded, I mix it again. And do what I can to improve it.

But 2 track recording usually works for me. Especially since I just post private on SoundCloud. Hehe.

4 Likes
#8

I take the stereo out from my mixer into an interface and record into Audacity. It works for me. I have a license for Ableton Live 8, but I haven’t used it in years. I’ve been toying with the idea of using it more to add the aforementioned “tiny details”, but I haven’t convinced myself it’s worth the trouble. I can probably find a way to sneak it into the gear already in the mix, and if not, the tune probably doesn’t need it. Less is more and all.

I have found that focusing on the mix, getting a groove and capturing it has led to the best stuff I’ve created. In my opinion, at least.

5 Likes
#9

Which ever method gives me the best results is the best for me.
So that means mixing on my er… mixer. And recording a live stereo image directly from that. I use a field recorder for this. No computer.

I have one instance where I live multi track record into ableton. Thats when I record the stuff I do with a mate. He plays sax, I play synths. I did try the mixer method, it sounded crap.

3 Likes
#10

I use either stereo or MT depending on what I’m recording. If it’s something like the DT or DT+DN then stereo is fine as most of the tools I need are on the device. If I’m adding a drum machine with many outs, I’ll put some of them on different channels with their own effects. Or another synth on its own. I don’t exceed my Bluebox’s channel count though as that complicates things and I don’t have enough time for really complex mixing these days.

#11

I like recording stereo takes onto 4track cassette, hitting record until I’ve captured enough and just leaving the tape in there so it’s ready for the next day/recording. That way I don’t end up listening back until weeks or sometimes months later. It sounds silly but I love completely forgetting what my music sounded like that day, or forgetting that I made some recordings at all, until the random day that I decide to listen back to some tapes. It feels like going back and reading a dream journal or something.

12 Likes
#12

Interesting and inspiring!

#13

This is often how I’ve described my direction in music as well. And I think it ties in well to what @olives said here:

I feel this way as well and have kind of gone out of my way to record more music than I could ever keep track of….largely for the experience you describe.

2 Likes
#14

I view playing/experimenting, recording, and arranging as three different activities, and I like all three.

I try to capture separate tracks, but I also never make a whole performance of a song that could be recorded in stereo. The song is made from all the snippets I record as I play around. The Octatrack makes this easy, as I can record anything with a button press.

The one box that I ever recorded a stereo out from was the OP-Z, which has so many happy accidents when patterns change in its song mode, and not recording live would miss them.

I also EQ the hell out of individual tracks to give them sonic space in a mix, and that’s a job done right at the end of mixing, not when creating.

1 Like
#15

I recently made the same type of switch from DAW. I just go straight from stereo out of the mixer. I love it bc as an electronic musician I always did all my work hunched over the pads or the piano roll, watching colored bricks scroll across the screen; & the closest I could get to “performance” was little more than pressing :arrow_forward:. No connection to the moment, never “live”.
Now I just run a couple things into a mixer with a effects send, straight out to the Reloop TAPE. Just quick & dirty, no edits, overdubs, comps, passes, no cut/paste. Everything is so much better, more honest, always present, never stale or prepackaged. It comes through in the recording & it’s a good feeling all around.

6 Likes
#16

I compose, sound design, arrange and mix as much as possible on my machines.
But I always multitrack that into a DAW and finish everything there. If I only do a stereo-recording, I also do a solo-each-channel-run at the end of that, even if I only grab a few bars each.

The DAW part is mostly treacherous and tedious, full of false temptations and self-sabotage, but it’s necessary. In the end, the mixes are way better. The danger to be avoided is that you lose the vibe of the initial jam.

3 Likes
#17

Is it possible at all to drive an official mix purely with an analog mixer and connected gear and tools such as the OT? I am also concerned with that and the goal is to record the complete signal for mastering, but not every single track in order to mix it again in the DAW … Pedals like reverb can mix technically - the eventide space e.g. already has a great eq to eliminate depths. OT has a compressor and lfo s e.g. for sidechaining, if you want it and also e.q. for resonant tips. and filters with notch filters can eliminate annoying frequencies. so it should actually be super possible if you know how mixing works without having to mix everything again on the computer at the end. the master engineer processes the signal again …

Then there is the question of how to record properly. Nowadays, many people do everything over the computer and you get a strange look in the music business when you ask about an analog mixer.
So it is enough to simply take a conventional audio interface or wouldn’t good AD converters be an advantage here after all?

#18

We are on the same page here. This is the philosophy of music as an in the moment activity. One and done.
The polishing is a different thing, for a different purpose. Sometimes I feel the post production polishing is basically completely detached from the music itself.
Interesting.

5 Likes
#19

Advantages vs disadvantages. Both approaches have their own.
I’m quite a perfectionist if it’s comes to recordings and sound quality. I can really enjoy well balanced mixes and pristine sounding recordings. I can aim to achieve those by multitracking but with the chance to get lost in all possible routings, fx, automations and tiny tweaks on volume, eq an compression settings that are possible. I have to remind myself the less is more principal quit often working in a DAW. Sometimes i make a picture in my head to get a glimpse of how my studio would look like if i had all the used vst emulations as real hardware devices in my room, it makes me laugh and blessed at the same time. Don’t get me wrong, i love the possibilities we humans have acces to in 2021 just with a mouse and screen but no one on earth uses that much 19” units in a hardware environment.

Straight from a mixer into 2 channel: it captures the record exactly as i was hearing and feeling it in that moment. The gain staging using a hardware mixer feels so effortless compared to using a DAW. I feel i need a lot of those VST’s only to compensate the saturation and gain staiging that takes place naturally in a hardware mixer. Although little mistakes are easily made and undoable in a 2 track recording… well neither way of recordings hit my personal goal soundwise 100% so 2’track is my preferred choice lately. Imo a lot of tracks are overproduced to the point all soul of the music is tweaked out of the performance and that doesn’t happen in a 2 track very likely.

8 Likes
#20

From this thread: Introducing Analog Heat +FX - #1434 by circuitghost

@circuitghost Thought I’d reply here instead to avoid going too much off topic there :stuck_out_tongue:

I did a similar challenge with the OT, actually. I really, really like the OT’s filter and its overdrive. It’s up there with my favorite plugins and the Heat, IME. It helps that it’s exactly the flavor of saturation I like. The last few tracks I’ve uploaded to youtube used far fewer plugins than usual, thanks to the OT’s filter overdrive. In fact, on one of them I only used a limiter in post!

Recording everything in one stereo track really helps me keep moving forward.

6 Likes