Simultaneous multi-tracking

This is a question I've had for a while and just never asked.
I see from your posts that many of you record many tracks simultaneously.
Sometimes 2 or 3, and sometimes up to 16.
My question is, assuming you had the hardware to pull that off, wouldn't you also need isolation boothes for ever singer/instrumentalist ?
It seems to me that there would be so much microphone "bleed-over" that it would defeat the purpose of multi-tracking, and you might as well just put everyone into a mixer and take the main outs into Sonar.
Next question do all of you who record multiple tracks simultaneously, have a studio with several isolation boothes?

Personaly, I don't see how I could record more than one track at a time without an isolation booth.
Am I wrong?

airplane

decent directional mics on the drums, and even a good 'ole shure 57 on the amps/vox would limit bleeding tremdously.

while a condenser 12 inches away from an acoustic in a small room with other musicians is certainly useless in terms of isolation, but a good setup with decent mics/equipment can do wonders. (essepecialy if the "engineer" knows their equipment well)

peace

People do this all the time. It's really not that big a deal if you do it right. Ever hear a "live" album? Some of them sound awesome, and they were recorded with a far worse acoustical situation than you would have in a recording studio.

Cheers.

ORIGINAL: OffAnAirplane

It seems like if you're playing a full band (i.e. Drums, Bass, Lead Gtr., Rhythm Gtr, and a couple of vox, that first of all the drums would be on every track. Second, the guitar would be on every track, and the bass too. The vox would probably be the only thing not loud enough to bleed over onto the other tracks. This doesn't make for a muddy mix?

It's not as bad as you would think if you get the song in the same take. The only big problems start when you have to do re-takes. Say for example you go back and redo the guitar but you can still hear a bit of the old one in the other tracks... not good. Can you say practice ? If the band can play the song without %$@#!*^ up the mix will be fine. If there are parts you can't get like the vocal or lead break leave them out and do them later as an overdub.

58's work fine for guitar amps in a pinch, although 57's probably sound better straight-up. You might need a little EQ'ing with the 58, but it'll still sound great.

I've played a couple gigs where the house soundmen used 58's on the amps, and it sounded great.

before the advent of mulitrack recording, recording "live" was the only way to do it, and some of the best recordings ever made were done this way. Probably 1/3 of all commercial rock albums (like, ones with an actual band playing actual instruments) are still recorded this way, at least in part, and probably 90% of all jazz and blues records are.

A good band has an energy and a dynamic when they are playing together that they do not have when playing to a click in a headphone.

The issues involved in "live" recording and controlling and using bleed and figuring out miking setups could fill a book. But for many producers, the work required to get decent isolation and phase relationships is much less than the work required to "fake" the energy, soul, and excitement of a real band playing real instruments in a real room.

The big name groups that release crappy live albums are almost certainly crappy live bands (and there are a lot of "big name" ones out there).

Cheers.

I wondered about that. I mean there can't be that many hobbyists that have a recording studio built into their house.
I guess you would probably just record the band without the vox first (or maybe just have the lead vocalist singing quietly in the back ground so the band will know where they are at in the song). Also leave out any complicated guitar solos that will take more than one try. Then record the band. If they mess up then start over. Once they play the song completely without messing up. Then go back and record the solos, then the vox.

First off, Frank's advice regarding the problems encountered by re-tracking is dead on.
But, this can be done, and you don't need to be partial owner of Abbey Road Studios to do it either.
Consider that your guitar amp mics are probably going to be directional cardioid pattern dynamics (57's, 58's, choose your poison..) and that the bass is most likely running direct (DI), if you have these mics as close to the source as possible, any bleed you get will most likely be hidden in thie mix...but... Frank's absolutely correct in that your problems will occur if and when you have to re-track certain parts... but.. if the players are tight enough, it can be done. Consider having the lead vocalist in the control room with you, or, at the very least, singing strictly a "cue track" that won't be a keeper and will be strictly for the purposes of guiding the other players as they track the instrumental backing, knowing full well yo'll probably have to re track it to get a keeper anyway.

I used to record live all the time, and actually, in most cases, preferred it when working with a band. The feel is different, it's mostly more relaxed and not as "Overdubbed" sounding, and there is a certain live "vibe" to recording an ensemble than there is with "track at a time" methods. It's also less time consuming.
One of the tricks is to get the sound right "out of the box". Try to get as close to the sound as possible; do a sound check or an "unslated take" (for those of us old enough to recall this term...how did my pal Rolo put it? Old Dogs?...LOL) that will give you time without pressure to move things around, fix small problems or inconsistencies, etc...

Just a thought..

D.

I think the questions have been answered but I'd like to add my voice to the chorus.

Microphone bleed-through (or bleed-over or whatever you want to call it) should never be feared. As already stated, unless each player is in a separate room, there will always be a certain amount of bleed from the instruments into the other mics. And again, as already stated, this can be effectively controlled by careful mic placement, baffling, gating, EQ'ing, etc. There are a lot of creative techniques for controlling bleed.

One of the best known producers in the world, Phil Spector, almost made microphone bleed-through into a creative statement that became his signature sound (the wall-of-sound). This was achieved by putting all the players (and singers) together in a relatively small room, throw up a few good mics, position them properly, and let the band rip. It was the sound of all of them together in the same room that created this unique sound (well, it was unique at the time).

In my experience, bleed-through has to be managed properly for it to not become a problem. Here's a good example: an acoustic guitarist/singer wants to play to a click track. Depending on how you mis-manage this, the sound of the click will come through the headphones and into the vocal mic and ultimately onto the vocal track. Hard to get rid of believe me. I try to baffle things as much as possible to reduce the bleed to levels that aren't a problem when it comes to mixing and editing. A little effort goes a long way. Creative mic placement and mic choices help a lot too. The key is to understand what is going to be happening in the room at any given time, then plan accordingly. There is always a solution for everything.

I know what you mean about the Dead's touring system. Pretty amazing huh? Made Kiss look like amateurs

I can't confirm or deny who came up with the term "wall of sound" but I always heard it attributed to Phil Spector's production technique on those old 60's hits of his.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_sound

Just out of interest (I am something of a newbie), roughly how many tracks could I expect to record at once with sonar, 1 gig of ram, toshiba satellite a50 laptop, pentium 1.5ghz processor..using a presonus firepod.
I'd like to record band demos, so 8 tracks of simultaneous audio recording would be ideal. Is this a realistic expectation, given my hardware?
Cheers

Sonar isn't going to be a quotient in the # of tracks at once. What might present a problem is your processor speed, but I would default to other cats like Yep, Rolo or JohnDale for more computer based questions. What does matter is the number of inputs you have on your audio interface. For example, if you only have 4 inputs, then of course you can only record 4 tracks at a time.
If your presonus (a unit I must say I know nothing about) allows you 8 inputs, then you can record 8 tracks at once (or at least you should be able to unless the interface has it's own limitation in that parameter).

I would think you could pull this off based on your description, again, as long as your audio interface has the capability.
Although, you might want to page some of the guys I mentioned above and get their input when it comes to memory, processor , etc. They're more knowledgeable than I in this area.

D.

ORIGINAL: DonnyAir

Personaly, I don't see how I could record more than one track at a time without an isolation booth.
Am I wrong?

I did it every day for 20 years. It's a very common method of recording, and to be honest, I preferred to record this way whenever possible.
Especially in the scenario of a "band", there are a lot of little nuances that get missed if you are striclty doing "track at a time" overdubbing... things like groove and feel, those little "push-pulls" and spontaneous chops that just pop uip when an ensemble is tight.
And, no, you don't need 5 ISO booths to do it. You'd be surprised at how little bleed you'll actually get if you pay attention to mic'ing. Of course, if you really really listen hard, you might be able to detect drums on the guitar amp track, but in the end, it'll be so far down in the mix you'll never notice it.
You might want to consider an ISO setup for the vocalist if you feel you need to get a keeper vocal take at the same time, but most of the time, you should record a "cue" lead vocal for referencing by the other players while they are tracking, but it doesn't have to be a keeper. You can go back after you have your foundation tracks and overdub vox, as well as solos, etc..

just a thought..
D.

I have pretty limited experience in this area (or in any type of music production) so I just assumed you would need to isolate each player/singer. You answered my question and then some. Thanks for all the info. Whenever I can afford to get a descent A/D interface with at least 6 inputs, I'll try recording that way.
Do you have any you would recommend? I can't afford the best, but I don't want the cheapest either. I can probably afford to spend around $700 if necessary. I know a lot of people like that Presonus Firepod, but I owned a Firebox and I wasn't impressed. I believe a firepod is pretty much the same device but with more inputs.

ORIGINAL: southphilly
...I always thought the "wall-of-sound" was the nickname for the G. Dead's touring speaker set-up....

It probably was, but the name first occured in popular terminology in reference to Phil Spector's sound. Long before he was a wild-haired luatic on trial for waving guns around and accidentally killing people, he was a wild-haired lunatic who made some of the best records the world has ever heard.

Phil Spector was known for sometimes having three bass players and four guitar players and two pianos and so on, all playing at the same time in the same room. He was well-known for for running everything heavily "in the red," and for running everything through a reverb chamber, and for making a whole lot of musicians play the song over and over again until they were all playing in unison. And as krizrox said, bleed-through was a huge part of his sound.

Cheers.

ORIGINAL: One step inside

Just out of interest (I am something of a newbie), roughly how many tracks could I expect to record at once with sonar, 1 gig of ram, toshiba satellite a50 laptop, pentium 1.5ghz processor..using a presonus firepod.
I'd like to record band demos, so 8 tracks of simultaneous audio recording would be ideal. Is this a realistic expectation, given my hardware?
Cheers

I have a P4 2.5GHz desktop with 3/4G RAM, and an old Layla 20. I am able to track 9 simultaneous tracks (8 balanced plus SPDIF) without any problem. Come to think of it, I should be able to get 10 tracks...

Personally for recording a full band (ie drums,bass,2 guitars and vox +bv) I record the drums into 7 tracks and the bass DI'd into track 8. I also have a digital input so the guitars are recorded through preamp pedals onto this stareo track with the vocals sung quietly onto the ghost track as well. The only tracks that are kept for the final mix are the drums and bass. Once these are recorded I do a rough mix with the ghost track,drums and bass so the guitarist(s) can have a few days to play along with and get the feel. Then the guitars are recorded onto individual tracks with the drums,bass and a bit of the ghost track if needed. Then guitar solos then main vocals then backing vocals.
On the subject of multi track recording, you do not need a lot of computer power for the actual recording ( I used to record 9 tracks with an 800mHz Duron comp), its when you come to using plugins on many tracks that you need the processing power.