Talk:Multitrack recording

message: This article is a long way from being perfect, but one I thought thing it did have going for it was a pretty good structure - first an overview which tells you what multitracking is, then a history of it's development up to and including the advent of affordable home units, a note about the manufacturers of those units, a great contribution from 193.251.135.124 on the use of personal computers for multitracking, a note on the manufacturers of the software, and an endpiece - it works for me.
So, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the intended purpose of the 17:37, 7 October 2005 edit.... for one thing, putting the providers of the PC software before the discussion of PCs seems to me to be getting it all backwards, and altogether deleting the section about multitrack recorder providers in an article about multitrack recording makes no sense whatsoever, as far as I can see. If there's any kind of reasoning behind this, I'd love to hear it. Meanwhile, I'm reverting. Sorry. :) TheMadBaron 18:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Er - Why?

message: Hi,
I'm glad you like the Using a personal computer as a multitrack recording device section. Thanks!
The reason for my edit is that the paragraph you are referring to:
 Some of the leading providers of multitracking software for a personal computer....
is repeated twice in the article. 
If you read the History section's last paragraph you will see it there. Then if you read the Using a personal computer as a multitrack recording device section, you will see it there as well with a slight addition.
I deleted this paragraph from the Using a personal computer as a multitrack recording device section, since it had to be deleted from either one of the two sections. 
The reason I deleted it from the Using a personal computer as a multitrack recording device section is because the History section has a line about how multitracking software has been written for personal computers:
 At the same time, with the power of the personal computer increasing, multitracking software was written for it ... 
And this is where this paragraph was originally.
If you see the edit differences between my deletion and your addition, you will clearly see the paragraph appearing  twice.
If you think that the paragraph belongs in the Using a personal computer as a multitrack recording device section instead of the History section, that works for me too!
Hope you will find my explanation adequate.
193.251.135.124 01:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My explanation

message: I have just realized that you were right and I was wrong. I think I must have gotten confused because I deleted the multitrackers paragraph thinking it was the multitracking software paragraph. Thanks for your correction!
193.251.135.124 02:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, it all makes sense! No problem, and thanks for the explanation. TheMadBaron 12:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My bad!

message: Is it true that classical recordings tend not to be recorded in multitrack before mixing down?
::I'd be very surprised if most classical music producers didn't use digital multitracking. They'd be unlikely to record each individual instrument to a seperate track, but recording at least the individual orchestra sections seperately (though simultaneously) on to several tracks would seem to be the obvious way to go about it, and if anyone wishes to dispute this, I'd like to see their sources.
::Having said that, recording practises do vary tremendously, and it was still the case in the days immediately before the advent of Compact Disc that classical recordings would sometimes be made without the use of multitracking.
::While the average vinyl rock album was less than 45 minutes long, classical music albums could extend to over 30 minutes per side; generally, a noticable increase in hiss is caused if a side exceeds approximately 22 minutes of music. In order to eliminate the possibility of additional tape hiss spoiling listeners enjoyment during the quiter passages (not often an issue with rock music), until the advent of affordable (by record company standards) digital recording, classical albums were sometimes recorded "direct to disc" (there's no article by that name, but there probably should be); rather than tape the performance at all, they'd literally cut the master disc from which the (several intermediate stages occur - mothers and stampers) vinyl LP would be pressed while the orchestra played. The process was time consuming and therefore costly, since the mastering process was something of an art - not only did a mistake by the orchestra mean a spoiled master, but a mistake by the cutting engineer meant the orchestra had to start over from the beginning. The finished products were more aimed at hardcore audiophiles, and often more expensive than albums recorded first to tape.
:: By the late 1970's, direct to disc recordings were becoming rare; the really fussy classical producers could use the early digital recording equipment (albeit stereo rather than  multitrack). Even then, there were issues with digital recording - there was audible distortion, clearly  demonstrated by running a signal through an analog to digital converter, running the result through a digital to analog converter, and subtracting that result from the source.
::These days, digital recording has improved tremendously, and since most classical music's going to end up on CD anyway, there's not much reason not to digitally multitrack it.
::Of course, multitracking an orchestra would require a big mixing desk....
::"Audiophiles believe that this complex signal chain degrades the quality of the signal and lessens the spontaneity and integrity of the musical performance....
::....Techniques applied by recording engineers who are audiophiles include the use of exotic high-end microphones, the use of a smaller rather than greater number of microphones, tube-driven rather than solid-state electronics, and the minimum amount of processing in the production chain." 
::So, there are probably still some snobs recording orchestras through a single microphone directly onto gramophone record in the misguided belief that this somehow produces better results than CDs recorded with state of the art digital multitracking equipment. Bloody Luddites. TheMadBaron 23:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical music is rarely recorded with each section mic'd separately, as described by the writer of the first paragraphs of this section (who apparently is not in the business of classical recording). One stereo pair of microphones is a very popular way to do it; stereo with no further mixing. Often, other mics are used; a spot mic for a specific soloist (especially a singer), one or more additional stereo pairs closer or farther from the orchestra, or rather than a pair, a triple or quintuple set of mics. But individual section mics are uncommon. Blending a small amount of a distant pair with the sound from the main pair is not very similar, conceptually, to modern multitracking as used in popular music, although it's very similar technically. All the pro/anti-digital and pro/anti-analogue diatribes and name-calling are irrelevant. Real high-quality classical recordings are very frequently made with only two microphones, either to analogue tape or a digital medium. It would appear that the writers of the article and many of the comments are simply unfamiliar with classical music and how it is recorded in the 21st century. 4.154.226.171 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concert music 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Multitrack recording. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515204511/http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/mag/p0.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/mag/p0.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100312213800/http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/recording/notes.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070424201110/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/derbingle.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/derbingle.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Does anyone else read falsities in this article? Norcalangela (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia is made of contributions by a vast number of editors, just like you. If you see a problem, please fix it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information 

message: "Before all tracks are filled, any number of existing tracks can be "bounced" into one or two tracks, and the original tracks erased, making more room for more tracks to be reused for fresh recording. In 1963, the Beatles were using twin track for Please Please Me. The Beatles' producer George Martin used this technique extensively to achieve multiple-track results, while still being limited to using only multiple four-track machines, until an eight-track machine became available during the recording of the Beatles' White Album."
If this is a claim that the Beatles on Please Please Me were using twin-track tape in such a way as to 'bounce' material from one track to another, leaving one track always free for recording, then the Please Please Me article seems to support the idea. But the source used there (Lewisohn) is not the one cited here—does George Martin actually make the assertion in All You Need is Ears? Either way, the paragraph could use some rewriting, too. Harfarhs (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic pasage 

message: Hey Bubba73, I saw you updated the short description on this page. Do you have thoughts about changing it to read “Simultaneously recording multiple independent audio tracks”? I think it’s important that we highlight the simultaneity while also noting that each track is discrete Idontknowwhatshappening (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The tracks are generally not all recorded simultaneously (in fact very rare for the last 55 years).  The point of multi-track recording is that you can record some of the tracks and later record more tracks, synchronized to the preceding tracks.  However, it is hard to think of a short description that conveys all of that.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description suggestion