Korgscrew
Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999 |
 |
Posted: July 26 2000, 20:21 |
 |
I made a point of actually checking up on this first...
The official definition of overdubbing is simply recording new tracks on a tape that already has tracks recorded on it.
1. All multitrack recorders intended for music recording are able to do overdubbing. There may be some multitracks intended for other purposes that are unable to do this (your chances of coming across one are probably very minimal).
2. The tracks are for many things. The main reason is so you can record many parts onto there, then be able to alter the mix of them, or add effects to individual instruments later. Sometimes tracks may be used for things like timecode - data that can be fed into other pieces of equipment which allows them to be synchronised perfectly (for example, so that words recorded on the tape stay in sync with a video picture).
Recording 4 tracks of the same thing would, like Ugo says, create a bigger sound. This is called double tracking, and is used quite often. When a part is played more than once by a musician, the slight tuning and timing differences make the part sound much bigger and fatter. It's the same as you get with an orchestra - the fact that there are more than one violin, cello, etc creates a big 'chorused' effect that sounds very different from the instruments on their own.
Recording tracks with different things on them gives the music a more complex sound.
The reason for recording things onto separate tracks is to keep control over it. If you record 4 musicians to 4 tracks and one of them makes a mistake, it's possible to go back and 'punch in' over that mistake (basically record that part again, hopefully getting it right...) without losing what the other 3 musicians have played. It would, however, be possible to record all 4 people to one track (or better, 2 tracks and have it in stereo), but it means mistakes are harder to correct like that, and the mix can't be altered after it has been recorded (any effects used after recording would also have to be applied to all the parts, rather than just one). Sometimes when people are pushed for tracks, doing a live recording or something, things like drums will be mixed to a stereo pair during recording, rather than recording the output of each drum mic on a separate track (which at its most basic would use 3 tracks and would more likely use somewhere around 8 depending on the size of drum kit). It is not uncommon to record an orchestra to 2 tracks (using a stereo pair of microphones hung somewhere in the hall or wherever they're playing).
Of course, the other advantage of having tracks separate like they are on a multitrack recorder, is that it allows a musician (like Mike) to record many parts, but play all the instruments himself (or herself) - once one has been recorded, he can go back and overdub another. It would be possible to do this just by mixing the output of a tape recorder with something new (an instrument) and recording the result to another tape recorder, but with analogue recorders you would end up with a very low quality recording, as you'd be copying the tape many times.
3. I've never actually seen a 2 track portastudio...There are some that will only let you record to 2 tracks at once (but have 4 in total). Overdubbing on these would be no different to doing it on one that lets you record on all 4 at once, except that you wouldn't be able to overdub 3 things if you only had one track recorded at the beginning.
4. It depends on how the overdubs are being done, and how you're counting them...
By making overdubs at different points in the tape and counting each time you did that, you could count up 2300 overdubs eventually (although you might run out of tape before you've recorded that much...). That would be if you were overdubbing lots of tiny little separate instrument parts. If you were going to record mostly parts that last the whole length of the tape (or piece) then doing 2300 overdubs would involve a lot of bouncing down (Ugo talked about this), which would sound terrible after a few thousand times (in fact, most of the parts would disappear into a big mush and the tape would wear out - even the Tubular Bells master tape started to wear thin). Really, it's not particularly easy to do 2300 overdubs on anything...it would just involve so much work.
5. Like I said before, 2300 overdubs done by bouncing down tracks would sound awful.
With the remastered tubular bells, though...
Remastering is a slightly confusing term. Mastering, as such, refers to when they make the master for duplication - that's taking the stereo mix tape that was done in the studio, then putting that through various processors (or nowadays sometimes a computer) so that the levels are all ok for duplication, so that it sounds good (obviously partly done in the mixing, but 'tonal balance' is altered in mastering as well, often), as well as getting it into the right format for reproduction on CD, etc. Remastering is just taking the old studio mix (which has still been played off the old multitrack recorder) and putting it through modern processes - higher quality equalisers, compressors, etc, and digital editing, usually also removing clicks and noise with software plugins and things. Your tape with 2300 overdubs could, if recorded in the same way as Tubular Bells, sound like the remastered Tubular Bells. It could of course, sound better...
6. I think there are uses for multitracks that can't overdub, but I can't think of quite what they are right now....
I'll leave it at that for now...your head is probably hurting 
|
, Korgscrew and CarstenKuss 
] ...
because it records in an entirely different way (not with tracks).