Korg Forums

From time to time I've read on various forums that the 16-track sequencers that most workstations come with are not enough for recording music. People argue that a computer DAW with "endless" track possibilities is far better.

Fair enough--but for most instrumental songs, how many people actually use more than 16 tracks? I guess I really like to keep things simple--most of the time with my M3, I rarely use more than 10-12 tracks.

Opinions?

Hey,

I think this is a personal choice and also what you get used to. Using a keyboard as an 'all in one' is what a workstation is all about. Whether or not the sequencer is easy to use and has all the features that you need is another thing. Sharp would know about this as he has been using Korg workstation sequencers forever. I believe he has been working with a soft synth DAW lately too.

If you use a soft synth DAW like Logic or Sonar or Cubase, then you just have to make sure you have the computer and everything you need to support it.

My own personal opinion is that software DAW's are much much easier to use and much more flexible, but then that's all I've ever used and all I would ever consider using. I'm simply much more computer oriented than internal sequencer oriented.

I'm not sure it's a matter of how many tracks you record but I can see how that might be a consideration, along with simplicity of editing, and output considerations.

I don't think I'm that much help on this subject. All of my experience is in one direction and I'm very biased towards that. I think you should be able to get enough opinions on this forum to decide. If not, keep asking around town.

Good luck deciding !

Susan

Synthoid wrote:Fair enough--but for most instrumental songs, how many people actually use more than 16 tracks? I guess I really like to keep things simple--most of the time with my M3, I rarely use more than 10-12 tracks.

I think many people put samples that are different on their own individual channel(s). ... As far as even placing different drum samples in their own channels for processing, kick, snare, hats, cymbal, toms, percussion... that's six right there. It all mounts up. If you have processed vocals with backing vox then that's another whole bunch of channels.

I tend to layer, or double up timbres to play similar parts, so I usually have two bass channels (a sub, and a higher melodic bass such as an euro type bass or 303 or whatever), several differently EQd/processed pads/strings on different octaves (or on different keys within a chord) for movement, two kick drums on their own channels for complementary processing of each other. .... Then you can play around with aux sends and busses for processing stuff and bringing them back onto their own individual channels etc.. All builds up.

Timo wrote: If you have processed vocals with backing vox then that's another whole bunch of channels.

No vocals--instrumental songs only.

People put each layer on its own channel to offer the flexibility of EQing/processing them individually before bussing them together.

Synthoid wrote:

Timo wrote:If you have processed vocals with backing vox then that's another whole bunch of channels.

No vocals--instrumental songs only.

I read correctly, I meant it as a side word.

Drums often use more channels than vox do.

My average track usage would be in around 12 tracks, and on top of that I'd use the pattern mode quite heavily to assemble the blocks my song will be made out of. From there they will be dumped to the main tracks.

Regards
Sharp.