Lately I've been struggling with deciding whether or not it's really neccessary to track beats out to get top quality sound- i used to have an interface & laptop that made it mad easy to track my shit into reaper..i wouldn't track beats out completely-just the drums on one track,bass on another,and then the samples/chops on one more.Now my only option is to track things out with my br-900 8 track recorder,but its a lot more complicated,and i've STILL yet to be able to figure out the propper midi settings to do it anyway.

but,this led me to a thought- if i do my drum pattern(s) and bassline on another machine-then sample them to single pads on the 404,and lay my chops & samples over them in the 404's sequencer (which i've been doing lately anyway,since i get better swing on drums with my sampletrak)-- would this at all mimmick the sound quality and sepperation created when tracking things out? again,maybe a stupid question,idk,but i thought i'd see what some of yall think.It seems to me that this is basically the same process as tracking into software or whatever else-kinda like each pad on the sp can act as a sepperate track on a program or hardware recorder....maybe? Honestly though,i'm not sure how much of a difference tracking shit out makes in the first place if you got a good mix in-box...thought i'd ask what some of you think about that as well-- just the pro's of tracking out in general. Some feed would be appreciated, i still really don't feel like my overall sound is up to par with where it should be,but maybe thats my insecurities talking.thanks,peace

For me, the SP isn't for folks that like tracking out their stuff. Its a raw machine where its charm comes without the interrupted work flow that a multitracking program or device requires. The 404 is good for an effects unit after you have a track finished if that's your thing. The way you are doing stuff sounds like the hard way vs. just using available software out there. "Top quality sound" is kind of a tough term for me. I'd rather hear SP rawness (like Madlib or Fluent) vs. crisp clean modern 9th wonder beats. If you are looking to shop beats to those that require multitracking, I'd ditch hardware all together. Its just me, but most of the artists I dig these days two track all of their stuff themselves.

Whose sound are you going for?

i often make stuff w/ one shots or loops that i trigger under a sequenced beat. i actually like working that way. sort of similar.

the biggest dif for me btwn this and actually tracking out is panning...i find when i multitrack, i usually have to tweak pan and eq to really get sounds in their own pocket. can't do it easily on the 404.

@ admbmb- yea, i'm pretty much on the same page with what you're saying-- and personally i really don't like using software in any part of my beat making process.So i'll most likely always stick w/ hardware.Also- the reason i started to use my sampletrak to sample and sequence my drums is because of its incredible sound(for grimy drums) and its swing function...As far as my sound- i've always tried to stay at a middle ground between the more traditional sounds of your pete rocks,premieres ,9th wonders,alchemists, and the more lo fi/heavilly compressed work of your madlibs,dillas and kev browns...that being said, i'm pretty sure cats like lib and brown still track their stuff out in some way.So i just wanna be confident that my overall sound quality is at least competing with dudes like that. I'm really mainly wondering what some think of what i said
about having your drums or bass sampled on to one pad kinda mimicking the process of laying them out on a multi track..as opposed to playing each individual sound in the sequencer.Btw- when you say "two track"- do you just mean drums on one track,and everything else on another?

@ fauna-yea,the 404's lack of panning is the main reason i sample a lot of my shit in stereo-just to get that natural panning thats on a record-some swear by sampling in mono,some stereo- i do both depending on the beat and the records i'm using-but i always have at least a few stereo/panned elements that aren't just dead center...sometimes i also use the panning mfx & tremollo as well...

thanks for the feed

aD just to confusing you a little bit more, that's another point of view!
i'm coming from the "world of multitracks recorders" (let me pass this expression guys): analog (4 tracks) and after digital (4 and 8 tracks). after years (since 1998! yes, i'm an old guy) of multitracking on recorders i felt the need to do more than the same thing on software, just because recorders didn't evolved with my way of multitracking. in other words: i needed to have a "new step forward" in production/editing/recording. other reasons: when i saw the price of some analog recorders (yamaha and korg, basically the ones with 16 tracks+wide screen etc) wich could have done similar things that i searched for, i bought a -middle cheap- soundcard to my pc, wich sounds not bad at all.
saying this, i still have 4tracks analog and digital recorders.
when i used them, i recorded one track(or 2 to make variations) with drums and the other 2 with bass/melody/samples etc...
what ahs been said about sp are "good for one track at all process" is maybe true for sp202/303/404, but 505/606 are (more) ok for multitracking i think due to the fact that thay got 4 tracks and also because are less "live and direct" as the others.
hope i'm not confusing you too much! sorry

I like stereo as well, but I usually record the kicks and snares in mono. Lay those down over the samples (or worked out sample chops) and resample. I might preview how they will sit in the mix by putting the compressor over everything, but resample without compression if I still want to add more. Next, I would add high hats if need be or more samples (same deal with the preview). After I get the whole track worked out, then I will compress the whole thing to glue it together. Usually, uncompressed track sounds like poopie with loud drums, but the after effect is just how I wanted it. I usually construct at the beginning with this strategy in mind.

The main reason people track out to a daw is so you can eq, pan and add effects to each track. I can say for certain that all the big name beat makers you mentioned all track out their projects and give it to an engineer to master. For us budget beat makers it's prolly best to just 2 track it straight from the sampler. The main goal for us is to get our music heard and get feedback. Once you're signed onto a respectable lable with a decent budget then it'd be a different story. Another reason to track out is so when/if you have an mc on your track you can properly fit them into the mix with fades, pans and double ups.

" Another reason to track out is so when/if you have an mc on your track you can properly fit them into the mix with fades, pans and double ups"-

yea..exactly- the real main reason for producers tracking out beats was always so it would be easy to format an already completed beat for a specific song for an mc...imo when beat making became a more mainstream thing after the 90's,i think a lot of cats confused tracking out to be an absolute neccessity to get a "pro" sound..at the same time,after seeing so many of these same people talk about the importance of tracking out,it has always made me second guess whether or not i could be having my stuff sound better by doing it,idk....as far as using engineers thats obviously the case for cats like preem and pete rock,etc...as far as producers like kev brown and mad other respected indie artists-they've done classic projects completely DIY- so if u know what you're doing and not doing sparkly clean radio beats,it's not even neccesarry to go through an engineer.Brown is a perfect example- a lot of his earlier work was strictly mpc & a 4 track..including the vocals recorded in a bedroom..and these are classic joints-of course,most mpc's automatically seperate shit track by track.......so,lol,i guess i'm still on the fence. & actually,i had an engineer master the beats i did for my last album-but in the end i don't think he did anything that i couldn't have done myself, really.

Any input on what i said about putiing drum patterns & basslines on an individual pad- as far as whether or not its kinda the same thing sonically?Thanks...

Since sequencing is getting easier and easier to do these days, to me the real talent is in the engineering. Overall tone and character of your sound are what make you stand out. I almost think of mixing as an instrument in itself. I struggle with "tracking out" as a concept, because its like you are handing over that part of the art to someone else.

I pretty much agree with all the knowledge A-Bomb dropped!

Don't know if this is coming in a little, here's another 2 cents anyway.

Tracking out can become a pain (if you let that happen), but its worth it in the end. Other than mixing & making playing live easier (resampling your loops etc), plus if you want to re-do a beat its WAY quicker to use bits you like & add to them than do it all over again.

Also- tracking out & mixing/mastering are two separate things. Just because you track something out as drums-bass-chops doesn't mean you'll automatically get a beat as clean as Pete Rock's.

I see what you mean, but I kinda disagree with that. If you want to record everything at once (similar to how we use the SPs), then go for it. However its just as easy to record multiple tracks with the same device. How you record comes down to your own workflow (I hope that made sense).

I think that resampling your parts separate would be a good way to multitrack in the 404. The thing about tracking out, which I spent so much time trying to figure out and finally did, I enjoy the Eqing process and learning how to separate your frequencies so everything sit in a mix. I felt like I made so many beats in fruity loops before I even had money for hardware, and listening to em now, they sound muddy as shit. Just before I moved to San Fran I spent a night tracking out a beat I made on the mv, kick to a track, snare to a track, you know, the whole nine yards. Eq'd it and even did some side chain compression in cubase which was pretty fun. I think that it's all personal preference. But you get to a point where you feel like the next level would be the engineering side of things since it's all relative. It's pretty cool to record a kick drum separate and once it's in the computer you eq it and boost it at 60 hz so it sits low and cut everything over 100hz then make your bass sit lower than that. Fucking dumps like shit.
Anyone ever hear the madvillian album that "leaked into cyberspace". That actually happened and I just happened to download it by accident. Once I heard the mastering that was done to the tracks, it inspired me to figure that shit out. It's totally different album unmastered. Weird that they even recorded it so bland, some tracks you can hardly hear mf doom rhyming, gets lost in the beat. So there is something good about having the ability to make beats, then being able to take that beat to the next level by tweaking it and giving it the best possible character it can have. Tho I tend to like under processed beats myself. Been listening to this cat has-lo and blu, spitting on some nice raw beats that sound raw as shit but mixed well. Buts it's all po-ta-toes/pa-ta-das.

I think that resampling your parts separate would be a good way to multitrack in the 404. The thing about tracking out, which I spent so much time trying to figure out and finally did, I enjoy the Eqing process and learning how to separate your frequencies so everything sit in a mix. I felt like I made so many beats in fruity loops before I even had money for hardware, and listening to em now, they sound muddy as shit. Just before I moved to San Fran I spent a night tracking out a beat I made on the mv, kick to a track, snare to a track, you know, the whole nine yards. Eq'd it and even did some side chain compression in cubase which was pretty fun. I think that it's all personal preference. But you get to a point where you feel like the next level would be the engineering side of things since it's all relative. It's pretty cool to record a kick drum separate and once it's in the computer you eq it and boost it at 60 hz so it sits low and cut everything over 100hz then make your bass sit lower than that. Fucking dumps like shit.
Anyone ever hear the madvillian album that "leaked into cyberspace". That actually happened and I just happened to download it by accident. Once I heard the mastering that was done to the tracks, it inspired me to figure that shit out. It's totally different album unmastered. Weird that they even recorded it so bland, some tracks you can hardly hear mf doom rhyming, gets lost in the beat. So there is something good about having the ability to make beats, then being able to take that beat to the next level by tweaking it and giving it the best possible character it can have. Tho I tend to like under processed beats myself. Been listening to this cat has-lo and blu, spitting on some nice raw beats that sound raw as shit but mixed well. Buts it's all po-ta-toes/pa-ta-das.

I think "tracking out" has its lane and I do so with software regularly. My thing was that the SP workflow blows for doing this, unless you use the pattern sequencer. Since I use the "resample method" to make beats on the SP, tracking out is not an option. Since software sequencing forces you to work within a sequencing grid, there's a lot of rawness and feel you get out of the resample method that you just can't get out of software. If you are using the SP in such a way where you are working within a grid (pattern sequencer), then it would be way easier to just use software.

In summation, I dig "resample beats"...making em/listening to em. Even if the quality gets messed up sometimes, there's something about the mistakes and lofiness I am drawn to. I think you can also use a lot of your tracking out mixing skills in mind when you are crafting on a SP (cutting lows out of kicks ahead of time).

I agree, I think the majority of users here like that SP rawness/2-track straight out to tape sound. Its a limitation of course but when done right the lo fidelity of it really has character that you almost lose with multitracking - the phasing, over EQing, etc.

Of course, its "better' to track out separately so you have the EQ/pan/effect/redo capability, but mo' tracks mo' problems if you aren't careful.
I want my stuff to sound good but I want to be 80% musician / 20% mastering/mixer guy at most.

The last month or so i've been playing with my new MV88k , and even though I'm only using stereo out, its a world of difference.....every PAD has a filter/panning/effect level/pitch / reverse etc, so you can get (imo) a really good stacked sound out of the box. Then you have track level EQ/panning and so on.

I have it midi'd out to the Sp505/Sp555 and various other gear but at the end of the day, I think only 1 or 2 tracks on the set i'm working on used more than the MV...it is a little less hands on / fx tweak-y than the SPs but other than that its a different world. And you can still go as lo-fi and simple as you want, it doesn't have to sound hifi.

Side rant: Roland, no panning or basic pitching - guys, come on. I hate to invoke Korgs or Yamaha's name but the other guys had that figured out years ago.
Maybe on the next SP

TL;DR - If you like the SP but feel track/panning/EQ deprived try an MV.