Presets

[LPF83]

So you’re using presets on your Prophet, albeit by a great sound designer and musician, how about that?

A lot of the best musicians of the golden days of synth music used to pay someone else to create patches as raw material for their tracks, so yeah sometimes I do want to outsource that so I can focus on creating music and not gear tinkering.
I don't think I've ever used a preset in its original form, on my P10... they get heavily tweaked along the way, but sometimes do as a jumping off point.  My interest in external sound libraries is partially because I like to deconstruct patches others have made, in order to learn the elements that comprise them and introduce someone else's ears into my own sound design process.  Other times I just want a wide variety of timbres to select from quickly.

But yeah I think it's very worthwhile to load sounds others have created.  We all tend to form our own patterns and preferences when creating sounds or music.  Sometimes that's good in the sense that we develop a unique sound, but other times it's good to introduce a new perspective.

I hope it's okay that I'm copying part of a thread out of one of the Rev4 threads, because I feel this is a different subject that has nothing to do with a specific synth (it was originally from the Rev4 pros and cons thread).  I didn't want to derail that subject.

I thought about this specific discussion of another thread when I watched this video.  This is an interesting topic to me because I'm very prone to get deep in the weeds on sound design and gear tweaking, when more and more I feel really should be focusing on musicianship and song writing.  I love nothing more than starting patches from scratch, but since music is an evening and weekends hobby for me, if I get too caught up in sound design and sampling I end up never making music. 

Anyway here is the video that inspired the "Presets" thread, Jan Hammer and Herbie Hancock back in the day.

https://youtu.be/gsfT_5OQJSI?t=638

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm wary of the approach expressed in that video, which I find depressing.  It's very much "the thing" these days to sell and buy banks of synthesizer patches.  This totally mystifies me.  I never use factory presets.  I would never buy other synthesist's sounds.  One of the primary reasons I chose synthesizer over all other instruments was to allow for the precise designing of sounds.  This is the essence of the choice and practice.

My approach is to design perhaps 100 sounds per instrument over several years, and to regularly refine and adapt those sounds to my musical needs.  That way, the patches are always original and perfectly tailored to my needs, and I spend nearly all my time on music, rather than on sound design.  I use those sounds over and over again and work on new sounds only occasionally.

The solution, then, is to constantly use a moderate number of well-crafted original patches that have been perfectly adapted to your own needs.  It seems self-defeating and ruinous to one's musical inspiration to have to invent or borrow a new sound every time one intends to produce a new piece.

[LPF83]

I'm wary of the approach expressed in that video, which I find depressing.  It's very much "the thing" these days to sell and buy banks of synthesizer patches.  This totally mystifies me.  I never use factory presets.  I would never buy other synthesist's sounds.  One of the primary reasons I chose synthesizer over all other instruments was to allow for the precise designing of sounds.  This is the essence of the choice and practice.

My approach is to design perhaps 100 sounds per instrument over several years, and to regularly refine and adapt those sounds to my musical needs.  That way, the patches are always original and perfectly tailored to my needs, and I spend nearly all my time on music, rather than on sound design.  I use those sounds over and over again and work on new sounds only occasionally.

The solution, then, is to constantly use a moderate number of well-crafted original patches that have been perfectly adapted to your own needs.  It seems self-defeating and ruinous to one's musical inspiration to have to invent or borrow a new sound every time one intends to produce a new piece.

I think what inspires a person musically, whatever that is, should always be their priority.  It's just that what brings inspiration varies from person to person (if it were any other way, making music would be a manufacturing process rather than an art).

I never actually use a preset as-is.  Any time I start with a preset instead of an init patch, it is always a jumping-off point for another sound, which ends up sounding nothing like the preset (and would be indistinguishable in it's unique sonic profile from a patch made from scratch once I'm done with it).  But there is much more to the sound of a track than the patch itself, there is the additional signal processing like EQ and FX, which again adds more infinite variation. 

And even then, there is an old saying that remains as true as it ever was when it comes to making music -- "the sounds themselves matter far less than what you do with those sounds".

The point I think Jan Hammer and Herbie Hancock were making is that to produce music professionally (especially at their level), feeling compelled to create sounds from scratch every time on every synth would put one out of business very quickly.  These were not guys who made music only when they were inspired -- a professional musician does not have that luxury -- they have to make music even when they are not necessarily inspired, and to someone else's specification.

And as they mentioned, the complexity of sound design becomes a bigger problem as the number of synths you own and use (each with different programming techniques) grows.  Variety and uniqueness to the final product can be achieved a number of ways, and the simple act of combining different synths that use different synthesis techniques was a fundamental staple of much of the music back in the day that actually got listened to.  If working with only two or three synths, it becomes easier to know each one inside and out and then sound design variation on each one probably becomes more important. 

This problem of "too many options" is one of the reasons that sound design on my Rev4 is so rewarding.  There are seemingly few parameters, yet seemingly endless possibilities.  But even those possibilities can at times can distract from the actual act of song writing, and by that I mean sitting down with a specific idea and goal in mind and working to craft it.

I just like having a nice working set of raw materials to flip through and start with.  It always turns into something unrecognizable from the preset anyway.

[Manbird]

And... both Herbie and Jan were, as far as I can tell, talking about the DX-7 as they described using patches programmed by others. That's not a synth for casual tweaking. The Prophet 5, within seconds of an Init twiddle , can yield gorgeous results.

I've never been a presets type, but... the Prologue is the one synth I own where I'm always pleased/impressed as I scroll through the factory patches.

[hoodoo_ray]

A piano has one preset, a clarinet has one preset, a guitar has one preset, a tambourine has one preset, a violin has one preset.. that’s fine. Here’s a synth with 500 presets - don’t use the presets!?!

I’ve always found that ridiculous. So so many tunes which I am sure everyone on this site will love at least some of use synth presets. And the idea that using a preset is wrong but then you slightly tweak two parameters to make it ‘yours’ and therefore suddenly becomes ok is ridiculous to me also.

A synth is a musical instrument capable of so many sounds. Use it in whatever way you deem fit to make the music you want to - and that includes using the presets!

[LPF83]

And... both Herbie and Jan were, as far as I can tell, talking about the DX-7 as they described using patches programmed by others. That's not a synth for casual tweaking. The Prophet 5, within seconds of an Init twiddle , can yield gorgeous results.

I've never been a presets type, but... the Prologue is the one synth I own where I'm always pleased/impressed as I scroll through the factory patches.

The DX7 came to mind immediately as I watched that as well.  Around the same time this video was produced, I purchased the first synth I ever owned.... the Kawai K5.  Programming that synth and taking an init patch to something usable (especially from the front panel) made the DX7 look like child's play.  Additive synthesis came with the promise of harmonic flexibility unavailable in any other synth, at the cost of immediacy, so that was a somewhat rude introduction to synth programming for me.  I loved every minute of it but it definitely had me spending WAY too much time on sound design when the end goal was to create music.  Every synth I ever owned after that one felt like cake to program.

Then there were other synths emerging around that time from Roland, Korg etc. that were growing in complexity, as everyone was striving to have the next DX7 sensation.

I think guys like Jan Hammer who were doing a lot of film/TV scoring had an increased reliance on large preset libraries, because it would have been detrimental to project timelines to be in a position to say, need a saxophone sound and then sit down to try to create a realistic sounding sax on a Prophet5.

[LPF83]

A piano has one preset, a clarinet has one preset, a guitar has one preset, a tambourine has one preset, a violin has one preset.. that’s fine. Here’s a synth with 500 presets - don’t use the presets!?!

I’ve always found that ridiculous. So so many tunes which I am sure everyone on this site will love at least some of use synth presets. And the idea that using a preset is wrong but then you slightly tweak two parameters to make it ‘yours’ and therefore suddenly becomes ok is ridiculous to me also.

A synth is a musical instrument capable of so many sounds. Use it in whatever way you deem fit to make the music you want to - and that includes using the presets!

I think much of the stigma around presets exists around the idea that there is no honor in sounding like someone else.  However, it seems a misplaced idea when we consider that much of the music that gets created hinges upon some basic categories of sounds:  synth pads, strings, brass, bass, etc.    We often create sounds that follow these basic categories because the human ear and brain already associate them with songs they've heard before.  That partial familiarity is what makes them sound good to us.   If making only unique sounds was a requirement to make worthwhile music that appeals to a listener, then using existing categories of sounds would be off limits, and we would be forced to bang pots and pans together and tune and process the samples in order to come up with musically useful sounds.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I’ve always found that ridiculous. So so many tunes which I am sure everyone on this site will love at least some of use synth presets. And the idea that using a preset is wrong but then you slightly tweak two parameters to make it ‘yours’ and therefore suddenly becomes ok is ridiculous to me also.

Yikes!  Who said using presets was "wrong"?  Please don't put words in my mouth.  I was simply passing on my solution to an obvious problem - the tension between designing sounds and producing music.  My solution has been to design a relatively moderate number of sounds and to use them over and over.  That way, most of the time at the instrument is devoted to actually making music.

I run through all the factory presets on my instruments, and many times over again.  I'm not an anti-preset-ite!  My point is that I've never found presets that suited my needs.  Nor do I ever tweak them.  I simply start from scratch, always.  This is not a matter of pride, as if I want to be able to brag that I make all my own sounds.  Who here would care?  It's a matter of necessity that I use only my own patches. 

As for the buying of banks of programs, I do find that surprising and ironic, considering the nature of the instrument.   And I think it results in missed opportunities to develop one's own skill in sound design.  But this has nothing to do with right and wrong. 

I've listened to many brass and string factory presets on my instruments, and a few sawtooth and PWM solo patches.  Those are the sounds I use most often.  But the presets always fall far short to my ears.  So, what's the obvious solution?  I just do what I intended to do when I first decided to get into synthesis, which is to start from scratch and create sounds that fit the musical idea at hand.  And this method is also very instructive, in that you're not relying on someone else's ability, but are relying on and developing your own.  The only aid you need in this approach is the owner's manual, which is invaluable.

[hoodoo_ray]

Well I wasn’t targeting that at you specifically. Point I am making is it doesn’t matter one jot if you make your own patches, tweak presets, or use presets as they are, or anything in between. Like you say, who would care?

But looking back you did say:

“I'm wary of the approach expressed in that video, which I find depressing.  It's very much "the thing" these days to sell and buy banks of synthesizer patches.  This totally mystifies me.  I never use factory presets.  I would never buy other synthesist's sounds.  One of the primary reasons I chose synthesizer over all other instruments was to allow for the precise designing of sounds.  This is the essence of the choice and practice.”

So I guess you’re just talking about your own view there. Which is fair enough. It depresses and mystifies you - fine, do not buy preset packs etc. There you go, no problem! I’m not going to tell you what to do and not to do when it comes to how you make your music or make use of your synths. Just like I wouldn’t tell Jan Hammer or Herbie Hancock

[LPF83]

As for the buying of banks of programs, I do find that surprising and ironic, considering the nature of the instrument.   And I think it results in missed opportunities to develop one's own skill in sound design.  But this has nothing to do with right and wrong. 

What may be a missed opportunity for some is a discovered opportunity for others.  Because I'm a software engineer by profession, reverse engineering things to understand how they work has always been a big part of what I do.  There is a wealth of knowledge at looking at someone else's source code, understanding why they made the decisions they've made, and learning something from it (even if what you learn is that your own way of doing things is better).

So, I do the same thing with synth patches.  I like to pull apart sounds that others make and understand what makes them sound the way they do (usually with the help of a software editor, since it is often difficult to visualize each parameter setting without it).  Also, with editors like the Soundtower or Codeknobs editors for example, you can morph/mutate one patch with another, generate lots of mutations and choose the best-of.  For example, if I pick a favorite pad sound from the ones I created, and cross-breed it with a great sounding pad from another sound designer's library, I can let the computer create lots of variations, audition them quickly and select the best-of.  It's good for quickly making unique, happy accidents (but very precisely guided ones) which, even though they might not be the final end product, provide tons of raw materials for tweaking and making unique sounds out of.

Then, there are certain sound banks which do an incredible job of recreating famous patches.  These are particularly interesting to study and can provide a wealth of sound design knowledge by doing so.

Introducing sounds from outside source also helps fend off a certain amount of "inbred syndrome" (something referred to in the software development world as N.I.H or Not Invented Here syndrome ).  Where all of the sounds our instruments make are limited to the scope of what a single set of ears (ours) believes sounds good.  If producing music with the intention of others hearing it, that last sentence is particularly important.  This is one of the reasons many successful artists refuse to mix their own music, but rather send it off to a mix engineer -- the simple value of another set of ears on the final output.

One other reason I occasionally buy sound banks is more of just a community support kind of thing, where I like what the person is doing on YT or whatever, like what I hear in the sounds, and more or less just want to help them out.

But I still never use them as-is.  By the time I've recorded them, they are undistinguishable from the original, every single time.  I'm not even sure I can fully explain why that is, except that it is part of my default workflow.

Anyway... I guess it's a good time to point out that I had no idea this subject would be as controversial as it is when I posted it

[Sacred Synthesis]

As for the buying of banks of programs, I do find that surprising and ironic, considering the nature of the instrument.   And I think it results in missed opportunities to develop one's own skill in sound design.  But this has nothing to do with right and wrong. 

What may be a missed opportunity for some is a discovered opportunity for others.  Because I'm a software engineer by profession, reverse engineering things to understand how they work has always been a big part of what I do.  There is a wealth of knowledge at looking at someone else's source code, understanding why they made the decisions they've made, and learning something from it (even if what you learn is that your own way of doing things is better).

I agree with that.  As I said, I always run through my instruments' factory programs.  It may be just for kicks, or it may be to study them.  But in the end, I move on.

As an aside...My first programmable synthesizer was a brand new Roland Juno 60 (Yup, I've been around a while.).  One of the main reasons I chose it was for its programmability.  After playing a Minimoog, MS-20, CAT, Axxe, and Odyssey for years, being able to hit a button and have a completely different sound was quite a luxury.  But over the years I've come to recognize a loss in that, and now I appreciate all-the-more the ability to program live - at least while recording.  In other words, I think there's a negative side to programmability.  If you don't agree or care for this, then that's fine; it's just my opinion.  But I think there's a certain art and skill involved in the prepared changing of sounds as you play, in adjusting parameters, effects, mixer levels, and so on.  And rather than only convenience, I'd like to have the skill.

Since I record live without overdubbing, every aspect is done during a performance.  I love the challenge of this.  It makes demands on you, and I like the development that comes from such demands.  I refer especially to using the ARP Odysseys.  If you plan and practice the changes as if they were part and parcel of the actual performance - which they are - then the piece becomes an elaborate exercise in synthesis.  It's similar to playing a pipe organ at church, where all at once you're reading keyboard and pedal parts, partly improvising to fill things out, singing a hymn text, and watching the liturgical action in a mirror to harmonize the whole affair.  It's an amazing experience, sort of like running a mile uphill with your mind.  Yeah, I realize I'm talking to myself now.

Anyway, I enjoy the challenges of synthesis.  As a result, I don't care for an excess of technological luxury.  Personal opinions and nothing more.

[LPF83]

As for the buying of banks of programs, I do find that surprising and ironic, considering the nature of the instrument.   And I think it results in missed opportunities to develop one's own skill in sound design.  But this has nothing to do with right and wrong. 

What may be a missed opportunity for some is a discovered opportunity for others.  Because I'm a software engineer by profession, reverse engineering things to understand how they work has always been a big part of what I do.  There is a wealth of knowledge at looking at someone else's source code, understanding why they made the decisions they've made, and learning something from it (even if what you learn is that your own way of doing things is better).

I agree with that.  As I said, I always run through my instruments' factory programs.  It may be just for kicks, or it may be to study them.  But in the end, I move on.

I find most factory presets on synths to be disappointing, but they do often help give some idea of the overall tone of the synth.  And every now and then there are some good "raw material" gems that I go back to as a jumping off point.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I find most factory presets on synths to be disappointing, but they do often help give some idea of the overall tone of the synth.  And every now and then there are some good "raw material" gems that I go back to as a jumping off point.

I find that to be their primary value - to demonstrate the capabilities of the synthesizer.  And for that, their definitely useful.

[LoboLives]

You know as of late I've really been into using factory presets and sort of embracing them. Not sure what brought this on but it got me thinking, a lot of my favorite synth sounds/drum machine sounds were factory presets.

So as of late I've browsed some of the factory samples in my S2400 (especially by Alex Ball), some of the factory presets in the Prophet X and Prophet 6 and more recently I've sat down and listened to the factory presets in the Tempest, specifically the folder "Roger's Beats". I've never even bothered when doing this after all this time with the Tempest-I've mostly just been using the stock drum machine samples and a few analog synth bass lines-but it's kind of eye opening to listen to newly programmed drum sounds/patterns by Roger Linn himself and see where his mind is after all these years. 

Obviously it's a case by case basis and depends entirely on the track and if the preset fits but I think a lot of it stems from the idea of these instruments having their own identity and signature sound. Sometimes you can't really get that when you are doing all the programming yourself. Essentially you have your routine of how you program a synth or attempt to get sound but with someone else's preset or sound pack, it brings something new to the table.

LPF83's comment

"Introducing sounds from outside source also helps fend off a certain amount of "inbred syndrome" (something referred to in the software development world as N.I.H or Not Invented Here syndrome ).  Where all of the sounds our instruments make are limited to the scope of what a single set of ears (ours) believes sounds good."

That sums it up perfectly. The worst thing that can happen to a musician is redundancy. My dad used to call it "Tonal Fatigue". A lot of people face that because they become so boxed in to what their formula is. That formula can be successful but at what point does it reach transparently uninspired. Some of my favorite Death Metal bands suffer from this and in general I just end up listening to their older material as opposed to being interested in their latest releases simply because they haven't changed their sound at all so it doesn't matter if I'm listening to something from 93 or 2023.

Film is the same way. For years people kept asking Ridley Scott to do another Alien film. So he finally did and it was sort of by-the-numbers, predictable and brought nothing new to the table.

It's all about balance.

[Soundquest]

I , as many do, think many presets are disappointing at first.  But that is not stemming from an arrogance, or discounting the factory programmers talent,  rather I think it just goes with a certain expectation sound you might have when you first fire up your new $2K+ synth.   As Lobo is mentioning though, going back a year or more later, some of presets will surprise you.  I was recently tapping thru the PEK factory presets that I long ignored.  They're so interesting.  But then again, hey, it is PEK.   

Tracking factory preset patches gets difficult after a while.  I use an excel sheet that has a tab for each instrument, with all the banks /slots listed.  Then I fill in a description for the presets that I like, with a prefix code, thereby leaving the not so good ones as open spaces for my own patches.  This way I can search for "piano" , or whatever, on all the instruments at once. 

With some of the more complex synths, discounting the presets would be a waste.   In an example, Hydrasynth has many great ones.   Some of those programmers are on a whole other level of ingenuity or at least much more familiar with the instrument than I am.   I wouldn't dream up half the modulations they come up with.  If nothing else, the presets are a good learning tool of possibilities.  Though my ultimate sound-quest is more steered to emulation.  Making a patch that actually sounds like a cymbal is one goal, and not that tacky drum machine sound.  I got pretty close on the Summit, importing real waveforms from a crash cymbal.  The harmonics after the initial crash ebb and flow in complex manner on a real cymbal, so I think that's the challenge.   

[LoboLives]

Though my ultimate sound-quest is more steered to emulation.  Making a patch that actually sounds like a cymbal is one goal, and not that tacky drum machine sound.  I got pretty close on the Summit, importing real waveforms from a crash cymbal.  The harmonics after the initial crash ebb and flow in complex manner on a real cymbal, so I think that's the challenge.

This got me thinking about something. There are so many electronic drum manufacturers that are constantly racing for better sampling and pad response time but none of them are looking into physical modelling or other forms of synthesis which (hearing the Nord Drum 3P) really come off far more organic sounding than some of the $5000 modules out there.

In many ways you are doing exactly what these machines were initially attempting to do, mimic other instruments. This is likely why your music comes off as incredibly organic sounding despite being synthesized...same with Sacred Synthesis’ work.

[LPF83]

There are so many electronic drum manufacturers that are constantly racing for better sampling and pad response time but none of them are looking into physical modelling or other forms of synthesis which (hearing the Nord Drum 3P) really come off far more organic sounding than some of the $5000 modules out there.

The Akai MPC does have Drumsynth, and Maschine has a similar solution... they're both quite good and versatile I think.  The functionality is out there but I think it tends to get tacked on to instruments of wider purpose; primarily because in and of itself, regardless of how good it is, a dedicated virtual analog drum-only hardware device might be difficult to sell among the sea of existing options. 

[LoboLives]

There are so many electronic drum manufacturers that are constantly racing for better sampling and pad response time but none of them are looking into physical modelling or other forms of synthesis which (hearing the Nord Drum 3P) really come off far more organic sounding than some of the $5000 modules out there.

The Akai MPC does have Drumsynth, and Maschine has a similar solution... they're both quite good and versatile I think.  The functionality is out there but I think it tends to get tacked on to instruments of wider purpose; primarily because in and of itself, regardless of how good it is, a dedicated virtual analog drum-only hardware device might be difficult to sell among the sea of existing options.

You know just before I read this I was talking with someone who does an electronic drum review channel and he said that he would much rather just hit a button and know what sound he’s getting rather than sculpt one from scratch. I think synthesis might be over the heads of many e drummers...patch memory or no patch memory.

[maxter]

I'm wary of the approach expressed in that video, which I find depressing.  It's very much "the thing" these days to sell and buy banks of synthesizer patches.  This totally mystifies me.  I never use factory presets.  I would never buy other synthesist's sounds.  One of the primary reasons I chose synthesizer over all other instruments was to allow for the precise designing of sounds.  This is the essence of the choice and practice.

My approach is to design perhaps 100 sounds per instrument over several years, and to regularly refine and adapt those sounds to my musical needs.  That way, the patches are always original and perfectly tailored to my needs, and I spend nearly all my time on music, rather than on sound design.  I use those sounds over and over again and work on new sounds only occasionally.

The solution, then, is to constantly use a moderate number of well-crafted original patches that have been perfectly adapted to your own needs.  It seems self-defeating and ruinous to one's musical inspiration to have to invent or borrow a new sound every time one intends to produce a new piece.

Just catching this thread, as the topic PRESETS really puts me off, as do presets as such. I agree wholly with Sacred here. I have purchased a couple banks for the Rev2, but never with the intention of actually using them, I just can't... But more if there's some unique sound designs to study and geek out on, learn some new approach, and perhaps a happy accident by stumbling into some other approach, area, sound design idea or sweet spot of my own. To get me into uncharted territory, so to speak, maybe discover or learn something useful. But that's it.

When I was more active, I mostly just tweaked on a few original presets (ending up with dozens of variations on each) endlessly, for years. On, and on, and on. There's some "symbiotic" relationship to this, where your sound design inspires ideas, and the ideas in turn inspire further tweaking on the patches, back and forth. Presets can provide a starting point for design or musical ideas, but to then remain in square one would be pretty lame, imho.

To each their own, I'm NOT saying presets are wrong. 

[LPF83]

There are so many electronic drum manufacturers that are constantly racing for better sampling and pad response time but none of them are looking into physical modelling or other forms of synthesis which (hearing the Nord Drum 3P) really come off far more organic sounding than some of the $5000 modules out there.

The Akai MPC does have Drumsynth, and Maschine has a similar solution... they're both quite good and versatile I think.  The functionality is out there but I think it tends to get tacked on to instruments of wider purpose; primarily because in and of itself, regardless of how good it is, a dedicated virtual analog drum-only hardware device might be difficult to sell among the sea of existing options.

You know just before I read this I was talking with someone who does an electronic drum review channel and he said that he would much rather just hit a button and know what sound he’s getting rather than sculpt one from scratch. I think synthesis might be over the heads of many e drummers...patch memory or no patch memory.

Well as a former drummer myself, my ears seem to have a preference/bias for sampled drum sounds over synthetic drums.. not sure why but it's always been that way for me.  I do like synth drums as well, I just seem to have less use cases for them.  It sort of goes back to the issue I talked about earlier, about having a limited amount of time left in a given day after work or on weekends, and whether I would rather spend that time making music or sculpting sounds.  The choice could be either on a given day really... and sometimes I don't really do either, I get lost in some technical rabbit hole for an hour about why a piece of equipment or my computer setup isn't working as planned, then my "thrill of the day" comes in the form of learning something new from a technical standpoint rather than having net musical output from any of it.

But when my goal is specifically to make music, I often temper myself from getting in the weeds and distracted by something else by telling myself to just pretend I'm working with a traditional band.  If I were, I would likely have a drummer who has a kit -- a kit with a very limited number of sounds yet tons of musical possibilities.  And the resulting musical output would be no better or worse if he were replaced with a machine with more range of sounds available.

I do the same thing sometimes (self imposed limitations) with, for example number of simultanous tracks.  If I find myself needing 12 or 16 tracks I start to ask myself why?   How many of the bands that I really like had that many members playing at once?  ... etc...