Is it worth recording to tape for electronic dance music? A direct comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- In which I compare the sound of electronic dance tracks recorded both to tape and to digital, and weigh the sonic benefits vs the downsides. The results might surprise you.
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL: / hainbach
CHANNEL MEMBERSHIP: / @hainbach
MY MUSIC: hainbach.bandca...
FASHION: teespring.com/d...
CONNECT: / hainbach
MY SIGNATURE SOFTWARE:
GONG AMP www.audiothing...
WIRES www.audiothing...
MORPHING ROTOR www.audiothing...
TEST EQUIPMENT LIBRARY www.spitfireau...
LOOPER apps.apple.com...
BUY THE GEAR I USE (EU):
redir.love/tho...
BUY THE GEAR I USE (US):
bit.ly/3nsnE9Q
(affiliate links, I get a few % if you buy through them)
Soundblaster pic source Wdwd - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
great work here. The levels in these A/B tests are often so poorly matched it's a joke.
I did a nitty on the podcast with a nakamichi deck and was pretty shocked how the u-he satin took me very close. There were non linear behaviors to differentiate the 2 but it was so close. I suppose the natural follow up to this video is just how close you can get digital to sound to like tape with state of the art plugin combinations. Layers of saturation and transformer emulation essentially.. As I see it, over time, this will become more and more doable. At this point we can ask "what's next". As the tape sound was really the best that could be done at the time and yet it has so many useful sonic characters. Maybe if we can hone in on tape then we can EXTEND it. What is that to look like? I point to Shawn Everett who has massive saturated mixes with HUGE low end. The tape can get the lows but at the sacrifice of the highs... so maybe the positive imaging, saturation, analog path and so on can truly be understood and we can move to the next place. Seems like a good place to go. only IF we can get tape 99.9% there . can it be done?
Thank you Jamie! I spend hours getting the matching right, luckily the metering in DaVinci is way better than in Ableton - that helped a lot. Interesting ideas you put forth - I have to check out some tape plugins again, I remember Airwindows had one that nailed the head bump.
which shawn everett mix(es) are you thinking of? would like to listen. i've used a number of tape plugins, satin included, and i haven't been impressed. i've got a serviced teac a-2070 here that does impress me. i really love the sound of tape and the flexibility of the DAW together.
I think it can be done. I'd like to research what sonic qualities of "analog warmth" or "tape" is desirable to our ears (physical) and cognition/perception (psychological). There are already literature that deals with why we perceive certain sonic qualities to be more "pleasant". That knowledge can be used together with advancements in DSP and physical modelling to perfect and even improve the tape sound digitally.
@@Hainbach Please check the freely available CHOW Tape Model by Jatin Chowdhury. This is a Stanford University DSP guy who developed his algorithms as a side project to his thesis about recreating analog characteristics in the digital domain.
What do you guys think about multitracking electronic music to a 24 tape recorder?
Everytime I hear 'HI i'm Hainbach', I instantly feel better. Thanks Hainbach
Hainbach is our happy place.
I couldn’t hear much difference. But what I did notice is that Hainbach can lay down the grooves!
Indeed! These are three very danceable tracks.
6:24, shaking that cute ass
Really need to hear this A/B test in Hainbach's studio through his monitors. I could not tell the difference through good quality head phones or monitors speakers, maybe my 58 year old ears arn't that good though I can still hear to 15khz or the UA-cam compression really takes the top off what individual character each had but at my end they sounded the same. I think even in the studio if you were moving your around or dancing in a club and the A/B switch over came you wouldn't notice.
In the real world listening on ear buds, computer speakers, sound bars, car stereo's like 99.9% of the listeners use, the tape/digital argument is damn near pointless so long as what you listening to is good and as they don't have a comparison, what you get is what you hear.
Lol I can hear the difference on my phone speakers.
@@alexanderbluhm8841 you only believe you do.
@@Barabyk So True, i'm sitting here with pro monitors and i can't tell the difference !
Hey Droid! Glad to see you’re a fan of Hainbach as well!
lol, after hearing what an album a friend and I had worked on for a long time sounded like in someone's car we started adding a disclaimer that said something like, "For best listening experience play on our equipment in our house."
By the third album we had given up and our disclaimer said something like, "will sound like shit for you."
My final takeaway was, I knew how to mix audio...for myself.
After watching this I've decided to devote the rest of my life to cataloging and illustrating all the different species of pistachio nuts.
That saves a lot of money in gear too.
Make sure to record all results
dude, epic
When you are able to make a production at a high level using great equipment, the differences are indeed not really important. In my lo-fi studio with cheap equipment, the kick doesn't really punch through on tape, digital is much much better for me. So use what you have and make it work as good as possible.
Hainbach, it doesn't matter what you're talking about, I still enjoy listening because there's something so soothing about your voice and its cadence. It makes me feel happier in part because we all can hear how excited you become from these experiments with vintage equipment. Keep up the experimentation! This is the cutting edge of music production and we need someone to do it!
😁
Curious, always voted for A, yet during some tracks I thought track A was the digital version as it had more high end and sounded less compressed. Happy to hear A was the tape all along, just more reasons to endeavour with this recording method. Nicely done!
Can't wait for some Hainbach dance music releases! This was a fun video. SO very subtle.
The tape sound is just a little bit different than the digital one. To my ears it is more “musical”. It is less detailed - it cuts a bit off - but it makes it - at least for me - more enjoyable. I think for this suits the good old “more is less” sentence perfectly. Thank you Hainbach for this comparsion, and keep on making your very interesting music!
i like to think of (high quality) tape as a way of filling the air of a mix, like humidifying a room. works great when the room is otherwise dry and harsh, but if there's plenty going on already then it just becomes too stuffy
love this analogy!
Listening through my Sonos sound pad thing (so not my studio monitors), I felt like maybe I could tell which was tape, which turned out to be correct. I would have not been at all surprised if I was wrong though. It was very subtle and to me seemed represented by an ever so slightly heftier sub bass.
Nice video thanks Hainbach!
It is so cool that you are making dance music. sounds awesome! I can not help but saying I prefer the tape version, but being an analog phreak I am probebly a bit buyass. The first time I listened to the tracks on low levels I did not look at the screen, and I did not really notice the points where it was changing. I did some back and forth with moar volume while looking at the screen and I agree with evrything you say. I wish youtube had a high bitrate mode for audio as the current codec leave alot to be desiered in my opinion. There are machines out there that color the sound much moar, but I think a machine like that have alot of advatages being so subtle.
I've been very much into tape for quite some years, but have only had access to a tape machine in a studio I worked in. I always look back on recording with tape as a great and fun time and have also felt that the recordings I made sounded better. Now it's been a couple of years since I used tape and I've found myself second-guessing if tape really is all that good or if I might just be romanticizing it. So watching this video I was certain that A was digital and I even got a little upset about strongly preferring the sound of A. But wow, you just got me back on the tape-train with this one. The warmth and glue and also the way the music just seems to breathe to the beat is just unlike anything else. Simply wonderful! Thank you for restoring my love Hainbach
Oh that is lovely to hear.
as a bassist, I totally agree about the low end on tape. I fell in love with how my bass sounds in that format.
Of course, your music is impeccable and "song is king"! Great video as always!
I said on your previous dance video... if you put an album of this stuff out I'd be straight over to bandcamp to buy a copy.... electronic dance music produced by someone with experimental interests sounds like a dream come true to me.
I think UA-cam's encoding algorithm is pulling much of the subtle A/B differences away. Kind of a shame, would love to take a look at the uncompressed version of this!
After watching the stream midway through, I'll have to watch again. As always, thank you for your upload, educated opinions, and detailed specs. You have a massive amount of tools and knowledge! Would You consider doing another video on ways of experimenting with tape on a budget?
I have a few videos in my tape playlist that go in detail in all the price ranges.
Wow love these tracks. This and that new modular video 4 weeks ago so good. Now that I think of it at some point all your music really started hooking me.
Hi Hainbach.... Keep smiling its infectious!
For years I wondered what was the secret to those magic old tracks. Tape was the last ingredient to the mix.
Tape was the first ingredient after talent.
@@CircuitBendingFool Talent then Samplers, Synths, FX, Mixer then Tape :D
@@AgentsofRush I'd add having all dac and adc conversions be done by good sounding gear too.
@@VeraTR909 All adds up to that end result in sound doesn't it.
Transistors too
I liked A for all of these. For me on what I was listening on, I noticed the biggest difference in the drums, they just sounded a little more mellow on A which I preferred myself.
Recognized the tape version quite immediateley which definitely gives that subtle caracter to the wave! so thanx for the open experiment! & Cheers
🤔 Aside from a bit of tape saturation, for me it's nearly impossible to hear any of the _important_ differences between the two while listening through UA-cam (as opposed to a direct signal from your studio). As you said, it's such a nice machine that it sounds really clean, making it even harder to tell the difference once digitized for UA-cam.
I listened to "Track 2" a few times more than the others because it had more midrange and less deep/sub bass, but even then I couldn't hear all _that much_ of a difference. A cool video though! 👍🎞🎚
if you focus on the high end the hi hats etc become more rounded/ softer on the tape but i agree its not a massive difference
Mix A was more compressed and saturated in lows and low-mids, also it was quite a bit darker in the high end than mix B.
I agree. I liked B a but more fit that reason. A seemed a bit dull.
B sounded more alive ... A sounded flat.
That was fun. For me it was 1B - 2A - 3A. I'm happy to hear you talk about the dimensions of imaging and the bass, because that was exactly what I was experiencing! When the sound of a track takes me to an imaginary 90s dance bunker you've done a great job :-) Thanks for the trip!
Great comparison! Definitely heard the extra warmth from the tape version, but was surprised the overall effect was relatively subtle - thanks to your analogue signal chain and the high end nature of the tape machine. I'm a big fan of hearing tape on an analogue synth bass, in particular, and have pulled out the Tascam 4-track a fair few times recently - if it's a serious mix, though, Izotope RX is a good friend to have, for sure...
Hi Analog Tape. It's good to have you back.
wow I'm really surprised the tape one sounded cleaner, like fewer sounds were interfering with each other. particularly in the dynamic high end. I thought I was hearing tape compression, but somehow the digital one had some compression in the high end and some other even smaller places. great concept to compare them! they are awfully similar.
Although I think it's totally antiquated, a multitrack tape machine is a great tool if you have it in your skill set and gear list. Important to point out that not every one has the skills to get a good sound on tape (of course, you can learn that ). Most folks have no idea how to align/clean tape heads. You will need to buy a lot of tapes to make an album full of songs. You are buying into equipment that is old, huge/heavy and will inevitably need repair. Most likely a full restoration before you use it. It is however very cool. Practically speaking, I have more than one Tape Emulation plug-in in 2021 that do an incredible job emulating a wide variety of machines and their applications. Not as cool.
Its worth noting before I give my opinion that I'm currently studying sound engineering so I've been training my ears daily. I also regular work with a Nagra 4s on a lot of my own work so I'm fairly familiar with the tape sound and what tape does to audio. I was able to pick out which was which but it wasn't as easy as I thought it was going to be. In the first two tracks I was listening to the overall liveliness of the tracks. I noticed the tape seemed to add more depth and texture to the high ends making it appear more alive. In the 3rd track I was listening more for specific frequencies and thats where it gave it away without a doubt. Typically tape does a worse job with the low end than digital. For something like jazz that isn't always a problem, but with edm I feel that personally I would use digital. And I typically use both for the majority of my work. Thanks for the comparison Hainbach! I loved it.
11:23 on my phone's speaker the mids were actually more present on the tape version so it might be the low highs being less harsh. I've found the "cellphone speaker test" to be as important as the "car speaker test". I'm looking forward to having a listen on my full-range monitors.
the drums are really pumping on A , and I was almost certain that it was Digital, amazed by the results, great comparison. I guess I'll start saving up ...
Heard the difference and I was right.
The dead giveaway was the reason you gave at 10:19. I didn't hear the first reason as much as the second reason. I have noticed this trait for YEARS on some of my all-time favorite tracks.
For me it was the snare sound which gave it away. Well on my iPad anyway ;-)
I’ve got a Revox B77. It takes away the harshness of cymbals and tames the bass. And it‘s true that it can sound „ too finished“ for some as tape compression is dense and complex.
The tape speed also makes a huge difference - it’s like jumping back and forwards in time.
Great channel!
tut gut endlich wieder mal jemand zu hören der noch old schoolmässig tapes benutzt :-) ich bin damit aufgewachsen.
Thanks for putting this out there
A sounds louder, compressed mostly, but with a bit of added tangibility.
I'm kinda shook, I preferred B every time, I thought it felt more heavy and detailed. Plz nobody take my lofi licence away 🥺
I absolutely felt the same way tbh
@@kdn309 good to know it's not just me lol
I agree, also a wide
stereo image in B.
'A' versions were like the same food but with the head chef's final touch, ready to be photographed
I’m very impressed with myself for hearing the difference and guessing correctly, even through UA-cam and my iPhones DAC. Awesome tunes too!! I did not have a preference, but I completely agree with you on all points.
I love these tracks! Excellent sir!
For the 2 first tracks, I was sure A was the tape recording because when B was coming, the sound instantly closed itself in contrast with A which sounds a lot wider and generous. For the third track, this is surprisingly not evident, I don't see so much difference.
I liked B the best but the differences are subtle enough that it doesn't matter to me. I would EQ more mids and highs into the tape mix.
I started out on tape pre-college and love working tape or digital.
Love your take on it. I think it's great that we have so many different ways to record. The preamps and converters can make a big difference, too, as do microphone choices. I'm really glad you take such an inclusive stance.
Thanks you! Its a case of "whatever you like and fits the sound" in the end.
@@Hainbach absolutely. By the way, Happy New Year to you and your family!
please do a vid elaborating on optimal tape speed for low end, yes! listening on senheiser hd 300 pro headphones. i am doing a lot w/cassette's lately and finding the sweet-spot is is very delicate process. i heard it immediately, the digital has a deeper bass, but the tape is like this thin layer of magic that in a synesthesic way i like to imagine the tones hitting oil and these iridescent bursts fading into one another ever so slightly, or you might say the glue of it. it does something beautiful and it makes it feel more like a living organism. what an amazing setup you have. this really makes me want to get into 1/4", i think it has just the right amount of character and maybe 1/2" would be even too clean, hahah. would love it if you'd elaborate on the bit about how running it at different speeds tunes it to optimal bass tones versus running at highest speed.
I thought Track A sounded 'clearer' in a way which made me think B was the tape haha. I double bluffed myself :)
Same. A seems to have more transients
Seen a few ppl talking about RME lately, what’s your favorite thing about that interface?
RME fan since decades now, they have the most stable drivers and flawless performance with low latency. 100% reliable.
Very interesting and thanks for posting. My opinion for what it's worth - The Emperor's New Clothes. The psychology of the look, inconvenience and cost of the analog is persuading you it sounds more pleasing. You have invested a lot in it and yearn for that magic until you convince yourself you hear it. The only tiny difference I think I may have noticed was that the kick drum seemed to have the tiniest bit more sub on the B version (digital) - and to me sounds better as a result. The 'thump' in the chest you mention tends to happen in the very low mids/high bass, rather than the 48hz thump of a good, deep, electronic kick. This could be due to reduced bandwidth coupled with first harmonic enhancement due to tape saturation. But I'll be honest, if you told me these were actually the same clip, and this was a complete exercise in the placebo effect, I wouldn't be surprised. PS I'm a professional mastering engineer and I played this on my trusted speakers in my studio.
Great comparison 👏 You should check out burl audio converters if you get the chance. They do everything do you have described when pushed but maintain more "clarity". Your tape machine sounds really good though!
Listening on iPad speakers, my preferred versions are: A B B. Interesting how digital makes for the majority of that, but I can imagine having a different opinion if I’d listen through speakers.
So before I see your reaction I wanted to write down what I heard, and unless my ears are completely tricking me
-Track 1. The snare in B is harsh and a bit too punchy, that was the most noticeable difference. A was more opened up and welcoming if that makes sense.
-Track 2 The hats sound a little pushed back in the mix compared to A
-Track 3 is very hard to hear a difference but I think I'm hearing something on the 2 beat. The kick snare and hat are slightly more separated in B where as A they're melted nicely together.
-Track 4 During the full mix, the kick drum in B has a boomy-ness in the tail that isn't in A and the transient seems a bit sloppier (I think)
I'm so glad that you did this, Hainbach. And I love how you also position how deeply subjective this is. The differences are vanishingly subtle, but I wound up guessing correctly which is which. I like the glue and tone of tape, and I think it's more complimentary to your artistic voice. I preferred the digital vesrsions for most of these tracks...I think the transients are better retained and the low end feels bottomless. However, the snare in track 1 gets almost too sharp and present in the digital mix, and the tape reined that in quite well. Question: How much have you been able, if at all, to differentiate how much color is imparted from the tape medium itself as opposed to the M15's preamps?
Cool test!! Thank you!! 😊🙏
I had an immediate reaction after the first A/B - and I was right with my guess. :D I much prefer the tape sound, to my ears it sounds less harsh and more rounded.
This was super interesting. I listened on ear buds and was surprised I could hear differences between the tape and digital track. On track 1 the tape track had a bit of distortion on the mids of the bassline muddying them up a little in a colourful way. On the digital track they were much clearer and I could hear each individual note. Between the tape and digital track the most noticeable difference was the amount of sub bass content on the kicks. It seems the tape probably rolls off around 50-60hz. Out of personal taste I thought the tape version of track 3 sounded really special. The warmth of the tape and that slight high passing of the kick added some nice character to the song.
very interesting. listening on grado "hemp" phones, the biggest difference I noticed was in the kick. I thought the digital recordings had a touch more thwock, which I preferred. I was surprised by your analysis since it was so divergent from what I heard, though I'm sure the gap between what you can hear in you system and what I can hear through cans after youtube you could drop a world through.
It is also a matter of taste maybe? I have gotten to love the sound of tape and am biased (pun intended)
I listened to it on hd25 headphones. for me, the kicks on the digital were louder but also harsher and less pleseant. tape master more round and pleasing.
Admittedly not the best headphones to use but the first mix thru my Tascam TH-07's..I couldn't tell a difference.
The second mix I could notice the loss of some sheen on mix B from the pad running in.
The third, it took some of the brightness out of the resonance clicks from I guess the 303 on mix B?
------------------------
And now that I know which is which, I am actually surprised and thought that Mix B was going to be (no spoilers ;D )
Thanks for having us back Hainbach!
Might be imagining things, but on first listen recording A sounded to me like it had a filter/additional EQ on it, B had "harsher" mids and highs. Since digital is the "pure" signal and tape should only add noise or reduce/narrow frequencies, I concluded A to be tape. Could have just guessed well though.
A lot of electronic musicians strive to "dirty up" their digital productions I have heard; the imperfections and small levels of noise these analog machines and techniques add to a track can really breath life and unexpected motion into a project. Or so it feels.
To me what gave away the tape was the low frequency extension being a bit less on the A tracks. Listening over Bluetooth on AirPods Pro so I might have missed the other details in the highs.
Thanks for this test. IMO recording to tape isn’t worth the hassle.
In track 2, the A wasn't obvious at first, until B came in again the second time. In track 1 and 3, A instantly stood out. and it was because of this sort of closed sound. Like it was surrounding my head. Where B was more open. Despite both sounding super clean, super wide. It was such a strange and interesting effect. So subtle that it really needs the comparison to point it out. But still gives something to the track.
I'm so surprised how wide the tape mix sounded in terms of stereo imaging, there is almost no difference with the digital mix. Still to me all sounds in the tape mix are glued together a bit better, and the digital one is a bit more sparse. Super interesting video!
I’m afraid my old ears could not hear a difference
Try focusing on the low mids.
i'm 17 and i had trouble hearing a difference as well
It's pretty subtle which also says something.
Question is, considering the title of the video, would you be able to discern a difference in a club? It's definitely subtle. Would most of the people on the dancefloor give a crap if it was recorded onto tape, or would they be more bothered that the track itself was decent? Fortunately Hainbach always has the latter point covered
@@VeraTR909 yes, it does. I think they both sound good. I would just eq tweak a little on whichever one didn't quite float my boat.
I think the magic in tape recordings is in the way all sounds blend into the noise floor, giving the feeling of an infinite field of sound - however this feeling is lost in the digital domain and you're left with the tape compression and saturation effects that can easily be emulated.
Can't wait to come back to Berlin. Hopefully get to go dancing, maybe catch a Hainbach set!
Couldn't notice. That's a well aligned tape machine!
I love your alesis quadraverb, as a guitarrist I used it for years until it died one day.
I knew A was the tape when I heard the hi-hat "highs" somewhat flatten. In B, the hi-hat sound is a bit more three- dimensional, roomier.
Good Morning Everyone! How is everyone's New Year going? I am excited to watch this!
Interesting! Thanks for doing that research and sharing your results. I guessed them all right, but would absolutely not have been able to if I weren’t on good headphones.
For the first track the dead giveaway for me is the initial transient of the kick. It’s a punch in A and a snap in B, indicating saturation in A. In both the other tunes the deep bass gave it away, there’s like 6dB or more difference in that range, less bass in the A.
To my ears, in each case, the tape version sounds less satisfying. Granted, I might feel differently on the Tresor or Berghain soundsystems at “the kick is here to rearrange your innards” volumes. (:
Perhaps then the extra transience and sub bass would just be excessive.
Also, without doubt, the fact that your mix is already very thoroughly “glued” by the mixer and other analog gear before even reaching the tape and the converters plays is important to notice here. If all your sounds were from in-the-box, as they are for many of us, your mix would likely benefit more from the tape saturation. I’m not convinced that the tape alone would fix a sprawling, unwieldy digital mix though. Multiple stages of subtle saturation will always work better than a single squish at the end, if you want big+clear+open sounding mixes like what’s heard here.
I think I’m settling into the position that recording masters to tape isn’t worthwhile for most of us. Doesn’t mean I don’t think tape is worthwhile. It is, but more so for parts of a mix, and wobbly lovely loops and such. Less so for mastering.
The difference was pretty much immediately apparent on my open back headphones, and I was able to correctly guess which one was tape based on the slightly more saturated, warmer sound, compared to the crisper digital recording.
It might be a matter of listening equipment, but personally I slightly preferred the digital versions due to their clarity and presence.
Thank you , it is a very good demonstration . the fast transients of the drum machine are much more obvious on the digital. It s like the point of focus changes on the two medium.
Yeah, it is like different lenses somehow.
I need that second track!!! I liked the digital more honestly because of the tape bass rolloff.
I guessed which tracks were recorded with the tape and I don't know why but I prefer them.
Makes for a great UA-cam vid. Not enough difference in this instance IMO. You need the compression and the EQ but tape is not essential
As I am nowhere near a good sound system or headphones, I used some tiny Sony Earbuds and I could detected the low end difference :o
Props to Sony!
Other than that, amazing content here! Subscribed!
I am diving deeply into your other videos asap.
These sounded almost the same to me with headphones. The biggest difference for me was in the low end, and I could only really tell when using my SubPac. Interesting experiment.
I guessed right, but the difference is so subtle, so unless I tried very hard to hear the difference, I wouldn't notice it at all.
Wow! Pushing the proverbial envelope. Lovely to see.
I didn't hear much of a difference between tape and digital at first until I noticed that some effects stood out on tape instead of being 'drowned out' by the rest of the mix.
The Low-end is more extended in digital, which I only could hear clearly on the third track. I am listening on AKG Q701. Etherway, those 3 tracks are pure gold.
Didn't really care about the difference in track 3 but preferred tape by a lot in track 1 and 2 :) thanks for the comparison, very informative!
the funnest part that makes it better is the challenge it gives you... its like playing a game in hard mode
I did notice the difference in low end level, just wasn't sure if it was the tape doing that or the other way around
I’m not one to claim I have amazing ears, but even on my old Apple earbuds in bed I could hear clearer low end on the A take. I’ve seen good arguments for sound design being made more interesting (fuller) with a bit of noise. And frankly tape hiss in the bed of a track is deeply satisfying.
Good one ;] I actually tried to not think about which is which, but which recording sounds better and these are my choices.
Track 1- Tape
Track 2- Digital
Track 3- Tape
I was so on the fence about 2 myself - It is only by a small margin I choose the tape version myself.
similar..
t1 A better
t2 couldn't tell
t3 A better
I preferred A from the start, it felt a little bit less 'muddy' and more crispy! Listening through Adam Audio A7X and a sub dialled in a little bit. TBH by the end I thought B was tape as i thought that 'mud' was the tape glue sound we always hear about.
PS, I was DESPERATE to hear Track 2 change chords to the 6th then 7th. You constantly had me lead that way but it never happened. TEASE!
The digital and tape versions sounded VERY similar, but I did notice a quality to the A tracks that I liked better. Something to do with imaging and spatial specificity I think. The frequency response was very close, I could hear no differences even with my good headphones. A lot of that is probably down to UA-cam's compression. I have always liked the sound of tape, and to me the best thing digital could do would be to sound like analog. The thing about tape is that, as you say, what is does to the midrange sparkle is more pleasing to the human ear even though it is less.
On my speakers, the tape examples (A) seem to sound slightly more compact, with the individual instrument tracks within the mix more "glued together" into a single, unified wall of sound - like a subtle, automatically generated side chain compression is being applied. Perhaps not ideal for Classical chamber music with a wide dynamic range and emphasis on individual instruments, but perfect for dance music.
What a surprise. I really didn't expect to actually like the tape ones better. The digital ones sounded a bit dull in direct comparison.
I can hear the difference in how it processes the super low frequencies (
Nuts. A sounded roomier, like there was more space to move around in. More dynamic range. B kept sounding flatter and more compressed, like it had been squeezed a little too much. Overall, it was really difficult to tell the difference, and i didn't notice any more characteristic "warmth" in A, that tends to be associated with tape. Must be at least partly because you tried to remove most of the hiss and background noise. For some reason I guessed B was the tape.
A question for the ages! I have never pondered this question. The reason for that is of course that I already know the answer to that question. But I'm sure *HAINBACH* will expand upon it greatly and grant me wisdom that I have never before had the honour to bear witness to. It is thus with great expectation that I sit here before this screem and wait. I shall henceforth meditate upon this noble question until the video starts!!11111111
@@gammakeraulophon Yes, Sir, thank you for noticing! I shall make the best effort to give you a _detailed_ report. Shall I mail it to you over the royal postage system, or do you prefer hand delivery? I'll be sure to give the package the proper treatment and care, perhaps with a dab of perfume to hid the foul odour of 70's brown manilla, and vintage packing tape. You can be sure I will gently massage the tape on so that it sticks really well. To make things really authentic, I also have this coffee mug that I can stain the envelope with.
Ummm........ ? 🐦❤🎛🎹🌌
@@gammakeraulophon I'm sorry, I don't have any more of those left, but they do make really nice springback binders at the printer's. I'll make sure to stop by them on my way to the post office. I'd have it bound if I could, but I gather that's excessive for mere lecture notes.
I got that wrong then and can only assume that it was the natural saturation of tape that made it louder - therefore making me assume it was digital.
How about some waveform and frequency comparisons (if possible, like phase inversion of digital compared to tape), for us to see the difference and in what range of the audio spectrum.
Well colour me surprised! I liked A because I thought it sounded more open, which is also why I was convinced it was digital, but I am just listening on decent bluetooth in-ears (I'm out for a walk, so dance-tempo is perfect), so I'm curious to hear this with my Austrian Audio headphones
yeah at first I was thinking "well tape should unclear the Hihats or give me a more vintage vibe to the song" but "the before and after reveal is like.. yeah no, I got the 2nd track wrong because I thought at first that the mix would be less dynamic, but the tape machine doesn't do that. It does add a little layer of dimension, and I quite liked it, but for track 1, I liked the digital recording better. From a feeling point of view, the saturation added something unneccessary there, what worked sooo much better for the second track, I don't know what it was though. You probably have to find out when to use it and when not.
B shone objectively even though once I could hear that A was clearly tape, and seemed to be pushing to its limit my mind wanted to prefer it for gear nerd reasons. funny old brains eh? Thanks for great content as ever Hainbach
i wasn't 100% sure for B, but i guessed A and C correctly. what i dislike about the tape sound is that it imho makes everything sound less three-dimensional (and takes away lots of sub), but the distortion on the hats as well as the compression are pretty nice. and of course i completely agree about the "finished" sound. i guess you could have the best of both worlds if you mix in maybe 50% tape.
Wow. I had no idea which was which. I see now why we switched over to digital. The quality is just as good to the average listener. The benefits of tape do not outway its drawbacks and for me the biggest drawback is that it is so expensive.
I thought B was tape, but mostly I just noticed it was eq'd differently. Bass was more prominent on B, but that was through macbook speakers. Highs were also a little lower on B.