Is it worth recording to tape for electronic dance music? A direct comparison

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...

[@HANGINGOUTWITHAUDIOPHILES]

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?

[@Hainbach]

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.

[@dirkchurlish4074]

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.

[@sanandreasaudio]

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.

[@dissdad8744]

@@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.

[@Synth2000]

What do you guys think about multitracking electronic music to a 24 tape recorder?

[@kurtchircop6534]

Everytime I hear 'HI i'm Hainbach', I instantly feel better. Thanks Hainbach

[@233Hicks]

Hainbach is our happy place.

[@qrplife]

I couldn’t hear much difference. But what I did notice is that Hainbach can lay down the grooves!

[@AreaNeofob]

Indeed! These are three very danceable tracks.

[@stuartchapman5171]

6:24, shaking that cute ass

[@smalltown4855]

After watching this I've decided to devote the rest of my life to cataloging and illustrating all the different species of pistachio nuts.

[@VeraTR909]

That saves a lot of money in gear too.

[@tree_relics]

Make sure to record all results

[@WiihawkPL]

dude, epic

[@ethermod307]

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.

[@CuriousDroid]

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 KZbin 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.

[@alexanderbluhm8841]

Lol I can hear the difference on my phone speakers.

[@Barabyk]

@@alexanderbluhm8841 you only believe you do.

[@edison2155]

@@Barabyk So True, i'm sitting here with pro monitors and i can't tell the difference !

[@teddyn3051]

Hey Droid! Glad to see you’re a fan of Hainbach as well!

[@AveragePicker]

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.

[@matthewmcree1992]

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!

[@CliveHassall]

😁

[@fromustocolombia]

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!

[@molitgerimusic5578]

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!

[@bveracka]

🤔 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 KZbin (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 KZbin. 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! 👍🎞🎚

[@btjking7]

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

[@h0verman]

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

[@VeraTR909]

love this analogy!

[@joeychriso52]

I'm kinda shook, I preferred B every time, I thought it felt more heavy and detailed. Plz nobody take my lofi licence away 🥺

[@kdn309]

I absolutely felt the same way tbh

[@joeychriso52]

@@kdn309 good to know it's not just me lol

[@dorettoale]

I agree, also a wide stereo image in B.

[@ringtangting]

I just want to say that I really like your style of music in this vid, Haimbach! Good stuff.

[@uisato_]

I think KZbin'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!

[@MusicalDistractions]

Can't wait for some Hainbach dance music releases! This was a fun video. SO very subtle.

[@AgentsofRush]

For years I wondered what was the secret to those magic old tracks. Tape was the last ingredient to the mix.

[@CircuitBendingFool]

Tape was the first ingredient after talent.

[@AgentsofRush]

@@CircuitBendingFool Talent then Samplers, Synths, FX, Mixer then Tape :D

[@VeraTR909]

@@AgentsofRush I'd add having all dac and adc conversions be done by good sounding gear too.

[@AgentsofRush]

@@VeraTR909 All adds up to that end result in sound doesn't it.

[@RayZappa]

Transistors too

[@warius1]

Thanks for this test. IMO recording to tape isn’t worth the hassle.

[@MadeOnTape]

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!

[@RoboticusMusic]

A sounds louder, compressed mostly, but with a bit of added tangibility.

[@edgeeffect]

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.

[@kapseeta]

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.

[@davidpetersonharvey]

I agree. I liked B a but more fit that reason. A seemed a bit dull.

[@petel1201]

B sounded more alive ... A sounded flat.

[@kassemir]

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.

[@nessuer743]

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

[@Hainbach]

Oh that is lovely to hear.

[@drkakophanos3013]

Hi Hainbach.... Keep smiling its infectious!

[@Genital.Wartzenegger]

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)

[@tannera.9922]

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.

[@DIYDSP]

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.

[@Fritzelgard]

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 ...

[@yeahrightbear8883]

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.

[@jelledevries1201]

Recognized the tape version quite immediateley which definitely gives that subtle caracter to the wave! so thanx for the open experiment! & Cheers

[@Ecmusicproductionschannel]

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.

[@somegeezer]

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.

[@MusicwithMachines]

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.

[@VeraTR909]

I thought Track A sounded 'clearer' in a way which made me think B was the tape haha. I double bluffed myself :)

[@piotr803]

Same. A seems to have more transients

[@amplifier2]

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!

[@jodymcdougle8810]

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?

[@Hainbach]

I have a few videos in my tape playlist that go in detail in all the price ranges.

[@CliveHassall]

Wow! Pushing the proverbial envelope. Lovely to see.

[@onurbektas7074]

'A' versions were like the same food but with the head chef's final touch, ready to be photographed

[@edjefferson9175]

I preferred all the A recordings. Warmer, rounder and smooth as you say. B is more transparent. My ears prefer velvet over glass. Perhaps a natural acoustic recording rather than electronic sources would be more revealing. Acoustic guitar, voice and some percussion. As always a pleasant and thoughtful presentation I am so grateful for your time and energy. Great music too by the way.

[@nabooka316]

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.

[@233Hicks]

The tape [A] example sounds as though it has more body, it's warmer and flows better together, more smoothly. The digital [B] is crisper, cleaner, but sounds more hollow.

[@theblowupdollsmusic]

Hi Analog Tape. It's good to have you back.

[@dietervoser4425]

tut gut endlich wieder mal jemand zu hören der noch old schoolmässig tapes benutzt :-) ich bin damit aufgewachsen.

[@BradsGuitarGarage]

Couldn't notice. That's a well aligned tape machine!

[@TotallyFictional]

I’m afraid my old ears could not hear a difference

[@davidpetersonharvey]

Try focusing on the low mids.

[@skunklungz]

i'm 17 and i had trouble hearing a difference as well

[@VeraTR909]

It's pretty subtle which also says something.

[@kavokei1337]

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

[@davidpetersonharvey]

@@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.

[@globanusopp3046]

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.

[@SPARKY_208Y]

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.

[@cmath8577]

Makes for a great KZbin vid. Not enough difference in this instance IMO. You need the compression and the EQ but tape is not essential

[@CircuitBendingFool]

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.

[@CottonBud]

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.

[@fangjr.8552]

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

[@1234HonkyTonk1234]

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.

[@altogethernow]

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.

[@andykandolf1948]

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.

[@arentsen.studio]

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!

[@tru7hhimself]

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.

[@nathanherrold6887]

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.

[@JuanPabloVeTV]

This is so weird. I thought I prefer digital, but It was the tape. Mindblowing.

[@texacomann]

I love your alesis quadraverb, as a guitarrist I used it for years until it died one day.

[@GO-tq6hs]

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.

[@AZ-zf1eu]

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.

[@AM-ui9mc]

Thanks for putting this out there

[@zzzombyy2808]

I know what you mean. It is "A". It is not much but, it is worth it! thanxx HB

[@unclemick-synths]

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.

[@kristopherdetar4346]

Back in the late 70's, I would record individual songs off albums on a Pioneer reel to reel tape system for a three hour Jr. high school dances. It was good money for a kid of 16&17. What you do here simply looks like Frankenstein's Laboratory with sound !!

[@Sousless]

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.

[@stefanhk4801]

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.

[@Space_pulse]

I think I noticed the most difference on track 3. The tape does seem to improve that arpeggiated synth line. But I liked the detail and dynamics more on some of the digital tracks. I think there are plugins and mixing tricks that can get you that tape feel, though. It’s really not worth the negative environmental impact to use tape IMO.

[@TriangleWaveRecords]

I can hear the difference in how it processes the super low frequencies (

[@blindianajones]

I listened on a macbook and think I heard a little difference. I've just started recording my eurorack system, EQ'ing with a Befaco Hexmix before recording through an UAD Apollo and their LUNA DAW. To me, the UAD ecosystem result sounds great, is easy to setup and stays out of the way for creativity. The Apollo is not cheap, but I don't want to spend the resources on an analog signal path. As cool as it all is, its not where I want to spend my time. I really enjoyed this video and hearing the comparison.

[@AndrewJohnClive]

I think tape works really well for bass sounds but digital I think has a much more dynamic midrange. The tape high end has obvious saturation - especially noticeable on the Juno arpeggio in the last track.

[@erwintimmerman6466]

Predicted it correctly, while listening to my phone speaker 😁. B had more definition/click on the kick. A at some point sounded a bit harsher/distorted on the low highs, a bit like the effect you get when recording r2r at cassette speed. Very slightly though, it just made the highs more pronounced and smeared. The final result on tape felt like on tape everything was smeared together so it blended together more nicely. It became a wall of sound instead of a wall of sounds. Digital felt just a tad more detailed, but because of that also a tad more clinical. That said, the difference was very very subtle. I would be happy with either recording.

[@j.b.9440]

I love these tracks! Excellent sir!

[@spazimdam]

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 KZbin'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.

[@fragileyouth4302]

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.

[@rookmaster7502]

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.

[@bitumenboyy]

I liked the digital recordings better, but mostly for the sharper and clearer midrange. Smooth is not necessarily better for my taste. The kick in the tape version is real nice, though. I think i prefer a hybrid recording ;^)

[@skill1917]

I need that second track!!! I liked the digital more honestly because of the tape bass rolloff.

[@Temu69recordsdotcom]

For most tascams and other 4/8 track recorders, you can record your cv tempo onto track four and then bus that audio out either from the “sync out” or its dedicated out bus so you can record overdubs and have a tempo map. If you only have stereo 1/2 out and want to cv tempo, you can go thru the stereo out and monitor thru the cue. Record the cv pulse and test it on your equipment, if it’s too fast lower the record volume going in. Tales from the user manual that would’ve made my life easier years ago lol

[@Temu69recordsdotcom]

Noise and hiss might also affect tempo, gotta have to break out the nonthift store tapes

[@foundatlantis]

agree with all points made within this vid. i've been DJing since the early 2000s and the only equipment i had available to record mixes was tape. cassette tape and even VHS. yeah video tape for audio. standard compact cassette only offer 60-90mins recording time. as a teenager would do marathon mixes at the weekend, mixing for up to 8-10 hours a day. VHS was the answer to recording these long sets. i could set the VCR to LP which doubles the rec/play time of the VHS from 3-4 hours to 6-8 hours! often i would record either too hot so some of my tapes were distorted/oversaturated but it gives the music a real analog feel when its done right. i've done so many bad recordings its not worth uploading to youtube but a few tapes survived so i've uploaded them. warning :some of them sound terrible lol

[@davidpetersonharvey]

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.

[@Hainbach]

Thanks you! Its a case of "whatever you like and fits the sound" in the end.

[@davidpetersonharvey]

@@Hainbach absolutely. By the way, Happy New Year to you and your family!

[@andreyamakesmusic]

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.

[@lovedeathdisco]

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.

[@CyberCreeper22]

the funnest part that makes it better is the challenge it gives you... its like playing a game in hard mode

[@sonijam]

I thought A sounded better and assumed it would be the digital recording!

[@iwanwesterduin]

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.

[@yoted]

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.

[@cookie1138]

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.

[@graxjpg]

I’m very impressed with myself for hearing the difference and guessing correctly, even through KZbin and my iPhones DAC. Awesome tunes too!! I did not have a preference, but I completely agree with you on all points.

[@sarmism]

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!

[@valdir7426]

well I had it wrong; there's a clear difference in the low end (on track 2 and 3 mostly) which made me think it was something to do with compression so I thought B was tape. I prefer digital though; sounds more alive to me (for lack of a better word).

[@adamcarter6013]

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.

[@Hainbach]

It is also a matter of taste maybe? I have gotten to love the sound of tape and am biased (pun intended)

[@fail0r]

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.

[@DanHillman]

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!

[@lyubenkonov1524]

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.

[@marcoose777]

I think I preferred B, but the difference was quite small almost unnoticeable... a little more high frequency detail, but after the YT compression treatment the differences are likely to be almost unnoticeable.

[@joneslego3645]

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

[@nickl6162]

the tape is much more punchy, has "better" low end (like i wouldnt say more, its just more present maybe to do with a slight amount of saturation) and i felt that the high end was a bit smoother but also has this distinct retro sound that gave it away right from the beginning

[@UniversalHomeboy]

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!

[@FLH3official]

In an ideal world we should have the choice of the final medium we put our music on :-). I've a revox B77 "high speed" and it happens I bounce some of my compositions on tape, mainly at 38cms, because I feel these particular pieces could "sit" better on this medium. Some others don't and stay in the vapor-electronical world. Furthermore with a tape you have the satisfaction to get "the real final & physical thing", when you push stop and then store the piece of tape you have a kind of feeling of completion, like a painter with his canvas or a scluptor with his piece of marble. Your work exists. An aiff or a wave file, which is realy convenient, I'm not an analogayatolah, is not realy an object and don't give that feeling.

[@lulrik1]

Good video ! I really liked the music AND the black/green sweater (at 6:21), kinda curious where I can get the same haha :P thanks for the video! Cheers from France