I would have liked to see the bounce level matched with the original. That way you can see the differences between the two without the bias of louder volume. Most people will prefer the louder version of something given a choice. All this being said, I noticed that the artist expressed their satisfaction with the bounce. That is the most important thing.
Yep, should've been leveled to Lufs. To my ears it is meter level matched but not to lufs. I only record on a 388 & I can tell you he is barely pushing the tape as well. So good.
Just adjust your own volume lads! I watch a lot of comparison stuff on youtube and yeah, sometimes you have to ride the volume to make it a fair fight.
I record Digital about 90% of the time but I have my Teac A2340 4 track and my Teac A7010 on my patchbay and keep a reel of tape spooled at all times so I can do quick bounce outs. Sometimes I will just run through the 2 track preamps as an insert. I also have a DBX 155 Noise reduction that sucks for reducing noise but if you hit it too hard is a really cool way to crunch up a drum over head or bass line. Hybrid is the way.
I run a hybrid home studio and agree totally - if analog wasn't the greatest they wouldn't be trying to catch up to it with digital. If you dig this song, you might just like Kunek, the album is Flight of the Flynns. Amazing. Thanks for the vid, night and day difference!
I've been really thinking about getting a Reel to Reel Tape recorded for Bouncing tape mixes too! Any suggestions? Tascam 38? What else? I've got a Tascam PortoStudio One. But I found it just didn't quite do what I wanted.
@@fuzzcityrecords432 Seems really cool!! But you don't think a reel to reel would be better? I live in Europe so something like the Revox A77? I already have a cassette recorder in the PortoStudio.
This is great, and certainly sounds good, and I love the workflow, but without level matched audio it's impossible to judge which is better. Believe in your work, and put it out next time with a chance for fair comparison!
To me the drums and the bass sound better and warmer on the bounced track and it is a perfect song to be analog, it would have been interesting to hear a full analog recording of this song. I have an EP that I wish that could have been recorded on analog equipment, its too clean and bright.
Very interesting...quick question; does it make any difference if you chose track 1 and 8 ( or whatever heads were furthest apart physically) on your tape machine as your destinations to minimise bleed or cross over , if there is any?
It's a good idea to separate tracks that were recorded extremely hot and saturated if possible to prevent bleed. That can be a problem if you follow your ears rather than the needles and let things get too far into the red.
i think i like the original digital only mix better for this track. maybe try a third mix that mixes the tape dub into the original as a subtle reverb type thing ??
@@MrMissingReel I didn't think of that; it definitely wouldn't work. It would sound phasey/flangy due to the small variance in speed of the tape. I thought the tape one was way better anyway- more dynamic and warmer, and more crisp on the top end.
Please when you do this kind of before/after thing, do gain stage, this way we can hear the differencies without the bias of a louder mix tricking our brain ;) but very interesting!
I don't know if it's because it's louder, but the tape version sounds to me like the bass is too emphasized. The analogue sound should be extremely subtle. The difference between those 2 recordings is anything but subtle.
@@tarstarkusz It often helps to adjust your own volume when watching this type of video. He did turn up the bass going into the tape, and i don't know much about this stuff, but the type of tape and other factors have a significant effect on frequency response. When i run stuff through my TEAC cassette deck, the change is much more than just subtle; even my friend who doesn't know anything about recording found the difference very noticeable (and improved). I recorded something through the thing the other day and went straight out without using tape, and even that was very colored and affected.
@@SeeSawMassacre A good tape deck properly set up and biased produces very little difference. Check out youtube user cassette comeback. He has a bunch of video with real time recording switching between the digital source and the tape recording (with a 3 head deck) and you will hear just how similar they sound. On some tapes, you simply cannot hear any difference.
@@SeeSawMassacre If it's not set up correctly, it will color the music. It could be in my case that I just can't hear the difference because of hearing problems I have. Think about the "audiophile!" Here is a guy who claims they can hear a difference in music using different cables. An equalizer is blasphemy to them. There is a lot of spergery in audio.
As someone who has been using reel-to-reel since 1960, and has two Tascam 388s in my studio, my question would be why the group used digital in the first place, because the squared-off frequencies from the digital recording will continue onto the analog recording. Now that you've transferred it to reel, are you going to give them the reel as a finished product? How do they intend to use it? Do they intend to transfer it to CD for sale? Or are they going to cut vinyl?
I think you might be mistaken in thinking that digital "transients"- those peak and valley wavy things- are squared off in a digital recording. That only happens if you have hard clipping (which sounds bad) during recording to digital- or if you're using some kind of synth or fuzz that does that. The differences that are picked up when running something through a tape machine aren't really noticeable visually, as far as i know. But you are right that if something was recorded hot enough to distort or clip on a tape machine, the clipping would be a less harsh, rounder type of clipping, generally.
@Pete Testube I just do stuff on a song to song basis, and it depends on how you want the recording process to go. We did a song with each track on tape first, then mixed it on the computer, like you said. That was fun and gave the thing more of a performative, idiosyncratic quality. But i wouldn't do that with a longer, full band song with the limited gear i have. I've had great results recording everything on our digital 8 track recorder, mixing it on the computer, and then mastering it in a way on cassette. That gives the song a lot of warmth and some natural compression (and just sounds way better), without having to get it all right in analog world- limiting hiss, synchronizing tracks, phasing issues etcetera. I'm always trying new combinations to make it quicker, more fun, and to do the song justice.
Digital frequencies aren't "squared off" unless you pass 0db. I love tape but it's silly to see peoples hatred for digital because they heard its 1s and 0s
Surprisingly I actually prefer the digital version. It has more depth imo. If the masters were level matched, that would make the comparison easier. Folks tend to prefer what sounds louder.
As a social experiment I switched the two and made no mention of it in the video, so you're actually liking the tape version better it seems! Good ear.
@@fuzzcityrecords432 lol darn it! I thought I had an excuse to not pay to send my digital files to be bounced to tape. I'm actually looking into 4 tracks even. I may tracks drums, vocals, and bass analog to cassette and add additional tracks digitally in my DAW.
@@fuzzcityrecords432 huh? I was gonna go through your old vids to pick up some knowledge, but if I don't know what I'm listening to when, then I guess that'd be sorta pointless. Glad I read through the comments, I guess.
I’ve recently began a collection of outboard gear, and have even more recently began to dip my toes into the world of tape. I’m curious if you have any advice on whether it would be better worth investing money into more outboard gear, or into a tape deck? (specifically, I’m looking at a fully serviced/refurbished Sony 3 head cassette deck from a local shop for around $400) I currently have a 2 chan preamp, 2 chan compressor, and an EQ. In short, if my goal is adding more saturation and “”vibe”” into my digital recordings, what do you think would be the better investment? (or anyone reading this) Thanks!
I'm 'biased' to reccomend getting into tape.. 😅 but seriously, you can't go wrong getting a Tascam 32, or Tascam 42, or Otari 5050 or something like that I think would be the best bet! The wave forms are captured using magnetic particles!?!! I mean, No other hardware does what that does
I’m having trouble finding info on what I’m trying to do. I basically want to do a live master from the tascam 388. I’m trying to figure out the signal chain. I think it would be as simple as Tascam 388 stereo output -> mastering strip (compressor, eq, etc) -> some a/d converter or interface. Would that work do you think? Not sure why I’m having trouble finding info on it, so it makes me think it’s uncommon..
@@fuzzcityrecords432 Definitely out there indie music. Acoustic and vocals mainly, super minimal orchestration and mix I think. Doing all analog effects like an echo chamber and tape delay. But yeah deciding I’ll bounce the mix down to a separate tape machine first, then eq and compress -> interface That way I only hit the dacs once. Thanks for attending my Ted talk haha
Hi matt, I got a question that is a bit out of context and I hope you could enlighten me. Just ordered 6 reels of LPR35 from ebay to record my next album but instead I had 6 LPR90. My tascam 388 is calibrated for the LPR35. I was just wondering what tape you’re using and if the LPR90 could work on the machine. I’m a bit bummed out tbh. Thanks in advance
I bet it will be just fine and that even the most elite audio supremacists would fail a blind comparison quiz. Average listeners will absolutely never notice! Perhaps a slight tone difference?
wow.. tape makes it sound a lot louder! that's cool! just like a fader in my daw! just kiddin... I hear what tape is doing, it's nice, but the video would be much more informative if you normalised the loudness. but thanks any way.
as an engineer i wonder why the levels didnt get matched.. its supposed to be done if you are comparing the approach, rather than just showing video notes during the project.
I just started recording at home again and am planning on using a new digital 12 channel Teac mixer into Studio One. Once I have everything recorded and sounding the way I want I’m going to play it back into the room through my system because that’s when it usually sounds the best. Then I’ll use my Ribbon mic to record the mastered song into a 1968 Teac 3 mixer and from there into a cassette. The deck recording will then be fed back into the computer. I’m assuming they recorded a lot like this in the 50’s but I can’t really find out much about this method. I thought of this method because I do it all the time with my cell phone. Any suggestions?
Hey man, HX-Pro is better than the dolby/DBS, it hides the hiss in the high notes of the music. Its not a filter, doesnt take sounds away. You get more head room, along with obvious big bass.
I would have liked to see the bounce level matched with the original. That way you can see the differences between the two without the bias of louder volume. Most people will prefer the louder version of something given a choice. All this being said, I noticed that the artist expressed their satisfaction with the bounce. That is the most important thing.
Yep, should've been leveled to Lufs. To my ears it is meter level matched but not to lufs. I only record on a 388 & I can tell you he is barely pushing the tape as well. So good.
Just adjust your own volume lads! I watch a lot of comparison stuff on youtube and yeah, sometimes you have to ride the volume to make it a fair fight.
He probably believes that won't bring any new customer. So he has chosen to show us some disrespect. Not subscribing.
The tape sounds so good. Inspired me to pull out the tascam 688.
So glad! Nothing like some good old fashioned tape grit
I see what you're doing.
...and I like it.
proceed.
👍✌🤘🤙
Just one more example of why tape rules!
Keep the inspiration coming
I record Digital about 90% of the time but I have my Teac A2340 4 track and my Teac A7010 on my patchbay and keep a reel of tape spooled at all times so I can do quick bounce outs. Sometimes I will just run through the 2 track preamps as an insert. I also have a DBX 155 Noise reduction that sucks for reducing noise but if you hit it too hard is a really cool way to crunch up a drum over head or bass line. Hybrid is the way.
I love your channel!!!!
I run a hybrid home studio and agree totally - if analog wasn't the greatest they wouldn't be trying to catch up to it with digital. If you dig this song, you might just like Kunek, the album is Flight of the Flynns. Amazing. Thanks for the vid, night and day difference!
Branland sounds so Cool!!! Bam!!!!!!!
Definitely woke up that track, gotta love analogue
The bounce came out very moody and I’m very happy with it!! Thank you for the bounce and this video my man!
Hey, beautiful song, man. Ciao from Italy :)
Song is out currently!
Nice tune man
I've been really thinking about getting a Reel to Reel Tape recorded for Bouncing tape mixes too! Any suggestions? Tascam 38? What else? I've got a Tascam PortoStudio One. But I found it just didn't quite do what I wanted.
try a Tascam 112
@@fuzzcityrecords432 Seems really cool!! But you don't think a reel to reel would be better? I live in Europe so something like the Revox A77? I already have a cassette recorder in the PortoStudio.
damnit now I want to run all my mixes through a tape machine that sounded awesome.
Yes.....Great bounce Matthew.
This is great, and certainly sounds good, and I love the workflow, but without level matched audio it's impossible to judge which is better. Believe in your work, and put it out next time with a chance for fair comparison!
Sounds great
Dude how come you’re in the 80s and have TH-cam and an iMac?! How the f***
Nice work, dude! Definitely sounds better, no doubt. 👍👍 Not a bad tune either.. I'll check these guys out. 😎
I'm doing it using a vintage Akai N-9 and the result is magic.
Tape bounce is fuego🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🎶
tape bounce.... wow like what the!!
Tape 4 lyfe, Matthew Melton 4 prez
I am about to try my first bounce to analog tape, this was great info
Wow! (And flutter!) thanks!
This is great!! Thank you sooooo much!
To me the drums and the bass sound better and warmer on the bounced track and it is a perfect song to be analog, it would have been interesting to hear a full analog recording of this song. I have an EP that I wish that could have been recorded on analog equipment, its too clean and bright.
Bro there's nothing like that tape mojo... nothing 🔥🔥🔥
You should do a video with tape effects with the tascam 388:)))
Very interesting...quick question; does it make any difference if you chose track 1 and 8 ( or whatever heads were furthest apart physically) on your tape machine as your destinations to minimise bleed or cross over , if there is any?
Calibrated correctly there should be no bleed or loss of signal but you could use any two tracks
It's a good idea to separate tracks that were recorded extremely hot and saturated if possible to prevent bleed. That can be a problem if you follow your ears rather than the needles and let things get too far into the red.
"...I typically work on The Miami Sound."
When I saw the thumbnail, I thought it was a seventies VHS audio tutorial. 😅
i think i like the original digital only mix better for this track. maybe try a third mix that mixes the tape dub into the original as a subtle reverb type thing ??
I personally prefer the tape bounce, it sounds warmer and crispier! But I like that idea too, I'd be curious to hear what that sounds like
You'll probably run into phasing issues....but maybe that's a good thing
@@MrMissingReel I didn't think of that; it definitely wouldn't work. It would sound phasey/flangy due to the small variance in speed of the tape. I thought the tape one was way better anyway- more dynamic and warmer, and more crisp on the top end.
Please when you do this kind of before/after thing, do gain stage, this way we can hear the differencies without the bias of a louder mix tricking our brain ;) but very interesting!
I don't know if it's because it's louder, but the tape version sounds to me like the bass is too emphasized. The analogue sound should be extremely subtle. The difference between those 2 recordings is anything but subtle.
@@tarstarkusz It often helps to adjust your own volume when watching this type of video. He did turn up the bass going into the tape, and i don't know much about this stuff, but the type of tape and other factors have a significant effect on frequency response. When i run stuff through my TEAC cassette deck, the change is much more than just subtle; even my friend who doesn't know anything about recording found the difference very noticeable (and improved). I recorded something through the thing the other day and went straight out without using tape, and even that was very colored and affected.
@@SeeSawMassacre A good tape deck properly set up and biased produces very little difference. Check out youtube user cassette comeback. He has a bunch of video with real time recording switching between the digital source and the tape recording (with a 3 head deck) and you will hear just how similar they sound. On some tapes, you simply cannot hear any difference.
@@tarstarkusz Then what's the point?
@@SeeSawMassacre If it's not set up correctly, it will color the music. It could be in my case that I just can't hear the difference because of hearing problems I have.
Think about the "audiophile!" Here is a guy who claims they can hear a difference in music using different cables. An equalizer is blasphemy to them. There is a lot of spergery in audio.
hiss is crazy on the tape version
As someone who has been using reel-to-reel since 1960, and has two Tascam 388s in my studio, my question would be why the group used digital in the first place, because the squared-off frequencies from the digital recording will continue onto the analog recording. Now that you've transferred it to reel, are you going to give them the reel as a finished product? How do they intend to use it? Do they intend to transfer it to CD for sale? Or are they going to cut vinyl?
And the squared-off "frequencies" will be rounded when they come through a speaker.
I used it to make it sound grittier and more broken..it adds warmth and character to my song I believe.
I think you might be mistaken in thinking that digital "transients"- those peak and valley wavy things- are squared off in a digital recording. That only happens if you have hard clipping (which sounds bad) during recording to digital- or if you're using some kind of synth or fuzz that does that. The differences that are picked up when running something through a tape machine aren't really noticeable visually, as far as i know. But you are right that if something was recorded hot enough to distort or clip on a tape machine, the clipping would be a less harsh, rounder type of clipping, generally.
@Pete Testube I just do stuff on a song to song basis, and it depends on how you want the recording process to go. We did a song with each track on tape first, then mixed it on the computer, like you said. That was fun and gave the thing more of a performative, idiosyncratic quality. But i wouldn't do that with a longer, full band song with the limited gear i have. I've had great results recording everything on our digital 8 track recorder, mixing it on the computer, and then mastering it in a way on cassette. That gives the song a lot of warmth and some natural compression (and just sounds way better), without having to get it all right in analog world- limiting hiss, synchronizing tracks, phasing issues etcetera. I'm always trying new combinations to make it quicker, more fun, and to do the song justice.
Digital frequencies aren't "squared off" unless you pass 0db. I love tape but it's silly to see peoples hatred for digital because they heard its 1s and 0s
Nice 👍
Thanks ✌
you don't have to sell your soul!! just get your self a tascam 388.. lol
Surprisingly I actually prefer the digital version. It has more depth imo. If the masters were level matched, that would make the comparison easier. Folks tend to prefer what sounds louder.
As a social experiment I switched the two and made no mention of it in the video, so you're actually liking the tape version better it seems! Good ear.
@@fuzzcityrecords432 lol darn it! I thought I had an excuse to not pay to send my digital files to be bounced to tape. I'm actually looking into 4 tracks even. I may tracks drums, vocals, and bass analog to cassette and add additional tracks digitally in my DAW.
@@fuzzcityrecords432 huh? I was gonna go through your old vids to pick up some knowledge, but if I don't know what I'm listening to when, then I guess that'd be sorta pointless. Glad I read through the comments, I guess.
I’ve recently began a collection of outboard gear, and have even more recently began to dip my toes into the world of tape. I’m curious if you have any advice on whether it would be better worth investing money into more outboard gear, or into a tape deck? (specifically, I’m looking at a fully serviced/refurbished Sony 3 head cassette deck from a local shop for around $400) I currently have a 2 chan preamp, 2 chan compressor, and an EQ. In short, if my goal is adding more saturation and “”vibe”” into my digital recordings, what do you think would be the better investment? (or anyone reading this) Thanks!
I'm 'biased' to reccomend getting into tape.. 😅 but seriously, you can't go wrong getting a Tascam 32, or Tascam 42, or Otari 5050 or something like that I think would be the best bet! The wave forms are captured using magnetic particles!?!! I mean, No other hardware does what that does
My man!
I've been away....has the new album been released ?
Getting Mastered, then it's in line for vinyl pressing where the plants are a bit delayed... but it's in the works!
So any proceeding pre or post A/D?
I’m having trouble finding info on what I’m trying to do. I basically want to do a live master from the tascam 388. I’m trying to figure out the signal chain. I think it would be as simple as Tascam 388 stereo output -> mastering strip (compressor, eq, etc) -> some a/d converter or interface. Would that work do you think? Not sure why I’m having trouble finding info on it, so it makes me think it’s uncommon..
Actually, I’ll probably bounce to a separate tape machine so I can master separately.
Cool, what kind of music are you recording?
@@fuzzcityrecords432 Definitely out there indie music. Acoustic and vocals mainly, super minimal orchestration and mix I think. Doing all analog effects like an echo chamber and tape delay.
But yeah deciding I’ll bounce the mix down to a separate tape machine first, then eq and compress -> interface
That way I only hit the dacs once. Thanks for attending my Ted talk haha
Assuming it sounds good
Dude this is awesome! Are you accepting more inquiries for a tape bounce? I have a few songs for you if you're interested 🎶
Sure thing, send me an email, fuzzcityrecords@gmail.com
Hi matt,
I got a question that is a bit out of context and I hope you could enlighten me. Just ordered 6 reels of LPR35 from ebay to record my next album but instead I had 6 LPR90. My tascam 388 is calibrated for the LPR35. I was just wondering what tape you’re using and if the LPR90 could work on the machine. I’m a bit bummed out tbh.
Thanks in advance
I bet it will be just fine and that even the most elite audio supremacists would fail a blind comparison quiz. Average listeners will absolutely never notice! Perhaps a slight tone difference?
@@fuzzcityrecords432 thanks!
Do you use LPR 90 or LPR 35 by any chance?
@@gaspardeden1145 We used SM468 for our new record and it worked out well!
wow.. tape makes it sound a lot louder! that's cool! just like a fader in my daw!
just kiddin... I hear what tape is doing, it's nice, but the video would be much more informative if you normalised the loudness. but thanks any way.
Perhaps, that low bump was not needed, it reduced clarity on smaller mono speakers
Very interessting, but honestly the analog sample is really louder than the digital one so it is not a fairplay comparison. Great video anyway.
as an engineer i wonder why the levels didnt get matched.. its supposed to be done if you are comparing the approach, rather than just showing video notes during the project.
I just started recording at home again and am planning on using a new digital 12 channel Teac mixer into Studio One. Once I have everything recorded and sounding the way I want I’m going to play it back into the room through my system because that’s when it usually sounds the best. Then I’ll use my Ribbon mic to record the mastered song into a 1968 Teac 3 mixer and from there into a cassette. The deck recording will then be fed back into the computer. I’m assuming they recorded a lot like this in the 50’s but I can’t really find out much about this method. I thought of this method because I do it all the time with my cell phone. Any suggestions?
Hey man, HX-Pro is better than the dolby/DBS, it hides the hiss in the high notes of the music. Its not a filter, doesnt take sounds away. You get more head room, along with obvious big bass.
Cool, will check it out!
@Pete Testube Not that Im aware of .. Its usually just built into the tape deck and perhaps 4-tracks and 8-tracks.