Tale of Us — Tale Of Us - Live @ Time Warp 2016 (Mannheim) - 03-04-2016
Melodic Techno · 1h 57m · Time Warp · analysed 18 Aug 2026 · source: soundcloud.com
Public mix analysis — no affiliation or endorsement. This report measures a publicly available recording hosted on soundcloud.com. The scores are produced by SOONOS and do not imply any partnership with, or approval by, Tale of Us.
In short
Tale Of Us - Live @ Time Warp 2016 (Mannheim) - 03-04-2016 by Tale of Us scores 75/100 in the SOONOS analysis (solid). The strongest dimension is IDENTITY (95/100) and the weakest is TECHNIQUE (82/100).
This segment demonstrates how technical perfection can be used to serve a deep, emotional narrative rather than just technical display.
Key takeaways
What weakened the set
- Long static loops (6×) — Sections sitting on the same loop without layering, EQ moves or tension shifts (14:00, 26:00, 32:00, 35:00, 40:00, 70:00). Long loops kill dancefloor momentum.
What to try next
- Continue to master the art of the long, patient blend.
- Experiment with even more complex melodic layering in the closing stages.
- Maintain this level of narrative focus in all performance contexts.
Timestamped insights
Each moment below is tagged with how it was produced: “measured” comes from the DSP pass on the audio, “listening” comes from the multi-agent listening pass.
Flawless transition, maintaining the deep atmospheric tension.
Smooth introduction of percussive elements to build energy.
Perfectly executed harmonic transition that enhances the emotional arc.
Invisible handover; the percussion of the incoming track perfectly complements the outgoing bassline.
The melodic elements of both tracks harmonize perfectly, creating a lush soundscape.
About this melodic techno set
Tale Of Us - Live @ Time Warp 2016 (Mannheim) - 03-04-2016 is a melodic techno DJ set by Tale of Us, running 1h 57m. It was measured by the SOONOS multi-agent engine and scores 75/100 overall — solid.
The engine files this performance as “Promising”.
This segment demonstrates how technical perfection can be used to serve a deep, emotional narrative rather than just technical display.
How the score breaks down
SOONOS scores this set across 5 weighted categories. The strongest is IDENTITY at 95/100; the weakest is TECHNIQUE at 82/100.
The final score is capped by measured beatmatching: the DSP layer overrides the listening layer whenever it measures an execution issue directly in the audio.
Analysis coverage for this file is 100% — the share of the set the engine could measure with full confidence.
Energy and structure
The energy curve was sampled at 47 points, moving between 30 and 92 on the SOONOS energy scale — a wide dynamic range across the set.
7 transitions were detected and scored individually.
Beat-grid measurement (DSP) reports 251.0 grid breaks per hour, with a median beat offset of 28 ms.
How this score is built
Measured layer (DSP): the audio file is analysed directly — beat grid, tempo stability, loudness and energy. These values are measurements, not opinions.
Listening layer: a multi-agent pass reads musical intent — programming, storytelling, coherence and crowd effect. This layer interprets, it does not measure.
Fusion and ceilings: the two layers are merged, and the measured layer always wins on execution. When the DSP hears an execution problem, it caps the final score even if the listening layer is positive.
On this set, the ceiling applied is measured beatmatching.
Measured coverage for this file is 100% of the set.
Full SOONOS analysis
This segment demonstrates how technical perfection can be used to serve a deep, emotional narrative rather than just technical display.
The 8 dimensions
Not available — the 8-dimension profile was not measured for this set.
Score breakdown
TECHNIQUE
How well did you execute?
25%82
TECHNIQUE
How well did you execute?
STORYTELLING
Did the mix go somewhere?
25%92
STORYTELLING
Did the mix go somewhere?
ENERGY
Did you control the room?
20%88
ENERGY
Did you control the room?
SURPRISE
Did you remain unpredictable?
15%85
SURPRISE
Did you remain unpredictable?
IDENTITY
Did the mix sound like you?
15%95
IDENTITY
Did the mix sound like you?
Final score capped by measured beatmatching — the weighted average before the cap was 88.
Energy arc
Transitions analysed (7)
Perfect Blend
Atmospheric Layering
Long EQ blend with low-end swap
Flawless transition, maintaining the deep atmospheric tension.
Progressive layering and EQ filtering
Smooth introduction of percussive elements to build energy.
Harmonic blend with atmospheric pads
Perfectly executed harmonic transition that enhances the emotional arc.
Long EQ blend with subtle high-pass filtering.
Invisible handover; the percussion of the incoming track perfectly complements the outgoing bassline.
Harmonic blend over 32 bars.
The melodic elements of both tracks harmonize perfectly, creating a lush soundscape.
Technical subscores
91
EQ balance
96
Beat alignment
90
Energy control
96
Tempo stability
89
Loudness control
93
Musical coherence
95
Harmonic compatibility
93
Transition cleanliness
Measured (DSP)
28 ms
Beat-grid drift (median)
Typical gap between the two tracks' beats while they play together. Lower is tighter.
101 ms
Drift p95
Worst-case drift: 95% of the set stays tighter than this value.
7,030
Boundaries detected
Points where the audio changes track or section.
98
Hard cuts / h
Abrupt track changes per hour, with no blend between the two records.
126
Clipping events
Moments where the recording hits the ceiling and distorts.
392
Level jumps
Sudden volume steps between tracks.
Measurement confidence 100% · analysed on the full audio.
Recurring patterns
Long static loops (6×)
Sections sitting on the same loop without layering, EQ moves or tension shifts (14:00, 26:00, 32:00, 35:00, 40:00, 70:00). Long loops kill dancefloor momentum.
Timeline
- 15:20Atmospheric Peak
- 19:10Groove Lock
- 27:45Melodic Integration
Coaching notes
- Continue to master the art of the long, patient blend.
- Experiment with even more complex melodic layering in the closing stages.
- Maintain this level of narrative focus in all performance contexts.
Curious how your own set scores?
Methodology and limitations
This report is produced automatically from the published recording. It measures what is present in the audio file: a bad source encoding, a partial upload or a heavily processed broadcast version can change the measured values. Nothing here reflects the room, the crowd or the night itself.
Read the full SOONOS methodology →Questions about this analysis
- What score does Tale of Us's Tale Of Us - Live @ Time Warp 2016 (Mannheim) - 03-04-2016 get?
- Tale Of Us - Live @ Time Warp 2016 (Mannheim) - 03-04-2016 scores 75/100 in the SOONOS Mix Database (solid), based on audio measurement plus multi-agent listening.
- How long is Tale Of Us - Live @ Time Warp 2016 (Mannheim) - 03-04-2016?
- The analysed recording runs 1h 57m.
- Which part of the mix scores best?
- IDENTITY is the strongest category at 95/100, while TECHNIQUE is the lowest at 82/100.
- How is this score calculated?
- SOONOS measures the audio with a DSP pass (beat grid, loudness, tempo, energy) and runs a multi-agent listening pass on top. Measured axes always override the listening layer, so an execution issue heard in the file caps the final score.
More Tale of Us sets analysed
Similar melodic techno sets
- Len Faki — Len Faki @ Time Warp 2016, Maimarkthalle Mannheim82
- Nina Kraviz — @ time warp march 202682
- Mochakk — Mochakk @ Time Warp - Mannheim - 30 Years - 202484
- Joseph Capriati — Joseph Capriati @ Time Warp 2017 - Mannheim84
- Jamie Jones — Jamie Jones @ Time Warp Mannheim 2014 (05.04.2014)85
- Indira Paganotto — INDIRA PAGANOTTO : TIME WARP 2025 @ Stage 1 Closing Set85
- Jamie Jones — Jamie Jones live at Time Warp Mannheim 201685
- Indira Paganotto — Indira Paganotto: Time Warp 30 years 2024 FULL SET86
Test how a set like this one would land in a club, a beach club or a festival.
Get the same breakdown on your own set: transitions, energy arc and measured execution.
Guides: How SOONOS works · DJ guides and research