I agree that this is proper procedure, always better not to D-A/A-D if possible. Consider it more
direct signal chain -- original tape>Dolby decoder>A-D converter.
However, I think the original poster said he did not have the original tape on hand, in which case
the only good option is -- D-A converter>Dolby decoder>A-D converter.
For what it's worth, I've experimented with both methods, using nothing too fancy, just my DAL
CardDeluxe interfaces. There are slight audible differences, but they are subtle, to my ears. I
can't say one sounds "better" than the other because they are so similar. It's possible that the
tape>Dolby>ADC method sounds slightly more "open" but it's really a subtle difference. Conversion
was done at 96/24 both ways. This is not a clearly audible difference, like between a 7.5IPS
quarter-track tape and the same material recorded at the same time on a 15IPS 2-track tape, or
between an LP and a master tape.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Dolby Plugin
Reads as if it's time for a fresh tape to ADC transfer with the Dolby in
line. Even using very good converters (e.g., Lavry Gold] in double
signal-jacking [D/A/D] mode is counter-indicated unless you must do that to
use some outboard analog processing. If you have the tape, you don't have
to do that. It should not have been transferred without Dolby decoding.
On 1/11/12 5:48 AM, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Ted. Dolby is a "process" (they themselves called it a "process"
> in numerous marketing
> materials), really it's a compressor and band-filter and expander. So it's
> just another piece of
> outboard equipment. I think a musician or producer that has access to a
> real-deal good-working-order
> Pultec EQ unit or Fairchild compressor would never use a "plug-in" instead.
> Modelling is only so
> good, it's modelling instead of actual hardware. The sound is bound to be
> different, by varying
> degrees (good modelling = slight differences due to slightly different
> performance characteristics
> in the real world; poor modelling = little resemblence to the real thing).
> Dolby made and makes good
> hardware, when used properly it's fine to run a source through a Dolby unit,
> the result will sound
> better than un-decoded.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Kendall" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Dolby Plugin
>> On 10/01/2012 21:51, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>>> Hi, Louis,
>>> Your wishes are the same as the rest of us...but I'm afraid you'll have to
>>> hold your nose and go
>>> out to the outboard Dolby A unit and then back into digital.
>>> I wish I were wrong, but Dolby has been pretty insistent that they don't
>>> want to do this.
>>> On 2012-01-10 3:14 PM, Louis Hone wrote:
>>>> A client brought me a WAV file which is a direct transfer from a quarter
>>>> inch tape (1980). The tape had a full set of tones (15 K, 10 K, 1K, 100,
>>>> 50, and Dolby A warble tone) and these tones are in the WAV file. The
>>>> original tape was Dolby A encoded and the WAV file has not been decoded. I
>>>> know that whoever did the transfer, adjusted the azimuth, as well as high
>>>> and low frequency EQ prior to the transfer. However, no Dolby A unit was
>>>> available so the tape remains encoded. My question: is there a Dolby A
>>>> plugin that can be used in ProTools ? I wish to avoid going back to the
>>>> analog domain (and through a Dolby A unit) and back to digital in order to
>>>> decode this file.
>>>> Louis Hone
>> What's the problem with going through analogue? Transparent conversion has
>> been available for some
>> time now, and the vagaries of modelling would be far more likely to cause
>> problems than another
>> stage of conversion.
Serif Sound ♬ CD Premastering
➣ Dingbat Lacquer Sound Disc