I run the tape player into a mult jack on my patchbay. From there, I go
to the Dolby input and an A-D converter. The output of the Dolby goes to
another A-D converter. I can conveniently do this for up to 8-track tapes.
In this way, I preserve both the raw playback and the live Dolby-decoded
version. The raw playback can be used if someone notices (or thinks they
notice) a problem with the Dolby decode process. Both streams are
captured at 96/24.
This is especially critical for tapes without Dolby tones. GAK!
On 2012-01-11 7:56 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> 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
> 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
>> in numerous marketing
>> materials), really it's a compressor and band-filter and expander. So
>> 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"
>> 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
>> 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
Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.