Something like this would be needed simply because original media
deteriorates. You might _have_ to transfer something without the
proper hardware decoder or wind up with a digital file that was
transferred in the past and the original carrier goes missing, is
destroyed, or simply disintegrates.
With old time radio, it's not unusual to find a program that was
transferred to tape from the only known copy many years ago and the
original discs are nowhere to be found or happened to get destroyed or
damaged since the transfer was made. Sometimes, you just wind up with
what you have with no way to go back to the original media.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with George that a plug-in would be preferable if the emulation can
> be achieved.
> One big advantage of a plug-in is that decoding wouldn't need to take place
> in real-time, so there can be a constant re-evaluation of perameters and
> tweaking of things like levels and amount of expansion in a given frequency
> band. You could theoretically make the Dolby decoding much more transparent,
> thus making the NR itself more transparent. You could also unlock creative
> possibilites for those who want to mess with the Dolby expansion curves,
> frequency bands, etc, to get a "personality" from the tracks that they
> For Hollywood, I would think a Dolby plug-in would be very helpful for
> workflows in the preservation and restoration end of things, one less piece
> of hardware to worry about, one more process that can semi- or
> Given the sophistication of compressor/limiter emulations already available
> in the plug-in world, I'd think a Dolby emulator is possible. But, as I said
> earlier, I think anyone who's actually used a Pultec EQ unit or a Fairchild
> compressor will tell you that the plug-ins aren't identical in performance,
> parameters, controls or results to the real thing. So perhaps the software
> science isn't there yet for something mission-critical like Dolby decoding.
> -- Tom Fine