LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2012

ARSCLIST January 2012

Subject:

Re: Dolby Plugin

From:

seva <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:59:20 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (191 lines)

  i recall a conversation years ago with michael gerzon about 
decoders, both dolby and dbx. he explained why it was not really 
possible due to bandwidth issues; not accurately enough, probably due 
to frequency warping with digital EQ (as it approaches nyquist). 
<that is my supposition, and when it came to gerzon, i was not 
usually right, but if i find the email where he told me, i'll share 
the gist.>

as far as not being able to do it: i'm not sure that's the case 
anymore, but Dolby has a very good reason to not do it, even if they 
could:  piracy.  there is a constant battle against faceless deviants 
bound to break protection, far more than physical heists of audio 
gear.  if you made gear and had that many people trying to steal it, 
you'd give up, of course.  UA ties their processors to an embedded 
co-processor, which makes it secure; this is a military-grade 
approach.  waves has used various methods, all of which eventually 
have been broken.  it is very tiring and costly to protect the 
possible ROI on DSP development.

modeling has advanced so significantly in the past few years that any 
prior experience with it needs an update. of course, some models are 
better than others. most software processing companies prefer to have 
"incredible" graphics and anonymous algorithms rather than do it 
right (i.e., pay the money for the top shelf DSP experts).


At 15:13 +0100 1/11/12, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:
>From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I must confess that I am very surprised at learning that there is no
>emulation of Dolby A available for the digital domain. The reason is
>something Dolby said the during the discussion following Ray Dolby's Richard
>C. Heyser Memorial Lecture at the 112th AES Convention in Amsterdam 2002.
>Precisely because of this problem I asked about emulation, and Ray claimed
>publicly that such products had been developed. Now, that is almost 10 years
>ago, so I find it scandalous it that is not true.
>
>We are always told that modern digitization is oh, so transparent, so I
>cannot see any reason why Dolby A decoding could not occur in the digital
>domain, in which there are no problems with levels and calibration, provided
>the averaging needed for evaluating the level of the signal in a given
>frequency range and hence the amount of processing is done correctly. And if
>you have transferred your tape once, you should not need to do it ever again,
>except for magnetical reasons, such as better heads and transports.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>George
>
>
>
>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
>>  have
>>  to do that.  It should not have been transferred without Dolby decoding.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Andrew
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Richard
>>  >>>
>>  >>> On 2012-01-10 3:14 PM, Louis Hone wrote:
>>  >>>> Greetings
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> 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.
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> Thanks
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> 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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager