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:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:56:44 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

* I'm not going to quote Spinal Tap. * * I'm not going to quote Spinal Tap.
* * I'm not going to quote Spinal Tap. *

Dolby clearly became synonymous with state-of-the-art and good-sound, so
studios probably had to use it, even when not really necessary. It's the way
the business seems to work.

But, given all the errors that are endemic to decoded playback, maybe a
decode "model" needn't be too concerned with strict accuracy. Maybe it only
has to sound good?

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Dolby Plugin

Dolby became necessary when everyone was using 8, 16 and then 24 tracks for
rock, pop, some jazz and 
even some classical recording. I can see it being a huge benefit to keep
hiss buildup at bay when 
you're combining all those tracks. However, it became an obsession in the
70's and 80's. Why was it 
necessary to be used again on a 2-track master? 15IPS 2-track on low-noise
tape is very quiet, and 
the Dolby can and often does squashes the sound, making "presence" and "high
end" tweaks necessary 
in LP and CD mastering. The Dolby tracking falls off as the tape
self-erases, even if you set to 
Dolby tones at the beginning, as I understand self-erasure that doesn't mean
that all components of 
all dynamics erased at the same rates/ratios, so the Dolby tracking should
be adversely effected 
(further "deadening" the sound and "washing out" the top end).

There are examples out there from the early days of 16-track where the
multitrack was running 
low-noise tape at 30IPS, no NR, and the 2-track master was recorded at
30IPS, no NR. They are not 
especially hissy. Dolby did allow economies of tape usage, no doubt there.

Sonically, it was a real mixed bag. As I understand it (having never used
it), SR was a leap 
forward. I think the whole obsession with hiss was over-rated, but I agree
that 16 or 24 hissy 
tracks mixed together is too noisy. If it were me producing, I would have
gone with higher speeds 
and higher levels first, turning to NR only if nothing else worked. The
advent and wide acceptance 
of Dolby also probably cut off some R&D in the tape world. What about
thicker emulsions like 35mm 
mag-film? Also, what about 12 tracks per 2" instead of 16? That's the same
track width as 3-track 
1/2" and should make for low-noise recording if low-noise tape was used at
higher operating levels.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Dolby Plugin


> Hi, Jamie,
>
> You caused me to go look at the CAT22 schematic again and I noticed some
interesting things.
>
> (1) You're right that there are odd diode-ninja things in he drive to the
FETs, but there are also 
> two FETs driven from the same line, producing, what would appear at first
glance, a steeper 
> attenuation slope.
>
> (2) There is another nasty thing--fairly hard diode clipping (which isn't
as hard as digital 
> clipping as you know) on the base of the compressor's audio output emitter
follower. Joy!
>
> I'm glad I've got a bunch of CAT22 cards to carry me into the future.
>
> Fortunately, failure modes appear to be MOSTLY coupling caps.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> On 2012-01-11 3:12 PM, Jamie Howarth wrote:
>> They also do some weird attack and release ninja with diodes that is
really hard to mock up. The 
>> while enchilada has strange xfer curves beyond just the compression
ratio, bandpasses, and 
>> thresholds-  which is why they invert-added through the same screwball
circuit - building two of 
>> these won't match.
>> Knowing what I know now about this self-nulling circuit and tape
compression there's no way it 
>> can't be heard mistracking. Comparing a dolby a encode-immediate-decode
through wire is audible 
>> if the dolby dot levels are even slightly mismatched. Off tape it's
hilarious. Of course who 
>> likes hiss...
>> But that's why hot 15IPS or hot 30IPS was the preferred "evil" ... Dolby
a changes stuff a lot.
>
> -- 
> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada           (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
> 

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

December 2020
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