LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  August 2015

ARSCLIST August 2015

Subject:

Re: Satin dbx I decode

From:

John Haley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:28:53 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (149 lines)

Having lived thru "the cassette era" and having messed with zillions of
them (and I couldn't agree more with you, Tom, about cassettes in general,
as a format for music), the practical difference between Dolby B and Dolby
C is very little.  Dolby C has slighter "truer" upper end, but if you have
to, you can often decode a Dolby C  cassette with Dolby B, adjust the upper
end a little and come out OK.  B and C are "somewhat compatible."   As you
know, most prerecorded manufactured Dolbyized cassettes are anything but
accurate--I think they were made at very high speed, and home-recorded
Dolbyized cassettes are subject to how the Dolby electronics in the
particular cassette deck were working, which varied all over the lot..
Throw in the variations in tape formulations, which sounded very different,
and there is really nothing that is very scientific about any of this.
Cassettes are really one big crap shoot.  Serious professionals did not
much rely on cassettes, so there is little or no "professional grade" where
standards are more uniform, in the cassette world.   With most cassettes.we
are trying to restore now, we are going to try to decode them "right" to
get the best possible "first draft," but in most cases we are also going to
end up having to tailor the sound considerably with EQ to get an acceptable
result.  You could hardly make a rasher assumption than thinking that the
Dolby decoding is "right" because you are using the right equipment.

I listened carefully to Richard's Dolby A samples and with all due respect
I will disagree with you.   The third sample was so seriously flawed by
channel imbalance (the right channel was somewhat dead while the left was
unusually noisy--easily visible on the computer), I  don't think we can use
Sample 3 for any purpose.   Knowing how scrupulous Richard is, the culprit
is undoubtedly the Dolby A decoding, or I should say mis-decoding.   We
know there is no problem with this tape, since Samples 1 and 2 are dubs
from the exact same tape.

And I do not hear the "pumping" as between Samples 1 and 2.   Even sample 1
done with Satin is still a little hissy, a lot of which I would discreetly
remove if I were restoring this recording.   (Used in moderation and with
judgment, Izotope RX4 does this kind of thing so successfully that there is
no effect on the music.)  What you are hearing at :45 is where Richard
eliminated some music.   Please see my prior detailed discussion.

As for frequency response, the difference is the easily observable stronger
upper partials ins Sample 1 (the Satin one), which I like.  See my prior
discussion and analysis of how you can hear the individual voices in the
choir more clearly in the Satin one, while they are "mushed together" in
Sample 2.   The choir sounds substantially different on 1 and 2, and the
clearer version has be the more "accurate" one,and is the preferable one.
There is really no "correct" to compare to here, unless you just assume
that Sample 2 is more accurate because it was done with the hardware.   At
least in this case, listening does not bear that out,and I don't think we
can make that assumption.

One might think that over-emphasis in the uppermost ranges would result
less good sonic results, and that will often be true.  But I don't hear it
that way here.

Best, John








On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Richard:
>
> First of all, I would think dbx decoding would be easier with software
> because as I understand it's a straight compansion ratio against all
> frequency bands, so there's no complexity of frequency-specific processing.
>
> That said, could you post examples like you did for Dolby.
>
> I listened to the Dolby examples again and I really don't like the Satin
> processing. It screws up the frequency balance and also the stereophony,
> plus the pumping issue. As I said, if I were doing it, I'd use well-working
> Dolby hardware and do the decoding in the analog realm, and then do
> professional mastering (ie tasteful EQ tweaks to make it sound less
> deadened).
>
> For what it's worth, I have a 363 unit that I bought on eBay and it seems
> to work well, based on the relative levels of the Dolby warble tone and
> 100, 1k and 10k test tones on a professionally made Dolby A tape from the
> mid 1970s. I have not messed with SR because I don't have any SR tapes.
>
> What would be very useful from the folks at Satin who have at least
> partially cracked the Dolby code would be a Dolby C emulator that had a
> sensitivity control built in. A big problem with Dolby C cassettes is that
> they lose signal level and then the Dolby C doesn't decode properly. This
> also seems to be a problem with some videotapes, I'm not sure of all the
> formats but I think Betacam was one of them. I'm glad I did not use Dolby C
> for very many hard to replace cassette recordings, because it's problematic
> to get it work properly on machines not the original recorder and also with
> 25-year-old tapes that have lost signal level (see Jay McKnight's and
> others' comments on the Ampex List and elsewhere about cassettes partially
> self-erasing over time; some deny this to be possible but I have definitely
> seen these behaviors with my own Dolby C tapes made in the early 1990s).
> Anyway, I think software that allowed for sensitivity or threshold control
> for the Dolby C, for each of the bands (because the problem seems to be
> confined to that high-frequency band), might allow for better tracking of
> old cassettes. And let me say one more time, I do not miss the Compact
> Cassette one bit.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard L. Hess" <
> [log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:52 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Satin dbx I decode
>
>
>
> Hi, all, just a heads up. The Satin decode for dbx I is very close to my
>> dbx I processor, but not exact. It is clearer and more open...again.
>>
>> So, as luck would have it, the power supply in my M-frame (I think)
>> stopped working. That MAY have been the cause of the problems (low voltage
>> perhaps someplace). I don't know.
>>
>> But I have a backlog of tapes to try and one of my two dbx frames has
>> something wrong on the power bus (I don't know if a card is pulling it down
>> or the supply is problematic) and now my Dolby M frame is out.
>>
>> Satin came along at just the right time.
>>
>> I'll try 16 tracks of Satin dbx I tomorrow on a 1" 16T tape that caused
>> me to notice the 9-16 frame was acting flaky. Now I can at least easily
>> provide raw and processed versions of the transfer without needing 32 A-D
>> channels or running an outboard realtime pass.
>>
>> What is WONDERFUL about Satin is that you don't have intermittent
>> switches and lots of pots to adjust in difficult-to-reach places.
>>
>> I am seeing very few NR tapes.
>>
>> I think I'm going to pass on buying a 363 right now.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> --
>> Richard L. Hess                   email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada                             647 479 2800
>> 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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
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