Actually, that was the one thing I always heard you could NEVER do with
Dolby encoded tapes -- dub them without decoding them.
I'm going back 15 years or so to remember this, but it is possible I did not
decode the Dolby on some of the analog copies I made, probably for test
purposes. As I said, decoding backwards was not my preferred method, but no
one seemed bothered by my concerns. I did the dubs per the request of the
reissue producer. If there were residual decoding artifacts, I never heard
them or heard about them from the others involved.
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 21:23:34 -0000, Ted Kendall
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>This runs counter to my own experience. Firstly, one great benefit of Dolby
>A was that straight copies of encoded tapes could be made without decoding,
>provided that the reference tones were retained on the copy, so there was no
>need to decode as part of the dubbing process. Secondly, to decode a Dolby A
>tape on reverse play is just plain wrong - the attack and decay
>chracteristics of the system are asymmetrical, so the decoding will be
>wrong, no matter how much you have finessed the other parameters.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jeff Willens" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 1:22 PM
>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playing reels backwards - separating myth from fact
>I should think the net gain depends on the type of music involved. Back at
>Universal, I was asked by a producer to make 1:1 analog copies of album
>masters played in reverse to be sent out for mastering. The thinking was
>exactly as you describe: sharper transients, better bass response and
>definition,etc. Since these were all reggae albums from the 70s and 80s,
>they felt it was worth the effort.
>In my own crude testing, I found that, aside from making sure the channels
>were consistent (something one can easily overlook), I also found azimuh to
>be the crucial factor in achieving any success, Many masters were Dolby
>encoded, which gave me much pause, but no one else was concerned about it (I
>figured decoding between the two tape machines was the least of all evils).
>Was there a difference? Hard to say. I believe there was a slightly better
>result from reverse transfer, but nothing drastic. And definitely nothing
>that couldn't be got with skillful use of modern compression and EQ.