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  February 2016

ARSCLIST February 2016

Subject:

Re: Playing reels backwards - separating myth from fact

From:

Jeff Willens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:11:27 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (142 lines)

Jamie, from your standpoint, to get back to the OT, are there any
advantages/disadvantages to simply transferring a tape backwards, either to
an analog or a digital format? Are there bias or timing issues involved? And
could your process be run on a tape running backwards with the same results?
(I would guess not).



On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:32:51 -0500, JAMES HOWARTH <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Better hope the tones stay with the copy, otherwise it will never decode
correctly.
>
>I was taught strictly the opposite by the late Dave Smith, who probably
would know. Phase errors accumulate, tape compression effects accumulate
(which is part of why some played games with the encode/decode to get a
brighter playback after having unintentionally de-essed the encoded
recording with the tape then wonder why it comes back dull and pumpy), head
bumps, yikes. 
>
>As for 5 generations - If you want hiss pumping from the noise added by all
copies then definitely add 4 generations of hiss then apply the fixed
expanding algorithm on all of it. It will audibly bounce, and thatís
mega-distracting. 
>
>jh
>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Rob Poretti - Cube-Tec
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> As a mastering engineer in the early-mid 80's the practice was definitely
>> not to decode Dolby for copy's.  That was standard practice for all the
>> label work we did - which at the time included Capitol, A&M, RCA, WEA and
>> many others...
>> 
>> Cheers!
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>> _/
>> Rob Poretti - Sales Engineer - Archiving
>> Cube-Tec North America LLC
>> Vox.905.827.0741  Fax.905.901.9996  Cel.905.510.6785 
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>> _/
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dave Burnham
>> Sent: February 9, 2016 3:43 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Playing reels backwards - separating myth from fact
>> 
>> Actually back in the Dolby A days I copied many encoded tapes without
>> decoding them. On decoding, the Dolby will address ALL of the hiss
>> regardless of how many generations there are. There will be losses such as
>> cumulative frequency response errors and compounded distortion but those
>> would happen anyway, even if you decoded and encoded for every dub. If you
>> don't decode/encode when you copy, you'll avoid all of the errors introduced
>> by the Dolbys themselves. 
>> 
>> db
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I need to remind everyone that I never made a backwards copy of an encoded
>> (stretched) tape, regardless of the noise reduction employed. I was there
>> when the "to decode or not decode" controversy was at it's height. My
>> position was (and still is) to decode the original and re-encode the copy.
>> Reason: If you make a copy of an encoded tape without decoding it, the copy
>> will have baked in tape hiss that will ultimately not be affected by the
>> noise reduction when applied for final playback. Thus, the copy will be
>> nosier than if you decoded and re-encoded the copy.
>>> 
>>> Cheers!
>>> 
>>> Corey
>>> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
>>> www.baileyzone.net
>>> 
>>>> On 2/8/2016 9:19 PM, Jeff Willens wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>> ====================================================================
>>>>> =====
>>>> 
>========================================================================

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