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  July 2019

ARSCLIST July 2019

Subject:

Re: Preserving both raw and decoded files for tapes recorded with Noise Reduction?

From:

Tim Gillett <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 17 Jul 2019 22:17:12 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (325 lines)

Hi Mike,

I note that Richard Hess kindly mentioned my name in his comments on
your Decoding Dolby page in relation to using  selective (usually
high frequency) EQ
 to remove encode/decode Dolby B/C artifacts. I do indeed subscribe to
that view, especially with slow speed tape media like cassettes.  I
can bear this out, not in the sense of having made absolute laboratory
measurements of cassette tape signal degradation but having struggled
to decode many Dolby encoded tapes without selectively boosting the
likely weak highs.

Consider a case where the cassette is down by 10db
 at 15kHz. It will probably also be down to a lesser extent at say 10
kHz but perhaps is still correct at 5kHz and lower. With standard
playback, it
 will never decode properly. In order to correct the loss at 15kHz w
e can boost the overall gain into the decoder by 10db  but in doing
so, we have now created an error of the same magnitude (10db) at 5kHz
and below, and to a lesser extent above it.  It makes more sense to
me to only boost the losses where they occur, or are likely to occur,
and leave everything else untouched. A bit like Ray Dolby's own
philosophy of "least treatment."

I note that back in the day, two manufacturers, Yamaha and NAD brought
out cassette decks with a "play trim" control. It was basically a cut
or boost treble control, but operating selectively on  higher
frequencies than a normal "treble control",  perhaps above 5 kHz, 
 and - of course - inserted ahead of the Dolby decoder. It was a
rather limited tool as it ganged both left and right channels together
and so couldn't compensate for one channel with more of a loss than
the other, and its corner frequency was fixed. Still, I think that for
what it was, it was a well thought out little feature that the average
home user could make use of on many Dolbyised cassettes with mild
tracking problems, but without getting too technical.

For our purposes of best decode, that tool (hardware or software)
could be built on, made a little more sophisticated. I also agree with
Richard that there is a place for adjusting overall gain pre the
decoder, but usually to a much lesser degree than for the more
troublesome errors in the higher frequencies. Perhaps plus or minus a
few db in normal use.

In 2010 I was  appointed audio coordinator of a large cassette
digitisation project. I foresaw that some cassettes would be Dolby
encoded and so pondered the possible issues including "to attempt
Dolby decode at ingest,  later, or both?" My  recommendation was
that we not decode any cassettes "on the fly".
 Instead I allowed for an easier decode digitally if needed, some time
in the future, as your project also aims to allow for. To facilitate
that I maintained one calibrated transfer level from the cassette
machines into the digital recorders. So the "Dolby Level" which
cassette decks use as a set internal reference, I translated to a
level in the digital file. From memory it was something like Dolby
Level equals -15dbFS, or 15 db below digital clipping. This meant
there was but one record level no matter which of the thousands of
tapes was  captured. If anyone would like me to explain the rationale
behind that calibration in more detail I'd be happy to. 

A lot of this comes down to knowledge of the original Dolby systems
including their strengths and weaknesses, not least when used with
cassettes. I tried recently to access some very helpful in depth
discussion with diagrams of the analog Dolby NR systems which I used
to find on Dolby's own website but I haven't been able to relocate
them. If anyone knows how to access these articles now or has a copy
I'd appreciate hearing from them.

Tim Gillett

Perth,
Western Australia

 

----- Original Message -----
From:
 "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List"
<[log in to unmask]>

To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Cc:

Sent:
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:56:20 +0000
Subject:
Re: [ARSCLIST] Preserving both raw and decoded files for tapes
recorded with Noise Reduction?

 Hi Richard,

 At Indiana University's MDPI project, we create a preservation master
file 
 that is the raw, undecoded output and a preservation
master-intermediate file 
 that is decoded. You are not alone! Both are created at the same time
during 
 one pass. We believe that both are needed for accurate preservation
of the 
 content. By keeping the undecoded version, we hold open the
possibility of 
 redoing in the future the highly subjective and often inaccurate
choice of 
 which Dolby (or no Dolby) to use and how much gain to apply before
the Dolby 
 circuit. This meets a basic media preservation principle around the
nature of 
 judgment calls, where they are viewed as potential weak links in the 
 preservation chain. This leads to our policy to preserve not only the

 subjective product of a judgment call, but also a product that is not
the 
 result of subjective decisions.

 More information on how we handle Dolby-encoded cassettes is on our
blog:

 https://blogs.iu.edu/mdpi/

 Mike

 ---------------
 Mike Casey
 Director of Technical Operations, Audio/Video
 Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative
 Indiana University

 https://blogs.iu.edu/mdpi/
 https://mdpi.iu.edu/

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
 <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
 Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 8:53 PM
 To: [log in to unmask]
 Subject: [External] Re: [ARSCLIST] [EXTERNAL] [ARSCLIST] Preserving
both raw 
 and decoded files for tapes recorded with Noise Reduction?

 This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution
when 
 clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.
 -------

 Hi, Corey and Gary,

 Thanks for your kind remarks about the decoder. My colleague and
friend, John 
 Dyson has done a wonderful job with the code. His acid tests have
been leaked 
 Dolby recordings of 70s pop music--some of them sound so bad until he
decodes 
 them...but they are tougher than the stuff I've recorded and obtained
from 
 other sources.

 What has happened is the intermod that is normally generated by fast
gain 
 changes on decoding is vastly reduced.

 As to my question, am I the only proponent of recording the raw,
undecoded 
 output? It's saved my bacon more than once, and I've been insisting
on it for 
 at least a decade. I was hoping that some standards/best practice
body 
 recommended it. I did not think I was alone.

 John Chester, thanks for the info on 384 kHz sampling frequency and
bias.

 Remember my effort here?
 http://richardhess.com/notes/2008/02/02/tape-recorder-bias-frequencies/

 The only major recorders that are problematic (i.e. bias frequencies
above 180 
 kHz are:

 Ampex ATR-100 (432 kHz)
 Sony APR-5000 and probably multitracks (400 kHz) Studer A80VU (240
kHz, most 
 late models are 150 or 153.6 kHz,
 the A77 is 120 kHz)
 Otari MTR-10/12 and MTR-90 (246-250 kHz)

 Cheers,

 Richard

 On 2019-07-14 7:16 p.m., Gary A. Galo wrote:
 > Hi Richard,
 >
 > I echo Corey Bailey's email in congratulating you on the
software-based NR 
 > decoder. I'm sure there will be a considerable market for it.
 >
 > The issue of preserving the "original" data - whether analog of
digital - is 
 > a sticky and controversial one. When I gave my ARSC presentation on

 > transferring PCM-F1 format digital recordings for the NY ARSC
chapter April 
 > 2018, I was taken to task by one attendee for not preserving the
original 
 > bits. I go from the S/PDIF output of my PCM-601ESD digital
processor 
 > directly into a Tascam DA-3000 digital recorder. The Tascam has a
built-in, 
 > switchable sample rate converter based on the Cirrus Logic CS8422
SRC chip 
 > (which doubles as the S/PDIF input receiver). I set the Tascam to
record at 
 > 88.2 kHz, so the CS8422 is converting 44.056 to 88.2. An
"undocumented 
 > feature" of the DA-3000 recorder is that the CS8422 SRC chip also
does 50/15 
 > uSec de-emphasis, which take care of another issue with F1
recordings. Why 
 > Tascam fails to mention this anywhere in their manual or product
literature 
 > is beyond me, because the de-emphasis feature is clearly stated on
the front 
 > page of the CS-8422 data sheet, and it's an extremely useful
feature.
 >
 > With this method, only the inter-channel time delay and DC offset
still need 
 > to be addressed once the 88.2 kHz data is on your computer.
 >
 > My method does not save the original 44.056 kHz bits. Guilty as
charged. 
 > But, the CS8422 does a beautiful job with the SRC and the
de-emphasis, and 
 > has ultra-low jitter clock recovery to boot, so I sleep well at
night. If 
 > you feel the need to preserve the original bits, you could run a
second, raw 
 > transfer directly into your computer, if your computer will lock
onto 44.056 
 > kHz. Or, you could use a digital distribution device to split the
44.056 kHz 
 > data stream, sending it to both the computer, and the DA-3000
recorder 
 > simultaneously. But, I just don't see the need.
 >
 > So there is no misunderstanding, I can well understand the desire
to 
 > preserve the non-decoded Dolby-A analog signal in case better
software 
 > conversion becomes available down the road. It makes sense to do
this. So, 
 > perhaps I'm being inconsistent. These are thorny issues, and
everyone will 
 > have their own viewpoints.
 >
 > Best,
 > Gary
 >
 > ____________________________
 >
 > Gary Galo
 > Audio Engineer Emeritus
 > The Crane School of Music
 > SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676
 >
 > "Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
 > Arnold Schoenberg
 >
 > "A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be
believed."
 > Igor Markevitch
 >
 > "If you design an audio system based on the premise that nothing is
 > audible, on that system nothing will be audible."
 > G. Galo
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
 > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
 > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 5:42 PM
 > To: [log in to unmask]
 > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ARSCLIST] Preserving both raw and decoded
files for 
 > tapes recorded with Noise Reduction?
 >
 > Hi, I think many of us agree that it's necessary to preserve both
the
 > raw transfer and the decoded version of a file which has been
recorded
 > with Dolby or DBX type noise reduction.
 >
 > When I first thought about it, I never imagined I'd be part of a
team
 > that would produce a better decoder for Dolby A encoded tapes than
 > Dolby, but it's happening and humbling... So, it is a good idea to
 > save as much raw data as possible because who knows what else will
come 
 > along.
 >
 > Plangent is wonderful, but a bit problematic as it is still
 > inconvenient to properly archive the bias, but that's another
story,
 > and I think in the long run it would be good if we could do that.
 >
 > MY QUESTION is: Are there any standards or recommendations that say
 > "keep the raw undecoded copy as well as keeping the decoded copy?
 >
 > It's for a paper that Federica and I are writing.
 >
 > Thanks!
 >
 > 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.

-------------------------
Email sent using Optus Webmail

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