I run the tape player into a mult jack on my patchbay. From there, I go to the Dolby input and an A-D converter. The output of the Dolby goes to another A-D converter. I can conveniently do this for up to 8-track tapes. In this way, I preserve both the raw playback and the live Dolby-decoded version. The raw playback can be used if someone notices (or thinks they notice) a problem with the Dolby decode process. Both streams are captured at 96/24. This is especially critical for tapes without Dolby tones. GAK! Cheers, Richard On 2012-01-11 7:56 AM, Tom Fine wrote: > I agree that this is proper procedure, always better not to D-A/A-D if > possible. Consider it more direct signal chain -- original tape>Dolby > decoder>A-D converter. > > However, I think the original poster said he did not have the original > tape on hand, in which case the only good option is -- D-A > converter>Dolby decoder>A-D converter. > > For what it's worth, I've experimented with both methods, using > nothing too fancy, just my DAL CardDeluxe interfaces. There are slight > audible differences, but they are subtle, to my ears. I can't say one > sounds "better" than the other because they are so similar. It's > possible that the tape>Dolby>ADC method sounds slightly more "open" > but it's really a subtle difference. Conversion was done at 96/24 both > ways. This is not a clearly audible difference, like between a 7.5IPS > quarter-track tape and the same material recorded at the same time on > a 15IPS 2-track tape, or between an LP and a master tape. > > -- Tom Fine > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:26 AM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Dolby Plugin > > > Reads as if it's time for a fresh tape to ADC transfer with the Dolby in > line. Even using very good converters (e.g., Lavry Gold] in double > signal-jacking [D/A/D] mode is counter-indicated unless you must do > that to > use some outboard analog processing. If you have the tape, you don't > have > to do that. It should not have been transferred without Dolby decoding. > > > > > Andrew > > > On 1/11/12 5:48 AM, "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I agree with Ted. Dolby is a "process" (they themselves called it a >> "process" >> in numerous marketing >> materials), really it's a compressor and band-filter and expander. So >> it's >> just another piece of >> outboard equipment. I think a musician or producer that has access to a >> real-deal good-working-order >> Pultec EQ unit or Fairchild compressor would never use a "plug-in" >> instead. >> Modelling is only so >> good, it's modelling instead of actual hardware. The sound is bound >> to be >> different, by varying >> degrees (good modelling = slight differences due to slightly different >> performance characteristics >> in the real world; poor modelling = little resemblence to the real >> thing). >> Dolby made and makes good >> hardware, when used properly it's fine to run a source through a >> Dolby unit, >> the result will sound >> better than un-decoded. >> >> -- Tom Fine >> > -- 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.