 |
 |
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. >=========================================================================