rvpianoThere is an openness and seemingly unlimited space on the
pre-Dolby discs that I feel is lacking on Dolbyized discs. I've never seen a "Dolby disc," so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you're referring to the tape that made the disc, how would you know whether Dolby was used, or not?
Dolby’s cutting off
of the highest frequencies, although allegedly electronically replaced,
eviscerates the sound ... Dolby does not cut off the highest frequencies. That's not how it works. It actually increases HF (above a certain frequency and on a sliding band) to improve S/N, then decreases HF on playback by a corresponding amount. It's a complementary compression/expansion system. To work as intended, Dolby requires that the record deck be properly setup for bias and EQ and that the Dolby circuit be aligned to reference level. Naturally, those conditions aren't always precisely met, and that's why Dolby has a bad rep among some. |
Dolby A?
A Dolby noise-reduction system, or Dolby NR, is one of a series of noise reduction systems developed by Dolby Laboratories for use in analog audio tape recording. The first was Dolby A, a professional broadband noise reduction system for recording studios in 1965, but the best-known is Dolby B (introduced in 1968), a sliding band system for the consumer market, which helped make high fidelity practical on cassette tapes, which used a relatively noisy tape size and speed. It is common on high fidelity stereo tape player…
|
I’m speaking of analog LP’s produced by record companies in the late ‘50’s and early ‘60’s whose tapes were recorded NOT USING the Dolby A process. which had not yet been invented. And those master tapes were often used in the making of modern CDS.
Cleeds— I think your referring to the modern use of Dolby..
yogiboy == You’re exactly right, but your not addressing what I’m talking about. |
What I’m talking about is a real phenomenon that many classical music listeners and others have heard and commented on. The early pre-Dolby recordings do have a different tonal signature to those made with Dolby.
(When I say recordings of course I’m referring to the master tapes from which the records are made. Let’s not quibble over terminology.) |
rvpiano I’m
speaking of analog LP’s produced by record companies in the late ‘50’s
and early ‘60’s whose tapes were recorded NOT USING the Dolby A process.
which had not yet been invented. And those master tapes were often used
in the making of modern CDS. How would you know which original recordings from the 60s were made with Dolby 'A', and which ones were made without any NR, or were made using a competing compression/expansion system?
As the 60s evolved, multitrack recording became the norm, so that may explain the difference you hear in SQ between the decades.
In any event, none of the Dolby circuits (A, B, C, SR ...) work by
"cutting off of the highest frequencies" which are then "electronically replaced."
|
Hi RVPiano ...
I think I can help you here in a way few other A’goners can. :) I used to work in motion picture sound, and Dolby-A was the noise reduction system used for Dolby Surround. I’ve taken those cards apart, and reverse engineered other bits of Dolby gear from the purely analog era.
I wouldn’t call Dolby audiophiles at all, certainly not back then. They were into effects, and noise and distortion was not high on their agenda to prevent, let alone "microdynamics" or anything close to that. While I believe the idea behind Dolby-A was a good one, to compress high frequency content so it would put less of a strain on tape, and later film, they always implemented their circuits with a huge amount of parts without particular care for anything besides the main goal. They also weren’t very quick to update their products with modern integrated parts which would have given them lower noise, lower distortion results for less cash. Their product cycles lasted a good long time. Even using purely analog parts, Dolby A would be absolutely trivial to implement today with a handful of IC's, but back then was an electronics store of discrete parts.
We’d have to get a hold of those cards, of course, and attempt an encoding and decoding cycle to see exactly what was going on, but in general, based on the circuits I got to see and the performance I measured in the pro gear, I’d say it’s most likely that the problem wasn’t the idea of Dolby-A but the way Dolby would implement their circuits, going all the way back to the power supplies.
There were a number of poor choices in their film gear, which absolutely left too much noise and blurred too much detail which was in the tracks, so I can easily see how this could have been in the tape recording products.
While we can implement Dolby-A decoding digitally today and spare ourselves some of these problems, we can’t go backwards in time and remove the original encoding and what that must have done to the sound.
Best,
Erik
|
I wouldn’t call Dolby audiophiles at all, certainly not back then. They
were into effects, and noise and distortion was not high on their agenda
to prevent,
I meant other types of noise. Dolby would improve the HF noise, while ignoring other. |
Cleeds,
Yes indeed, multi miking and tracking played a role in affecting the sound, many think, negatively, You could also cite the switch from tubes to transistors as having a negative affect.
But one thing is clear and indisputable, there were no Dolby recordings made prior to 1965, the year of its invention. That’s not so hard to understand.
Although, you’re right, I have no way of knowing which recordings used Dolby after that date, I sure as hell know there were no Dolby recordings made pre 1965.
And that’s my point!
I believe, in general, records made before 1965 sound better than those produced later.
|
However, you’re right, I don’t know the technical details as to how Dolby works. .But one thing is sure, the final sonic signature is not the same as it started out. |
It was compression, then expansion to reduce noise. There was a device that controlled both ends of the process. No frequencies were eliminated and the process was used to expand dynamic range. Lessor one sided Dolby systems were not as good but master tape with Dolby pro encoding were known as the best possible tape playback (10 inch reel to reel, not cassette). |
Dolby pro encoding Not to be confused with Dolby ProLogic! |
I remember that Dolby C on my cassette deck worked much better than Dolby B. The biggest difference, extension wise, was HX-Pro (servo on the bias). There was also less effective Phillips thing called Dynamic Noise Limiter (DNL), frequency/level playback only noise filter, but never got popular in spite of free license. CD players also have ability to reduce noise by emphasis/de-emphasis (similar to Dolby), but it reduces CDP noise only. Each CD has bit/flag that turns de-emphasis on. It doesn’t make sense now for digital recordings, but might be still in use (emphasis applied during analog recording). |
|
The time period you are talking about is also when transistor equipment replace tube microphones, recording consoles and tape recorders. As someone mentioned above, multi-tracking was also introduce at this time. To filter out the impact of Dolby NR in the recording process you would have to research when and whether it was used by specific labels and studios.
|
