Re: [ARSCLIST] Risk assessment tool Q2

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is a constant chatter level in the plug-ins community about writing a Dolby decoder. There are 
detailed schematics of at least the CAT-22 card, so one would think that a SPICE model would yield 
the needed DSP parameters. I would imagine the folks at Dolby and their lawyers would have a few 
things to say, though.

I think this could be a boom for transferring Dolby C encoded cassettes and video because, as we've 
discussed, Dolby C decoding is very sensitive to level decay and most tapes -- particularly 
thin-track/small-format/oft-played tapes lose level over time. I understand the rationale behind 
Dolby C, but in retrospect, I'm not sure it was a good idea for the end user. For the manufacturers, 
it was a way to guarantee that DAT and that short-lived Philips digital cassette format never made 
in-roads into the home hifi market (Dolby C specs, meaningless as all published specs are vis-a-vis 
real music reproduction, were quite impressive compared to Dolby B -- although I'd argue that Dolby 
HX should have been pushed wider because it was an excellent idea and extended B's performance). 
Minidisc was also in that mix and has survived mainly due to a loyal cult following and Sony's 
tenacity in the face of constant mass-market rejection.

Richard, without giving away trade secrets, do you have anything but a very small percentage of 
business with non-mainstream formats (I'd call mainstream Dolby A, B, C and SR and dbx I and II)?

-- Tom Fine


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <ArcLists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Risk assessment tool Q2


> At 11:51 AM 1/7/2006, Don Cox wrote:
>
> > There is a need for a software decoder for Dolby B and C, with
> > adjustments for dealing with such problems.
> >
> > But even in the 1980s, I used to find that a Dolby cassette played back
> > on a different machine did not always sound right - it seems the
> > circuits were often badly adjusted in manufacture or had drifted.
> >
> > C is of course more fussy than B.
>
> And there is also Dolby S.
>
> The idea of the decoder in software is great, but as long as Dolby is selling hardware products, 
> they have no interest in the plug-ins.
>
> The majority of my non-tape-machine equipment in my transfer studio is obsolete noise reduction 
> and I don't have enough!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> Richard L. Hess                   richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada       http://www.richardhess.com/
> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm