Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

R.I.P. Ray Dolby


skipclone 1

Recommended Posts



  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

RIP Ray,

 

I once had a Dolby SR system on my Otari MX 70 Half (two) Track 30 IPS player, two thousand bucks a track as I recall. I wanted that for my 16 track 1" Otari Deck as well but I did not have sixteen grand to spare at the time.

 

The SR was a pro recording system that gave the same noise floor as digital which was 90db vs 60db for analog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RIP Ray,

I once had a Dolby SR system on my Otari MX 70 Half (two) Track 30 IPS player, two thousand bucks a track as I recall. I wanted that for my 16 track 1" Otari Deck as well but I did not have sixteen grand to spare at the time.

The SR was a pro recording system that gave the same noise floor as digital which was 90db vs 60db for analog.

 

SR was a great system. Really transparent. I would have given my left nut for some channels of SR back when my studio was all analog. Now you can't give them away.

RIP Ray. He was a major dude.

Scott Fraser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As somewhat of an "audiophile", insofar as apprieciating clarity in recorded music, Dolby was a Godsend. I don't own ONE PIECE of any recording equipment that DOESN'T have his name pasted on it somewhere.

 

Rest in peace AND quiet.

Whitefang

I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RIP Ray.

Who here remembers the Dolby verses DBX debates? :D

 

It wasn't so much a debate as a marketplace death match. Tascam licensed dbx processing for its prosumer machines & Fostex went with Dolby. Dbx achieved much better signal to noise ratios than Dolby B or C, but was much less sophisticated, prone to dynamic pumping & amplified any non-linearities in the tape. Dolby S, the consumer version of Dolby SR, finally achieved nearly the same reduction in noise as dbx, with a much more technologically advanced design, but unfortunately analog was on its last legs when S arrived. In the higher end pro market where cost was not an object, Dolby A, then SR always had complete market dominance, with dbx never really being seen as a serious contender. Additionally there was a very short lived Telefunken noise reduction system, approximately as good as Dolby SR prior to SR's development, but it never had any traction in the marketplace.

I wrestled with the shortcomings of dbx for 20 years before digital took over. Good riddance, not sorry to see analog go at all. Interestingly, the die hards who still insist on using analog tape mostly eschew any noise reduction systems at all. Not my approach, for sure. Then again I was always into the idea of preserving the integrity of the sound coming out of the mics, not in having the storage medium impose its own limitations, shortcomings & distortions upon that sound. Ray Dolby had a huge part in the technological advance of professional sound recording, & his products & the products his designs inspired, did a great deal to overcome the problems of analog, & to promote the integrity of the sound provided by the musicians whose art we were trying to capture & preserve.

Scott Fraser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not disagree at all Scott except to say that for me, my old analog Juno 60 had much better organ, string and horn sounds than any digital keyboard (to include my Kurzweil). It was like comparing a tube amp to a solid state amp. I still miss it even though it was limited as a keyboard in many ways, it just had a great sound...it taped quietly with no problems for the sound man.
Take care, Larryz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not disagree at all Scott except to say that for me, my old analog Juno 60 had much better organ, string and horn sounds than any digital keyboard (to include my Kurzweil). It was like comparing a tube amp to a solid state amp. I still miss it even though it was limited as a keyboard in many ways, it just had a great sound...it taped quietly with no problems for the sound man.

 

Absolutely, but I feel analog vs digital in synthesizers is a completely different question than analog vs digital in recording. Synthesis doesn't involve any of the same physical parameters, the molecular composition of magnetic oxides used in recording tape, which constituted the source of the non-linearities plaguing analog recording systems.

I've been working with performance artist Laurie Anderson over the last year, & she has moved her stage rig from hardware synths & many Eventide Harmonizers, to an entirely laptop based software set up. I asked her if she was able to get pretty close approximations of the sounds of her old analog synths & she told me since it's just not really possible, she just doesn't do those pieces anymore. The best distortion overdrive sound I've ever gotten over the 48-ish years I've been playing guitar has come from an old tube Klemt Echolette tape delay unit I used to have. I no longer have it, I don't carry anything as heavy as tube gear anymore, so I no longer do the pieces I used to do based around that Echolette. I'm OK with that.

Scott Fraser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the die hards who still insist on using analog tape mostly eschew any noise reduction systems at all. Not my approach, for sure. Then again I was always into the idea of preserving the integrity of the sound coming out of the mics, not in having the storage medium impose its own limitations, shortcomings & distortions upon that sound.

 

Scott, I think you'd nailed the central issue, right there. For those die-hards, it's more about sound-as-artifact, IMHO. If they were concerned with the quality of the recording, for its own sake, well, why put up with all that noise?

"Monsters are real, and Ghosts are real too. They live inside us, and sometimes, they win." Stephen King

 

http://www.novparolo.com

 

https://thewinstonpsmithproject.bandcamp.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Scott, +1 some of the old equipment is just too heavy and bulky, etc., to pack around anymore. Some of the best old surf tunes used tape delays and there are tubers out there that just won't use SS amps to this day. It would be hard to give up material due to the digital age though...
Take care, Larryz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question about it, I get better stuff outta my Sonar based DAW and related software which cost me less than three or four grand back when I built it in 2003, (most of that money is in related software and hardware).

 

I spent about a hundred grand on my analog set up with the two Otari Decks and the Tac Scorpion board, and 30+ synths and samplers, and computers etc... I think the two decks and the mixdown desk cost me thirty five grand at the time, and then two (or 4) grand for the SR system and I had about 24 rack spaces of effecting items like de-essers, reverbs, and other things.

 

Plus it took me way longer to do projects on the analog gear, plus cutting the master tapes and putting paper tape between the songs, taking the finished tunes to the mastering lab etc, etc. It sure is a bunch easier these days, and when I export the mix from Sonar, it is already mastered, all I do is dither it down to CD quality, and cut the silence and two measures of intro drum hits off the front and do fades in Sound Forge, and viola finished product all in just a few hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about analog tapes that were chromium based, or based with other metals? Wasn't their purpose supposed to be a way AROUND the need for Dolby noise reduction?

 

I'm probably WAY wrong here, but that's what I remember people talking about when those tapes were introduced.

Whitefang

I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about analog tapes that were chromium based, or based with other metals? Wasn't their purpose supposed to be a way AROUND the need for Dolby noise reduction?

I'm probably WAY wrong here, but that's what I remember people talking about when those tapes were introduced.

Whitefang

 

No, that was for another purpose. One of the side effects of analog tape recording is high frequency saturation; you can't put too much high end on tape at high level without it distorting. It's just the physics of the process. Higher tape speeds partially alleviate the problem, hence the move, in the 70s, from 15ips to 30ips for better high frequency response, although at the expense of low end roll off. Cassettes were rolling at 1 7/8th ips, really slow, so they were especially prone to bad high end saturation. Chrome tape was formulated to counteract that problem. The chrome formula could take more level on the highs, so it didn't take the place of Dolby since it wasn't aimed at lowering noise.

Scott Fraser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...