DolbyA decoding feedback -- 'feral' examples (yes/no)

[fas42]

16 hours ago, John Dyson said:

On the ABBA stuff -- I have provided pure decodes above.   That isn't fiddling at all.

 

Re-mastering ABBA (which I seldom do) -- IS fiddling. (Frankly, almost all mastering/tweaking of recordings IS fiddling.)

 

My apologies if I have misinterpreted some of what you have been saying, or implied, John.

 

16 hours ago, John Dyson said:

 

The Pink Panther and other 'decodes' are NOT fiddling.

There are certain rules to overcome the damage done to DolbyA material -- certainly not fiddling.

Quote

 

Undecoded DolbyA (esp in the case of the

Pink Panther original example)

 

 

Unfortunately, there is a little problem here ... the Pink Panther movie, along with the Mancini theme music, came out in 1963; but Dolby A was only announced in 1965, as a product - are we  witnessing a "Back to the Future" moment here, where the distributed version of the recording was contaminated with the Dolby A virus in some mysterious way, .

[rando]

Track appeared to be taken from a Mancini greatest hits album.  That pushes out your timeline and probability factor.  So "Back to the Mastering Board"?

[sandyk]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

My apologies if I have misinterpreted some of what you have been saying, or implied, John.

 

 

Unfortunately, there is a little problem here ... the Pink Panther movie, along with the Mancini theme music, came out in 1963; but Dolby A was only announced in 1965, as a product - are we  witnessing a "Back to the Future" moment here, where the distributed version of the recording was contaminated with the Dolby A virus in some mysterious way, .

  There were a plenty of opportunities for that to happen, because Audio CDs were not released until 17 years later in 1982 .

 It may have even been possible for the soundtrack to have come from the audio of the 35mm (?) film's  soundtrack and been recorded to magnetic  tape for the CD's release ???

 BTW, Enoch Light pioneered Stereo and Quadrophonic audio recording on 35mm film.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, rando said:

Track appeared to be taken from a Mancini greatest hits album.  That pushes out your timeline and probability factor.  So "Back to the Mastering Board"?

 

Ahh, so the original non-Dolby A recording would have transferred to another tape, a generation removed, with Dolby A now added - just because it's around - and then make sure that decoding is never applied when it's released from that version - guess that makes a lot of sense, to some people,

 

Why don't we just make the overall assumption that Dolby A decoding has not applied properly, when we don't like the sound of a recording - it certainly simplifies things, .

 

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

My apologies if I have misinterpreted some of what you have been saying, or implied, John.

 

 

Unfortunately, there is a little problem here ... the Pink Panther movie, along with the Mancini theme music, came out in 1963; but Dolby A was only announced in 1965, as a product - are we  witnessing a "Back to the Future" moment here, where the distributed version of the recording was contaminated with the Dolby A virus in some mysterious way, .

As others have said (correctly) the CD is not the same as the soundtrack.  The CD was published in yr2000, RCA 'Henry Mancini Greatest Hits', not the original soundtrack.  It is as DolbyA encoded as it can be.

 

John

[kumakuma]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ahh, so the original non-Dolby A recording would have transferred to another tape, a generation removed, with Dolby A now added - just because it's around - and then make sure that decoding is never applied when it's released from that version - guess that makes a lot of sense, to some people,

 

Why don't we just make the overall assumption that Dolby A decoding has not applied properly, when we don't like the sound of a recording - it certainly simplifies things, .

 

[fas42]

7 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

As others have said (correctly) the CD is not the same as the soundtrack.  The CD was published in yr2000, RCA 'Henry Mancini Greatest Hits', not the original soundtrack.  It is as DolbyA encoded as it can be.

 

John

 

Okay, let me get this straight ...

 

If they happened to have the original non-Dolby A tape around, they deliberately added Dolby A to it as an effects processing, for the CD - it was a mastering decision.

 

Or, there are absolutely no archives of this track, anywhere, going back to '63, not even LPs in any sort of release - which have not been contaminated with undecoded  Dolby A - to confirm what the "real recording" was like? .... Hmmm, smells like conspiracy to me ... .

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I was about to add this one :

[fas42]

Of course, we now have a terrible situation - everything pre '65 could be adulterated by the dreaded Dolby lurgy, by evil mastering engineers when organising a CD version... which means that someone will have to listen to each one, and if they don't like the sound of it, toss it into the Dolby A basket, to be 'rescued' at some point, .

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Ahh, so the original non-Dolby A recording would have transferred to another tape, a generation removed, with Dolby A now added - just because it's around - and then make sure that decoding is never applied when it's released from that version - guess that makes a lot of sense, to some people,

 

Why don't we just make the overall assumption that Dolby A decoding has not applied properly, when we don't like the sound of a recording - it certainly simplifies things, .

 

First -- I am of a culture and history where I don't like to be dependent on people who artificially create limitations against me.  If I hear a recording, know that it can be 'corrected', and I have purchased it -- I WILL fix it just as a matter of principle.  I will NOT be a victim -- purchasing cr*p and accepting it.  Even if I don't listen to the music much anymore (a victim of the DHNRDS project itself), it is a good intellectual challenge to have solved the 30+yr old accurate DolbyA SW decoding problem.

 

It is no difficulty now for me (and anyone who really wants) to decode the material, since the DHNRDS is so very effective and accurate.  Decoding by itself is becoming easier and easier for me -- it is a skill that I haven't started seriously focusing on until a few weeks ago.  Otherwise, I had previously dabbled in decoding while writing & debugging the decoder, which is a different skill (programming, DSP, Analog EE are different skills than using the decoder.)   I have also had recording pros help me with decisions, planning, and testing -- it is a good, beneficial experience for EVERYONE involved.  Now, the intelligent & open minded audiophiles and music lovers are helping to move the bar upwards also.  This is a long, slow but beneficient effort.

 

* Mastering is NOT the same as decoding -- the ABBA effort is intended to bring ABBA sound up to the 2000's, not to sound like ABBA used to sound.  Decoding is a very slight subset of mastering.

 

The biggest skill on using the decoder is understanding the EQ being used to 'fake decode' and to find the correct calibration levels.  Finding the correct calibration levels is a combination of knowing what the typical tape calibration levels are on the DHNRDS scale of measurement and also knowing the problems to listen for.   The 'listening' problem is also an issue with actual DolbyA units.

 

Dolby claimed that 1dB accuracy is all that was needed -- but that isn't really true when trying to get results as desired today.  I have heard significant DolbyA HW decoder surging on commercial material.  Even on a true DolbyA unit, 0.25dB of accuracy seems about correct.  However, since the DolbyA HW doesn't have a super-accurate means for balancing the meter, for the best quality, DolbyA HW DOES require 'tweaking' and listening.

 

====

 

So, why not just wallow in bad (inferor or cheated quality) sound?   I won't do it, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I am happy to try to be a vehicle to assist in improving the quality of music reaching the consumer.  The DHNRDS DA is one of the legacies that I hope to leave for people.

 

John

[John Dyson]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Okay, let me get this straight ...

 

If they happened to have the original non-Dolby A tape around, they deliberately added Dolby A to it as an effects processing, for the CD - it was a mastering decision.

 

Or, there are absolutely no archives of this track, anywhere, going back to '63, not even LPs in any sort of release - which have not been contaminated with undecoded  Dolby A - to confirm what the "real recording" was like? .... Hmmm, smells like conspiracy to me ... .

Apparently Mancini decided (probably some-time back in the 1980s) to do some recording sessions, and the Greatest Hits were probably recorded in that timeframe.  Why do I guess that?  'What's Happening' is also on the album.   The sound qualities are very similar from track to track -- therefore most likely this 'Greatest Hits' CD was legacy from an old Greatest Hits vinyl or sessions to produce it.  Since likely actually recorded in the 80's through early 90's, it is DolbyA encoded.  (DolbyA was still being used in legacy situations well into the 1990s -- unfortunately.)

 

Hint:  they don't always use the same sessions for the movies (and background music) as for consumer music items.

 

John

 

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

First -- I am of a culture and history where I don't like to be dependent on people who artificially create limitations against me.  If I hear a recording, know that it can be 'corrected', and I have purchased it -- I WILL fix it just as a matter of principle.  I will NOT be a victim -- purchasing cr*p and accepting it.  Even if I don't listen to the music much anymore (a victim of the DHNRDS project itself), it is a good intellectual challenge to have solved the 30+yr old accurate DolbyA SW decoding problem.

 

You see, straight away you have made the decision that it sounds like cr*p - meaning that everyone who bought that recording and liked it, when it played on their system - and also the people who mastered it, on monitors in the first place are all wrong - and you're right ... sounds sorta subjective to me, .

 

[John Dyson]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Of course, we now have a terrible situation - everything pre '65 could be adulterated by the dreaded Dolby lurgy, by evil mastering engineers when organising a CD version... which means that someone will have to listen to each one, and if they don't like the sound of it, toss it into the Dolby A basket, to be 'rescued' at some point, .

Nat King Cole is a perfect example -- conversion from 3trk to DolbyA stereo (or 3trk) masters.   I have some results for that.  

 

Major puprose of the DHNRDS -- superior recovery of the DolbyA encoded information from old master tapes (less modulation distortions, better transients, etc)...   After decoding, then can be placed on both up-to-date analog tape with higher quality but no NR and/or digital tape with infinitely higher quality yet.   Now, the recording is forever recovered with the best possible quality...   Not limited to the distortion riddled DolbyA HW or the 'approximate' Satin, or even worse, ham handed EQ.  Even worse -- not limited to the sound of undecoded DolbyA.

 

See, the DHNRDS is effectively UNFOLDING of DolbyA.   DolbyA encoded material as you listen to is WORSE than MQA encoded material without unfolding -- it is just that no-one has told you this until now (few people actually knew, except those doing the mastering.)

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

You see, straight away you have made the decision that it sounds like cr*p - meaning that everyone who bought that recording and liked it, when it played on their system - and also the people who mastered it, on monitors in the first place are all wrong - and you're right ... sounds sorta subjective to me, .

 

My results do not sound like cr*p, and I have quantified many of the problems.  When listening to DolbyA encoded material (majority of material recorded before early 1990s), you have the benefit of the suboptimal DolbyA compression also.   Note that my project partner is a restoration expert -- note the goal.

 

The DHNRDS removes the DolbyA distortion, not adds to it.

 

John

 

[sandyk]

Just now, fas42 said:

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

You see, straight away you have made the decision that it sounds like cr*p - meaning that everyone who bought that recording and liked it, when it played on their system - and also the people who mastered it, on monitors in the first place are all wrong - and you're right ... sounds sorta subjective to me, .

 

 

Frank

 Keep this sniping up, and John who is the OP of the thread, will be quite justified if he requests that all of your posts in this thread be removed.  (Assuming that Chris doesn't act first.)

 

 

[John Dyson]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Frank

 Keep this sniping up, and John who is the OP of the thread, will be quite justified if he requests that all of your posts in this thread be removed.  (Assuming that Chris doesn't act first.)

 

 

We have privately discussed Frank doens't hurt me -- he hurts himself, making himself a fool.

The major reason why Chris might want his postings removed is to clean up this potentially useful thread.  Frank is showing his own problems -- it doesn't hurt any of the other of us.  The key is -- don't fall to Franks level.

 

It wouldn't be wrong for Chris to clean up Franks mess -- but it doesn't hurt my feelings.   I do regret my own comment about Franks attempt to suppress the results of someone who has been accomplished -- but other than that, I am not embarassed -- just feel regret that there are such destructive, little, petty people out there.

 

THANK YOU so much for your sentiments though.

 

John

 

[fas42]

30 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Apparently Mancini decided (probably some-time back in the 1980s) to do some recording sessions, and the Greatest Hits were probably recorded in that timeframe.  Why do I guess that?  'What's Happening' is also on the album.   The sound qualities are very similar from track to track -- therefore most likely this 'Greatest Hits' CD was legacy from an old Greatest Hits vinyl or sessions to produce it.  Since likely actually recorded in the 80's through early 90's, it is DolbyA encoded.  (DolbyA was still being used in legacy situations well into the 1990s -- unfortunately.)

 

Hint:  they don't always use the same sessions for the movies (and background music) as for consumer music items.

 

John

 

 

Of interest, here is a YouTube clip of the original, '63 album,

 

 

[sandyk]

John

 Back to business .

 

Re the missing important part of the Vocal Forward component.

 That hasn't done just quite what you expected with 01. ABBA - Ring Ring-remastered-forward and 08. ABBA - Me And Bobby And Bobby's Brother-remastered-forward.

 

Yes , it is an improvement in that area, BUT it has opened up the whole damn lot and it's MUCH more engaging to listen to compared with the previous version!   

 I can't believe the improvement !  WOW !

 

 Kind Regards

Alex

[John Dyson]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Of interest, here is a YouTube clip of the original, '63 album,

 

 

 

Well something odd is going on -- that material (Pink Panther on YouTube) is DolbyA encoded.   I wonder if that recording was taken from the 'Greatest Hits' version?  I did a quick decode, and it is VERY DolbyA -- the calibration threshold is on the low side of what a tape is normally set for (-12.25dB) -- but is a very practical level for older tape recordings on older, noisier tape.

 

These results might be better than my previous -- I did a batch run on the previous, and my EQ levels were not quite right.  Since I started with the .opus as downloaded under youtube -- the quality might suffer a little, but the DHNRDS is not phase sensitive -- shouldn't be a major problem.  After listening to the entire snippet, it DOES appear that someone did some EQ beyond just the fake DolbyA.

Note the VASTLY improved dynamics after decoding.

 

I have found a LOT of Youtube stuff is DolbyA encoded -- probably from the legacy master tape being used.  It is pretty clear that the recording doesn't come from vinyl -- or it would likely be decoded.

 

John

 

pp.mp3

[John Dyson]

6 minutes ago, sandyk said:

John

 Back to business .

 

Re the missing important part of the Vocal Forward component.

 That hasn't done just quite what you expected with 01. ABBA - Ring Ring-remastered-forward and 08. ABBA - Me And Bobby And Bobby's Brother-remastered-forward.

 

Yes , it is an improvement in that area, BUT it has opened up the whole damn lot and it's MUCH more engaging to listen to compared with the previous version!   

 I can't believe the improvement !  WOW !

 

 Kind Regards

Alex

Thanks -- but when discussing this stuff -- I am NOT a mastering expert.  I am a software/DSP/EE and know about DolbyA, but not mastering.  I am discussing mastering here in this response, so I am treading in more unknown territory for me.  However, this 'trick' is something that I just figured out a few days ago:

 

Here is what I did to bring the vocals forward.   I phase adjusted the middle vocal frequencies (not so much frequency response, but more temporal/phase), then I split the L+R channels just a little bit.   This had the effect of 'making room' for the vocals -- along with them being slightly time adjusted to sound like that they appear 'more quickly' in a temporal sense.

 

THIS is the kind of thing where 'mastering' is a much finer art than just decoding.  Decoding is mechanical, but 'mastering' is much trickier.  I had intended to have originally done this on the Ring Ring album, but i forgot the L+R split step.

 

Thanks!!!

 

John

 

[sandyk]

Hi John

 Now I want the rest of this album , preferably in  the direct 24/96 flac from the decoder  . PLEASE ?

I would love to play this version and see my Grandchildren's reaction.

Don't forget too, that I am comparing these with just the previous decoded version not the originals before any decoding. 

Kind Regards

Alex

[John Dyson]

21 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Hi John

 Now I want the rest of this album , preferably in  the direct 24/96 flac from the decoder  . PLEASE ?

I would love to play this version and see my Grandchildren's reaction.

Don't forget too, that I am comparing these with just the previous decoded version not the originals before any decoding. 

Kind Regards

Alex

I'll put togther all of the ABBA albums.  Unfortunately, I ran them off at 48k for some stupid reason (I always run the decoder at 96k unless really trying to be quick, but for some reason immediately converted the results to 48k.)

 

I have the EXACT same script that I used to decode the demos, and will 'flip the switch', making it produce 96k native results.   After the all-night decode, then the mastering will only take about 10 minutes (that is also a script) -- so I'd suspect I'll have them ready about 24Hrs from now.

 

Thanks for the nice feedback.

John

 

[STC]

33 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Well something odd is going on -- that material (Pink Panther on YouTube) is DolbyA encoded.   I wonder if that recording was taken from the 'Greatest Hits' version?

 

If I were you, I wouldn’t pay much attention to the Youtube. It sounds to me like originated from a digital source which most likely gone through Dolby process during the mastering stage from the original master tape. 

[John Dyson]

Regarding the Pink Panther example -- when decoding the 'You Tube' version -- I happened to make an alternative choice for undoing the 'EQ to make it listenable' before decoding.  It ended up being a superior choice.

 

This new version fixes a problem that bothered me in the original version.

The new version has the 'V0.9.7P1' identifier in the filename.

Both the public and full version demo archives have the new version update.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, STC said:

 

If I were you, I wouldn’t pay much attention to the Youtube. It sounds to me like originated from a digital source which most likely gone through Dolby process during the mastering stage from the original master tape. 

I agree.  That is what I surmised..   When I heard it -- that 'compression' that I am so used to detecting nowadays.

I only decoded it to verify my supposition that it had been DA encoded for some reason.

 

The good news, it did motivate me to choose a different corrective equalization for the more complete .flac version -- with (I think) superior results.

 

When getting DolbyA encoded material, it tends to have EQ at one or two frequencies -- 3kHz, and 9kHz.  In some recordings, they just do a cut at 3kHz, but in others they do a cut at 3kHz and then reboost it at 9kHz.   The PP recording as on the Greatest Hits appears to have been both the cut and boost.   The initial demo (undoing the boost then cut), to correct for DolbyA decodingwas:

 

6dB@3kHz/Q=0.707 & -6dB@9kHz/Q=0.707.

 

This corrective EQ requirement is common.   However, I have also found the following to sometimes be used:

 

3dB@3k/Q=0.707 & 3dB@3k/Q=0.707 & -3dB@9k/Q=0.707 & -3dB@9k/Q=0.707

 

Instead of two big 6dB chunks, it appears that optimal distortion/dynamics on the Mancini album comes from four 3dB chunks. 

 

These EQ are necessary before decoding, or things are all messed up.  Both/either scheme are reasonable -- but the audible results after decoding ARE just a little different.

 

John