[tilomagnet]

>>I'm not just playing a tape and releasing it just like it sounds without fixing its flaws.


I think that's exactly the reason why we disagree. You're processing your transfers to make them sound as good as possible TO YOU.

When I do transfers I try to preserve the quality of the recording as good as possible. That invloves high-quality gear, azimuth adjustment and Dolby decoding if necessary. I don't try to turn a bad tape into a Millard-like recording. If it sounds bad, well that's how it is. I don't even try to apply any EQ or digital NR to any of my transfers, because it's far too subjective anyway. What sounds good to me today, may sound terrible to someone else or may sound ugly on a different payback set-up.


>>You can't say you can't ever listen to a tape without bias and dolby set "right" because you've never heard my tapes flat, and you're not taking into account what I do to them in the computer that fixes them more than dolby and chrome will do alone.


I've heard too many transfers ruined by mis-use of Dolby (i.e. not decoded). I've several different decks and done plenty of comparisons what a Dolby tape made on deck A sounds like when played back on deck B etc. I've come to the conclusion that I always prefer the decoded over the not-decoded version, no matter what decks are involved.

If a recording got Dolby encoded, the encoding needs to be reversed. Period. What I can see being up for discussion is if it's better to decode on the deck on playback or to reverse the encoding in post production. Since the Dolby encoding is dynamic, it is very hard to reverse the encoding in post production on a DAW. So it's not just cutting back a bit of high-end to compensate for the encoding.