Dolby SR or S on software ?

[musurgio]

I really wonder if there is Dolby noise reduction system like SR or S on
software plugin so you can use it to record on tape recorder that has
not.
Dimitrios

[Pooh Bear]

Post by musurgio
I really wonder if there is Dolby noise reduction system like SR or S on
software plugin so you can use it to record on tape recorder that has
not.

Interesting idea.

Theoretically possible.

It would be essential to have a 'line-up' function on your tape m/c to make
it work. All Dolby noise reduction methods require accurate rec/rep levels.

Why not suggest it to Dolby licensing ?


Graham

[Mike Rivers]

Post by musurgio
I really wonder if there is Dolby noise reduction system like SR or S on
software plugin so you can use it to record on tape recorder that has
not.

Nope. Acutally, what most people want is for the yet nonexistent
software to work in the other direction - to decode a Dolby recording
once it's been transferred to a digital format.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (***@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Mike Rivers
Nope. Acutally, what most people want is for the yet nonexistent
software to work in the other direction - to decode a Dolby recording
once it's been transferred to a digital format.

Yes please! - for plain Dolby B too. I needed that yesterday.
Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[JoavS]

AFAIK Dolby was never made as a software, nor dBx

[Ted Spencer]

Post by JoavS
AFAIK Dolby was never made as a software, nor dBx
--
JoavS

Since they're both proprietay, licensed technologies requiring hardware made by
their respective companes, I suppose the message is "if you want our NR, buy
our hardware".

It would seem there might be some profit in licensed software versions though,
since Dolby and DBX NR hardware is not exactly flying off the store shelves
these days. Maybe it's because they're available on the used market for pennies
on the dollar. 24 channel Dolby SR racks that cost $27K new probably fetch
about a tenth of that these days.


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Ted Spencer
Since they're both proprietay, licensed technologies requiring
hardware made by their respective companes, I suppose the
message is "if you want our NR, buy our hardware".

Just to restore compact cassettes in the home? - what is the license
cost for the software in a casette deck, 10 cents? - and just how many
good new cassette decks are available in the shops? - and how many
stand-alone Dolby B decoders so that one can fix frequency response and
level issues prior to decoding?


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[William Sommerwerck]

and how many stand-alone Dolby B decoders so that one can
fix frequency response and level issues prior to decoding?

Picky point. The Dolby NR should be turned off on both decks when you dub.

[umbriaco]

Post by William Sommerwerck

and how many stand-alone Dolby B decoders so that one can
fix frequency response and level issues prior to decoding?

Picky point. The Dolby NR should be turned off on both decks when you dub.

That assumes that the source cassette has retained level and flat frequency
response through the years. Reality is far different. All tapes slowly self
erase especially at short wavelenghts. 12kHz on a 1.875 ips tape is very
short indeed.
I've a large library of 20 to 30 year old Dolby B cassettes I'm transferring
to CD. Depending on the tape stock the correction for proper playback level
/ HF eq to properly decode can be quite drastic. It's sometimes necessary
to add +6dB gain and +6 at 10kHz eq boost to properly decode the NR.
This is not possible with the controls of the deck's repro amp.
I've been using an Orban 622B for gain / eq into a Dolby 330 unit.
Look around. The cassette duplication biz is pretty dead. there must be
quite a few of these things headed for dumpsters.

[Peter Larsen]

[quoting me]

Post by umbriaco

Post by William Sommerwerck

and how many stand-alone Dolby B decoders so that one can
fix frequency response and level issues prior to decoding?

Picky point. The Dolby NR should be turned off on both decks
when you dub.

I am not talking dubbing, I am talking copying from one good casette
deck to my computer what has been recording on various less good decks.
And the good casette deck I could find in a nearby hi-fi shop was second
hand.

Post by umbriaco
That assumes that the source cassette has retained level
and flat frequency response through the years. Reality is
far different. All tapes slowly self erase especially at short
wavelenghts.

Aha, that explains why those tapes from 1974 sound so muffled, thank
you.

Post by umbriaco
Look around. The cassette duplication biz is pretty dead. there must be
quite a few of these things headed for dumpsters.

And for all Ray Dolby's fine ideas about licensing, said fine ideas are
preventing correct decoding of properly licensed recordings. Also as far
as patent rights go .... well, they go for 17 years, and then it is a
free for all.

There may be something that I do not know about this, but to the best of
my understanding anybody can write and publish a dolby decoder in
software if the technology was patented originally. If patent rights
still exist, then anybody in a country where a patent has not been
applied for can - in my understanding of this - can write and publish a
software dolby decoder. Do be aware that I may be wrong on details of
this this, but patents in my understanding of this apply only where
applied for and only for their duration and by implication release the
"art" where a patent has not been applied for and when a patent expires
into the public domain.

I will gladly pay Dolby Labs USD 40 for a directX plugin that will do
dolby b decoding, seems like a fair price. Since they are the ones with
the knowhow, surely they are the ones that one would expect to be easily
able to get it right.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter Larsen
I am not talking dubbing, I am talking copying from one good casette
deck to my computer what has been recording on various less good decks.
And the good casette deck I could find in a nearby hi-fi shop was second
hand.

So, rent an outboard Dolby B decoder. You will need to use an outboard
unit to get the levels correct anyway since most internal decoders have
no way to set dolby levels.

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by umbriaco
That assumes that the source cassette has retained level
and flat frequency response through the years. Reality is
far different. All tapes slowly self erase especially at short
wavelenghts.

Aha, that explains why those tapes from 1974 sound so muffled, thank
you.

If anything sounds muffled, I would first look at azimuth problems. No
cassette deck ever had correct azimuth for more than a few minutes as far
as I can tell. Just getting the azimuth right and riding it will be of
more benefit than anything else you can do with cassettes.
--scott

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Scott Dorsey
So, rent an outboard Dolby B decoder.

That of course is an option, as is borrowing one and that probably is
what I will do, an aquantaince mentioned having one.

Post by Scott Dorsey
You will need to use an outboard unit to get the levels
correct anyway since most internal decoders have
no way to set dolby levels.

Indeed. There was one NAD cassette deck with hf-compensation in the
playback pre-dolby. Neat.

Post by Scott Dorsey
If anything sounds muffled, I would first look at azimuth problems. No
cassette deck ever had correct azimuth for more than a few minutes as far
as I can tell. Just getting the azimuth right and riding it will be of
more benefit than anything else you can do with cassettes.

:-) ... thanks. Fortunately I can rely on most more recent recordings
being recorded on decks in good alignment and all aligned with the same
alignment tape.

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Scott Dorsey
If anything sounds muffled, I would first look at azimuth problems. No
cassette deck ever had correct azimuth for more than a few minutes as far
as I can tell. Just getting the azimuth right and riding it will be of
more benefit than anything else you can do with cassettes.

:-) ... thanks. Fortunately I can rely on most more recent recordings
being recorded on decks in good alignment and all aligned with the same
alignment tape.

May not help. Typical cassette decks will not stay aligned for more than
a few hours of operation. And, if you record to a cassette with a machine
that is properly aligned, and you leave the cassette in a closet for a few
years, the shell will deform slightly and the alignment on playback will not
be correct. You gotta set it up for each side of each tape individually.

I _hate_ cassettes.
--scott

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter Larsen
:-) ... thanks. Fortunately I can rely on most more recent recordings
being recorded on decks in good alignment and all aligned with the same
alignment tape.

May not help. Typical cassette decks will not stay aligned for more than
a few hours of operation.

Hmmm, points noted ... it appears that I need an extra cassette deck &
to check whether that old scope still works ... hmm ...

Post by Scott Dorsey
--scott

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter Larsen
:-) ... thanks. Fortunately I can rely on most more recent recordings
being recorded on decks in good alignment and all aligned with the same
alignment tape.

May not help. Typical cassette decks will not stay aligned for more than
a few hours of operation.

Hmmm, points noted ... it appears that I need an extra cassette deck &
to check whether that old scope still works ... hmm ...

The scope will help a lot, but since you don't have tones on the tape, it
will really only be useful on mono tapes. You'll have to do most of it
by ear, I am sorry to say.
--scott

[Ted Spencer]

Post by Peter Larsen
Aha, that explains why those tapes from 1974 sound so muffled, thank
you.

By modern standards, the album masters were "muffled" when they were mixed. A
typical pop CD these days is mixed and mastered much hotter, even aside from
sheer gain or "hypercompression" issues. 1974 was in the LP era of course, and
cutting lathes couldn't handle the virtually flat spectral response (as much
energy at 18KHZ and 30 Hz as at IKHz) that characterizes many of today's pop
productions, without lowering the gain and reducing the minutes per side to a
completely unacceptable extent.

While I still like the sound of many of my old LPs, none of them have the
"revved up" spectral response that our ears have become acclimated to in pop
records over the last 15 years or so.


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

[umbriaco]

Post by Ted Spencer

Post by Peter Larsen
Aha, that explains why those tapes from 1974 sound so muffled, thank
you.

By modern standards, the album masters were "muffled" when they were mixed. A
typical pop CD these days is mixed and mastered much hotter, even aside from
sheer gain or "hypercompression" issues. 1974 was in the LP era of course, and
cutting lathes couldn't handle the virtually flat spectral response (as much
energy at 18KHZ and 30 Hz as at IKHz) that characterizes many of today's pop
productions, without lowering the gain and reducing the minutes per side to a
completely unacceptable extent.
While I still like the sound of many of my old LPs, none of them have the
"revved up" spectral response that our ears have become acclimated to in pop
records over the last 15 years or so.

Agreed.
I'm not trying to hype up the top of my old cassettes, my scenario is this.
Many cassettes I made in the '70 were of borrowed LP's (ducks).
Dual 1228 w/ Shure V15 type III to an Advent 201
Started off using Scotch "High Energy" tape, then Ampex "20/20+", both
exibited limited HF headroom during recording.
Yes, I went through proper calibration of the deck.
I then moved to Maxell "HD" & "HD-XL" tapes which were pretty acceptable.
During the course of almost 30 years I've purchased many LP's that I had
previously taped.
I now use a Thorens 124 w/ AudioTechnica 440ML & a Tascam 122 MKII.
Comparing the LP's to the old tapes, the Scotch & Ampex tapes have lost much
level & HF, the Maxell has held up much better but has still lost some level
& HF.
Using the LP as reference, I note what pre Dolby decode level & EQ boost
gets play back as close as possible to the LP then use those settings as a
start point when transfering other material from that same stock.

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Ted Spencer

Post by Peter Larsen
Aha, that explains why those tapes from 1974 sound so muffled, thank
you.

By modern standards, the album masters were "muffled"

I am not talking albums, I am talking sound effects recordings, for
instance of the Morris Minor I had back then.

Post by Ted Spencer
Ted Spencer, NYC

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ted Spencer]

Post by Peter Larsen
I am not talking albums, I am talking sound effects recordings, for
instance of the Morris Minor I had back then.

Right, well you should have gone to straight pipes then... : )


Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

[Bob Cain]

Post by Peter Larsen
There may be something that I do not know about this, but to the best of
my understanding anybody can write and publish a dolby decoder in
software if the technology was patented originally. If patent rights
still exist, then anybody in a country where a patent has not been
applied for can - in my understanding of this - can write and publish a
software dolby decoder.

Yes, but to sell it, if the patent or a derived one still
exists and has jurisdiction then Ray must agree to license
its use. He is not required to do that.

Post by Peter Larsen
I will gladly pay Dolby Labs USD 40 for a directX plugin that will do
dolby b decoding, seems like a fair price. Since they are the ones with
the knowhow, surely they are the ones that one would expect to be easily
able to get it right.

With the declining market for the process he may be more
inclined to consider that than he was ten or more years
ago. Then again, he may not.


Bob

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Bob Cain
Yes, but to sell it, if the patent or a derived one still
exists and has jurisdiction then Ray must agree to license
its use. He is not required to do that.

An expired patent is expired and that is it. For the duration of the
patent licensing is required, when the patent expires things end up in
the public domain. Similarly they end up in the public domain in any
country where you have not filed a patent *because* you have actively
omitted to protect them there.

What they can still license is the *implementation of the process*, i.
e. chips etc and they can still require a fee for saying "dolby
approved".

Post by Bob Cain

Post by Peter Larsen
I will gladly pay Dolby Labs USD 40 for a directX plugin that will do
dolby b decoding, seems like a fair price. Since they are the ones with
the knowhow, surely they are the ones that one would expect to be easily
able to get it right.

With the declining market for the process he may be more
inclined to consider that than he was ten or more years
ago. Then again, he may not.

He has had his license earnings. Also Ray Dolby do not own the
recordings that are encoded with the system and preventing decoding by
not supplying modern decoders, i. e. in software, could be said to mimic
microsoftian monopolistic behaviour because the encoding in dolby b has
become a defacto standard for compact cassettes.

I am all in favour of Dolby Labs coming up with that directX pluging or
equivalent because they are likely to know the exact behaviour of the
chips used in the encoders. I don't mind paying them, it is a good
system and it is well earned. I do mind the that the hardware is de
facto vanishing.

Post by Bob Cain
Bob

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

Post by Peter Larsen
An expired patent is expired and that is it. For the duration of the
patent licensing is required, when the patent expires things end up in
the public domain. Similarly they end up in the public domain in any
country where you have not filed a patent *because* you have actively
omitted to protect them there.

So apparently if the patent has expired, any of you folks out there
who think that programming is easy can have at it. Apparetntly it's
not as simple as it appears.

It seems like Dolby A and B shouldn't be too hard, but Dolby SR is a
bugger. Dolby has said in the past that it's simply not practical to
attempt to model it in software.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (***@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Geoff Wood]

Post by Mike Rivers
It seems like Dolby A and B shouldn't be too hard, but Dolby SR is a
bugger. Dolby has said in the past that it's simply not practical to
attempt to model it in software.

Yeah, but when they said that acoustic modeling hadn't even been thought of.

geoff

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Mike Rivers

An expired patent is expired and that is it. ...

So apparently if the patent has expired,

I'm not a patent lawyer, it is just my understanding, and the US of A
has some real funny patent laws, a plant or bug or cell can have done
something for 400000 years and it is still new in the magic patent sense
of that word.

Post by Mike Rivers
any of you folks out there who think that programming
is easy can have at it. Apparetntly it's
not as simple as it appears.

Slopes and attack and release times are in my unskilled opinion the
primary concerns and they are the very concerns that would make it easy
for an original dolby software version to stand against market pressure.
And with the aforementioned funny patent laws the software
implementation could be in itself patentable giving them a new 17 year
lease.

Post by Mike Rivers
It seems like Dolby A and B shouldn't be too hard, but Dolby SR is a
bugger. Dolby has said in the past that it's simply not practical to
attempt to model it in software.

"simply not practical" comes with an implicit "for us" and can be
translated in many interesting ways, none of which actually exclude the
feasibility of the concept, always check such statements with a
doublespeak dictionary.
Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

Post by Peter Larsen
"simply not practical" comes with an implicit "for us" and can be
translated in many interesting ways, none of which actually exclude the
feasibility of the concept, always check such statements with a
doublespeak dictionary.

Agree on the implicit part, but Dolby has some pretty good software
resources. With people no longer buying their noise reduction hardware
as a matter of course, and being highly unlikely that someone would
buy a new Dolby SR system for a restoration project (but might rent
one, which gets the job done but doesn't bring in any fresh cash to
Dolby) it seems that Dolby could indeed benefit from a software
decoder for their noise reduction systems. The fact that they have not
suggests two things - either it can't be done well enough to satisfy
them, or they just don't want to bother (which may be the conclusion
of the bean counters that told them that there isn't enough money in
it).

Dolby products and intellectual property are not inexpensive (with the
exception of Dolby B and C, but they're still making money off it
pennies at a time). It's not their thing. So if they believe that an
SR decoder plug-in should sell for $5,000, they probably have the good
sense to recognize that they aren't going to sell more than a couple
dozen of them.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (***@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Mike Rivers

Post by Peter Larsen
"simply not practical" comes with an implicit "for us" and can be
translated in many interesting ways, none of which actually exclude the
feasibility of the concept, always check such statements with a
doublespeak dictionary.

Agree on the implicit part, but Dolby has some pretty good software
resources.

As I read it they think "not practical because we are in the business of
selling chips".

Post by Mike Rivers
With people no longer buying their noise reduction hardware
as a matter of course, and being highly unlikely that someone would
buy a new Dolby SR system for a restoration project (but might rent
one, which gets the job done but doesn't bring in any fresh cash to
Dolby) it seems that Dolby could indeed benefit from a software
decoder for their noise reduction systems. The fact that they have not
suggests two things - either it can't be done well enough to satisfy
them, or they just don't want to bother (which may be the conclusion
of the bean counters that told them that there isn't enough money in
it).

If they "don't want to bother" _then_ it *is* microsoftian behaviour and
actively to prevent people from access to their audio data.

Post by Mike Rivers
Dolby products and intellectual property are not inexpensive (with the
exception of Dolby B and C, but they're still making money off it
pennies at a time). It's not their thing. So if they believe that an
SR decoder plug-in should sell for $5,000, they probably have the good
sense to recognize that they aren't going to sell more than a couple
dozen of them.

They made the doe already, it could be said that they should make it
freeware so as to act in the interest of preserving stored culture. All
the dolby noise reduction hardware is vanishing from the list of new
products. There are no more earnings from that hardware. SR is status
technology, not money making technology as I see it, I think they made
their money on the small stuff.
Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Mike Rivers
So if they believe that an
SR decoder plug-in should sell for $5,000, they probably have the good
sense to recognize that they aren't going to sell more than a couple
dozen of them.

They made the doe already, it could be said that they should make it
freeware so as to act in the interest of preserving stored culture.

Dream on! Those who have culture worth preserving can still find Dolby
hardware. Not everything is worth saving, and cost of preservation is
one of the filters that will save us from having an unmanageable
amount of culture in another 50 years. If it's important enough to
SOMEONE, it can be done.

I'm more concerned about the lack in the future of availability of
hardware and software to play digital media with stored culture worth
preserving.

Post by Peter Larsen
the dolby noise reduction hardware is vanishing from the list of new
products. There are no more earnings from that hardware. SR is status
technology, not money making technology as I see it, I think they made
their money on the small stuff.

Neither of us work at Dolby, so we can't be sure. However releasing a
software version of the hardware will cost Dolby a considerable amount
of money, both to develop it and to support it. Remember that there
are far more recordings in existence that were made without Dolby
noise reduction than were made using it. Also, most of those
recordings were made (or owned) by people with enough money to
preserve them if they saw the need. I expect that any multitrack SR
masters that haven't yet been backed up to digital media (and I'm not
saying this will be the end of the line, it's just what's available
today) is either in the pipeline for it or is in the dumpster.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (***@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Bob Cain]

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Ted Spencer
Since they're both proprietay, licensed technologies requiring
hardware made by their respective companes, I suppose the
message is "if you want our NR, buy our hardware".

Just to restore compact cassettes in the home? - what is the license
cost for the software in a casette deck, 10 cents? - and just how many
good new cassette decks are available in the shops? - and how many
stand-alone Dolby B decoders so that one can fix frequency response and
level issues prior to decoding?

The situation is just as Ray wants it. He prefers to have
his inventions embodied in hardware, which are more easily
controlled and defended, than in software. Licensing
strategy is as much his talent as is technology. In fact
license management for others is now a strong, if not the
strongest, part of his business.


Bob

[EganMedia]

Post by Bob Cain
The situation is just as Ray wants it. He prefers to have
his inventions embodied in hardware, which are more easily
controlled and defended, than in software.

<SNIP>

How many H949 hardware units is Eventide moving these days? Do you think
people are buying a lot of new Dolby SR units? A software version could allow
his company conitinue to make some money off the process.

Post by Bob Cain
Licensing strategy is as much his talent as is technology. In fact
license management for others is now a strong, if not the
strongest, part of his business.

So he acknowledges the benefit of licensing. Wouldn't it make sense to sell a
software decoder?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by EganMedia

Post by Bob Cain
Licensing strategy is as much his talent as is technology. In fact
license management for others is now a strong, if not the
strongest, part of his business.

So he acknowledges the benefit of licensing. Wouldn't it make sense to sell a
software decoder?

Is Dolby A still a licensed technology? I don't think it is, and I think
the patent should have expired by now. So, although I can see some licensing
reasons why a third-party company might not have an SR decoder, I see no
reason not to put an A decoder out.
--scott

[Roger W. Norman]

And for good reason. Once a product has been digitized, where's the dolby,
where's the dbx? It's an analog process. How could one expect to transfer
squeechy, over hyped HF information, digitalize it, and then have some dbx
or Dolby process to change it. It's part of the process in analog and it's
not one sided. You don't use Dolby B/C/S or SR only only on the path in.
It would have to be on the path out, too.

Heck, buy Dolby SR, run product through it on the way in, mix, run in on the
way out. Hmmm, just like on tape.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
RAP FAQ and Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at
www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.

Post by JoavS
AFAIK Dolby was never made as a software, nor dBx
--
JoavS

Post by musurgio
I really wonder if there is Dolby noise reduction system like SR or S on
software plugin so you can use it to record on tape recorder that has
not.
Dimitrios

[Arny Krueger]

Post by Roger W. Norman
And for good reason. Once a product has been digitized, where's the
dolby, where's the dbx? It's an analog process.

Dolby and DBX are actually processes that occur in the time and amplitude
domains that are to date only implemented in the analog domain. There's
nothing that says that they can't possibly be implemented in the digital
domain, and there is a lot of pretty reasonably justification for a digital
implementation of Dolby and DBX decoding.

Post by Roger W. Norman
How could one expect to transfer squeechy, over hyped HF information,

digitalize

Post by Roger W. Norman
it, and then have some dbx or Dolby process to change it.

The use of digital low pass filters seems to be in order.

Post by Roger W. Norman
It's part of the process in analog and it's not one sided. You don't use

Dolby

Post by Roger W. Norman
B/C/S or SR only only on the path in. It would have to be on the path
out, too.

Right, and implementing a digital-domain Dolby A/B/C/S or SR decoder would
be a worthy project for some graduate students, at most. Just a bunch of
digital filtering and digital dynamics processing.

Post by Roger W. Norman
Heck, buy Dolby SR, run product through it on the way in, mix, run in
on the way out. Hmmm, just like on tape.

The problem is that these days finding an analog tape machine in good
working order to play legacy tapes is tough enough. Coming up with N
channels of Dolby or DBX decoding in working order is even tougher. What
about in 10-20-30 years?