Xref: utzoo rec.music.makers:9413 rec.music.synth:14588 comp.music:1590
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu.edu!xylogics!transfer!crackers!m2c!umvlsi!dime!roskill
From: roskill@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth,comp.music
Subject: Re: dbx vs. Dolby C Noise Reduction
Message-ID: <16931@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 16 Jul 90 04:17:57 GMT
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Followup-To: rec.music.makers
Organization: COINS, UMass, Amherst
Lines: 26

In article <56@maxx.UUCP>, tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) writes...

>I trust my ears, and I like dbx better. This is a "love or hate" question,
>and people on both sides tend to have pretty strong opinions.
> 
>To me, Dolby C seems to trample on highs, and makes quiet passages in the
>music almost inaudible. For music that remains at a fairly constant volume,
>its noise-reduction is obvious, and can be impressive.

I think it depends on the quality of each type of the noise reduction.
In my opinion, Dolby C on four-track recorders is far superior to the
dbx built into similar units.  This is not to say I don't like dbx.
I love stand-alone dbx units, but the "one-chip" noise reduction dbx
suck.  My Fostex 160 has Dolby C and I have found it very affective
in reducing noise without the "breathing" I find in dbx 4-track units.

I guess I'm waiting for Dolby S and a 4-track DAT.

Damian
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Party For Your Right To Fight"  |  "Welcome to the Terrordome!"|
| Damian Roskill                  |                              |
| Specular International, Inc.    |    The Makers of Infini-D!   |
| Roskill@cs.umass.edu            |   Raytracing for the Mac II  |
| My opinions are my own.....     |       "Catch some rays!"     | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------|