Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Re^2: dbx vs. Dolby C Noise Reduction
Message-ID: <900@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 90 20:07:32 GMT
References: <590@lexicon.com> <1920003@hpcuhc.HP.COM> <6278@gssc.UUCP>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 18

In article <6278@gssc.UUCP> jdm@gssc.UUCP (John David Miller) writes:
>                         There are several "types" of dbx noise reduction,
>most of which fall into the encode/decode catagory.  I don't know all of the
>types, but studio gear typically uses Type 1, while newer cassette decks with
>built-in dbx (TEAC, Onkyo, et al) use Type 2.  For all I know, they may in
>fact be the same thing calibrated for different use.  

As I understand it, Type 2 DBX (designed for home use) is not as
sensitive to the higher frequencies as Type 1.  This supposedly
compensates for the tendency of consumer models to lose a little
high end over time.  Therefore, if the high end degraded a little
the decoder would still function properly.

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott