Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpnmdla!darenm
From: darenm@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Daren McClearnon)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: Re^2: dbx vs. Dolby C Noise Reduction
Message-ID: <8050002@hpnmdla.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Jul 90 15:36:25 GMT
References: <6278@gssc.UUCP>
Organization: HP Network Measurements Div, Santa Rosa, CA
Lines: 32

Unfortunately, DBX as a company abandoned the dbx noise reduction market
at the first blush of the compact disc era, say 7 or 8 years ago.  I always
preferred dbx for consumer rock recording but could never find car stereo
equipment or friends with dbx to make it practical.  

Nowadays, if you read the litany on Dolby SR, it is basically doing 
multi-band, bandlimited compansion like you always hoped dbx would do some
day.  But no, they diversified into speakers and components and are not 
even doing DSP versions of their older signal processing stalwarts like
the 4BX.  

One complaint I've had with dbx is that the high-frequency pre-emphasis
usually saturates non-metal tape at higher record levels; they really should
have created the equivalent of Dolby HX, which modulates the bias, or
Tandbarg's Dyneq, which modulates the equalization, as a function of record
level.

ALL IN ALL -
dbx:audio::beta:video


  |\/\/\/|
  |      |     /----------------\
  |      |    | COWABUNGA, DUDE. |
  | (o)(o)    /,----------------/
 C      _)
  | ,___| 
  |   /  
 /____\ 
/      \ 
Daren McClearnon
somewhere in Hewlett Packard.