Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Re: DBX
Message-ID: <6537@uwm.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 90 15:47:23 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 24
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <6354@uwm.edu> gould!infocenter!smatchun@encore.encore.com (Scott Matchunis) writes:
}I've been reading the discussions about Dolby (initially, whether Ray
}Dolby's possible hearing impairment might influence his engineering) and
}how well it works/doesn't work on cassette decks.
}
}So I'm curious, what is the consensus of opinion on DBX for home cassette
}decks? I have it on mine and like it much better than Dolby B.  Have never
}compared it to Dolby C or any of the other noise reduction systems
}available.
}
}Anyone out there in "netland" using DBX on a cassette deck?  What do you
}think of it?

I have dbx.   I find it a definite improvement when using  cheap Type I
tape, such as C-120.  But I use Dolby C with Type II tapes, mainly because
I'm concerned with the future availability of dbx equipped decks.  

Another problem with dbx is inferior bass response.  The quicker the
aperture response of the encoder, the sooner the bass has to roll off.
Not much you can do about this.  
-- 

Norm Strong  (strong@tc.fluke.com)
2528 31st S.   Seattle WA 98144