Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!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: <6628@uwm.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 90 12:51:05 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 25
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

In article <6421@uwm.edu> 09nilles%cuavax.dnet@netcon.cua.edu (Fiver Toadflax) writes:
}>Anyone out there in "netland" using DBX on a cassette deck?  What do you
}>think of it?
}
}I have it both as a seperate component and as part of my tape deck.  I find
}that if the volumes are not too high and you don't saturate the recording,
}that one can get very good results that are hard to distinguish from a CD.
}
}My tape deck has Dolby B, C and dbx.  I have done some comparison's between
}the three where I don't record any signal.  The backround noise is as expected
}noticeably less on the blank dbx encoded space.  I haven't compaired my
}seperate with my dbx tape deck yet, and doubt I will.
}
}My opinion of dbx : I love it.

I have all 3 on my tape deck, too.  I find dbx handy for recording on
C-120 tapes, or other tapes using low grade Type I oxide.  On better tape
I stick with Dolby C, not because it's better, but because it has better
"portability".  You know, it's possible that I won't be able to replace
my dbx deck when it wears out.

-- 

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