Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site inuxe.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!inuxe!skittles
From: skittles@inuxe.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re:dbx
Message-ID: <609@inuxe.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Sep-83 08:32:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: inuxe.609
Posted: Fri Sep  2 08:32:41 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Sep-83 22:41:17 EDT
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products Div., Indianapolis
Lines: 22

The recent articles that claim dbx has breathing
side effects are wrong.  I have been using the
dbx 224 for years and have never experienced
such problems.  Futhermore, in addition to the
compression techniques used, dbx II also uses
a slight amount of frequency pre-emphasis
during recording and the appropriate de-emphasis
upon playback.  This is much like dolby B and C
and it is used to prevent the exact problem the
net has been discussing.  Also, it is broad
band across the entire frequency spectrum.
Excuse me for being so bold, but I have a hard
time believing that these dbx units are
failing.  In my opinion, something else is
to blame or needs adjusted, especially when
considering the Teac cassette deck.  For
reel to reel applications, >30db signal to
noise improvement can be obtained dropping
to >20db for cassette applications.  This is
assuming that dbx II is being used.  The
second generation circuitry has been around
since the mid seventies.