Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!5121cdd
From: 5121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Beta Hi-Fi Rebuttal - (nf)
Message-ID: <667@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jan-84 17:07:32 EST
Article-I.D.: houxm.667
Posted: Tue Jan  3 17:07:32 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jan-84 04:57:18 EST
References: <3583@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 20

Again, the point is missed -- remember that the Beta Hi-Fi uses a companding
scheme very similar to (I assume) dbx.  Also, look at how dbx Type II
noise reduction works -- frequencies above 10K Hz do not effect the RMS
detection so mistracking (pumping) is reduced (i.e., head wear and
misalignment are not a big factor).  This, however, is not true with
dbx Type I (professional) noise reduction, for optimum results flat
frequency response is required +-1 dB.  In practice, I find Dolby B
(and even Dolby A - professional) much more objectionable than dbx.
Dolby noise reduction is very level sensitive -- overall record and
playback levels must be within 1 - 2 dB to avoid mistracking.  This is
why Dolby B recordings are not as transportable as advertised -- record/
playback electronics from tape deck to tape deck are not closely matched.

I agree that no noise reduction is better -- for absolute sonic purity.
However, as always, we are dealing with a set of compromises -- I
personally hate tape hiss. dbx eliminates this problem while only
paying the piper a small amount.

                                        Craig Dory  --  AT&T Bell Laboratories
                                                             Holmdel, NJ