wjm@whuxl.UUCP (MITCHELL) (10/26/84)
Go with the NAK. The RX-505 has gotten excellent reviews and Nak is the company that made the cassette into a hi-fi medium. dbx is the greatest thing since sliced bread. As I've said many times before - Dolby C reduces noise but dbx makes it inaudible. Personally, I'm using an outboard dbx box (the 224 - which is the 3 head deck version) with my Nak 680ZX. The only problem with dbx is that dbx is unlistenable without decoding. Dolby B is somewhat listenable, Dolby C less so, but undecoded dbx sounds awful. Another advantage of dbx is that it isn't level sensitive so you don't have the matching problem you have with Dolby. Regards, Bill Mitchell (whuxl!wjm)
newton2@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (10/29/84)
This refers to Bill Mitchell's remark (dbx greatest thing since sliced bread) that, while Dolby C reduces cassette noise, dbx makes it completely inaudible. Have you never run across situations wherehigh-level predominantly low-frequency sounds (tympanni, double bass, who knows what?) expose the mid- and high-frequency noise by opening the expander? This is a question, not sarcasm-- this sort of failure of masking is a well-known problem with broadband companders; the usual solution is heavy high-freq. preemphasis (both signal and control path), which can give rise to the opposite problem (exposure of *low-frequency* noise by isolated hf signal). Regards, Doug Maisel -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong, Computing Services) (10/31/84)
Most people consider low frequency (<1KHz) less objectionable than
high frequency noise. As far as I know, most tape decks do not generate
enough low frequency noise to matter.
Herb...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
BITNET: herbie at watdcs,herbie at watdcsu