asc@dciem.UUCP (Array Systems Computing) (10/20/83)
Does anyone know what the status of CBS's CX encoding is? I recall reading
in Stereo Review about a year ago that CBS was planning to soon encode
all of its releases, and also had signed up WEA and other major record
companies. Did it just not catch on? Did people decide that it was
a waste of time in light of the appearance of CD's? Was it as good
as they claimed? (I think SR gave it a casual (positive) review,
in one of the columns. Can't find it though.) Thanks in advance.
Dave Ings,
Array Systems Computing,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
{allegra,cornell,decvax,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!ings
{allegra,cornell,decvax,floyd,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!dciem!ascakhtar@uiuccsb.UUCP (10/25/83)
#R:dciem:-43600:uiuccsb:5700014:000:504 uiuccsb!akhtar Oct 24 13:30:00 1983 This is entirely from memory, so no guarantees to correctness. CX encoding, from my understanding, was essentially similiar to simple compression, approx 20db I think. The theory was that people without decoders would notice little difference, and that people with decoders, during expansion, would also lower the noise floor for the disc, thus removing a lot of the surface noise etc. It seems that this might have been good, way back in time, but with CD's around, who cares? ..pur-ee!uiucdcs!akhtar
rdg@hpcnoa.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:dciem:-43600:hpcnoa:3500004:000:740 hpcnoa!rdg Nov 1 07:56:00 1983 CX encoded disks........ The CX (compatible expansion) scheme turned out to be somewhat of a fraud. Even the non-audiophiles could tell that the claims were stretching the truth: that is, the system was 1) NOT compatible - they claimed that if you played a CX encoded disk without the decoder, it would sound just fine. Wrong. It sounds like shit. 2) Dynamic range expansion & noise reduction - to some extent this did take place, but not to the degree claimed. They also didn't mention the side effects, i.e. pumping, breathing, phase distortions, etc. So CX was a marketing gimmick to aid an ailing record industry. (Sort of like the current gimmick becoming so widespread...) Robert Gardner ihnp4!hpfcla!hpcnoa!rdg
caf@cdi.UUCP (caf) (11/14/83)
The tenichal articles on CX that I read indicated that CX was intended for use with Digital masters where some compression would be necessary to get the music to fit within the LP's dynamic range. Since the beginning of CX, I have been able to find but three classical recordings; NONE of these were from digital masters, so it would seem there is not as yet a test of CX's claim based on the suggested sourde material. The other CX problem (breathing/swishing) is all too real on the records I have. Perhaps CX would be OK if the records had been pressed on audiophile vinyl, but Columbia doesn't seem to even know what that IS hudging by the sandpaper surfaces of some of their recent top of the line classical records. In my humbole opinion, the real fraud of CX was in its commercial destruction of DBX discs. I have dozens of classical DBX records and, to the extent that anything analog can be made perfect, they do deliver their promise. The only obvious failure of the DBX system is in handling extremely fast and louder transients, such as castanets againgst a silent background. (Cymbal crashes and drums are fine.) Swishing and noise modulation are not a problem with the BDX's I've heard, and although ticks and pops are not eliminated, the "mist" and constricted dynamic range that separates LP's from CD's do not plague DBX records. Having compared some DBX records againgst CD of the same material (unfortunately not A-B), the most obvious difference is in the extra $700 needed for the CD player. Some of my favorite DBX's are some analog mastered Vox recordings which sold for 8 to 11 dollars. I'd like to see some calssical CD's with 50 or minutes of music on them selling for that price! Some of the CD's I've seen aren't even half full! -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX CDI Portland OR (503)-646-1599 cdi!caf