[comp.music] Re^2: dbx vs. Dolby C Noise Reduction

jdm@gssc.UUCP (John David Miller) (07/23/90)

edwardm@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) writes:
>...Older DBX units were
>subject to a condition known as "pumping", basically a result of not being
>able to accurately decide (based on the signal) when to emphasize and when
>to de-emphasize....

Yes, this is very true.  There are several "types" of dbx noise reduction,
most of which fall into the encode/decode catagory.  I don't know all of the
types, but studio gear typically uses Type 1, while newer cassette decks with
built-in dbx (TEAC, Onkyo, et al) use Type 2.  For all I know, they may in
fact be the same thing calibrated for different use.  I do know that Type 1
is *very* good, and you'd be hard pressed to find any pumping.  (That CD
you're listening to was probably made from a Type 1 encoded multi-track tape, 
unless it is an all-digital recording.)  I think the improvements can be
attributed to advances in circuit speed and dividing the frequency spectrum 
into separate NR bands.

In the studio, variable compression/expansion units (made by dbx, Symetrix,
et al) are a way of life.  Even all-digital recordings can't handle the full
dynamic range of many instruments....

One final note: a $250 piece of gear that will make your ho-hum CD's, LP's,
cassettes, etc. COME ALIVE - the BBE 422a Sonic Maximizer.  This is one
AMAZING piece of signal processing machinery in a 1U rack space.  Check it
out at music stores that cater to the studio crowd.  Testamonial: I just 
bought over $10k of studio stuff, and this piece pulls its weight more 
than any other.  

-- jdm
-- 
John David Miller                      jdm@gss.com
Graphic Software Systems               uunet!gssc!jdm
9590 S.W. Gemini Dr.                   (503) 641-2200 (voice)
Beaverton, OR  97005-7161              (503) 643-8642 (FAX)

scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (07/24/90)

In article <6278@gssc.UUCP> jdm@gssc.UUCP (John David Miller) writes:
>                         There are several "types" of dbx noise reduction,
>most of which fall into the encode/decode catagory.  I don't know all of the
>types, but studio gear typically uses Type 1, while newer cassette decks with
>built-in dbx (TEAC, Onkyo, et al) use Type 2.  For all I know, they may in
>fact be the same thing calibrated for different use.  

As I understand it, Type 2 DBX (designed for home use) is not as
sensitive to the higher frequencies as Type 1.  This supposedly
compensates for the tendency of consumer models to lose a little
high end over time.  Therefore, if the high end degraded a little
the decoder would still function properly.

-- 
Scott Amspoker
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM
(505) 345-5232
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott

paul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (07/24/90)

> unless it is an all-digital recording.)  I think the improvements can be
> attributed to advances in circuit speed and dividing the frequency spectrum 
> into separate NR bands.

According to dbx literature dbx I uses a different
pre-emphasis/de-emphasis. In addition, dbx II uses the audio spectrum
between approximately 50 Hz- 10 kHz to determine the RMS level of the
signal to compensate for the possible high frequency "drop off" in the
frequency response of cassette recorders and the head-contour effect
on the bass frequencies of most cassette recorders.

darenm@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Daren McClearnon) (07/24/90)

Unfortunately, DBX as a company abandoned the dbx noise reduction market
at the first blush of the compact disc era, say 7 or 8 years ago.  I always
preferred dbx for consumer rock recording but could never find car stereo
equipment or friends with dbx to make it practical.  

Nowadays, if you read the litany on Dolby SR, it is basically doing 
multi-band, bandlimited compansion like you always hoped dbx would do some
day.  But no, they diversified into speakers and components and are not 
even doing DSP versions of their older signal processing stalwarts like
the 4BX.  

One complaint I've had with dbx is that the high-frequency pre-emphasis
usually saturates non-metal tape at higher record levels; they really should
have created the equivalent of Dolby HX, which modulates the bias, or
Tandbarg's Dyneq, which modulates the equalization, as a function of record
level.

ALL IN ALL -
dbx:audio::beta:video


  |\/\/\/|
  |      |     /----------------\
  |      |    | COWABUNGA, DUDE. |
  | (o)(o)    /,----------------/
 C      _)
  | ,___| 
  |   /  
 /____\ 
/      \ 
Daren McClearnon
somewhere in Hewlett Packard.