Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!ackersviller From: ackersviller@watmath.UUCP (Paul Ackersviller) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: dbx vs. Dolby B/C Message-ID: <10155@watmath.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 07:35:32 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.10155 Posted: Wed Dec 5 07:35:32 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 03:05:45 EST References: <3582@ucbvax.ARPA> <723@watdcsu.UUCP> <1807@tekig1.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 19 I have both an outboard dbx unit and a deck equipped with Dolby B & C, and I tend to agree with the Greg Taylor that breathing from dbx is often objectionable - I use mine only for music with a wide dynamic range, i.e. orchesral. Interestingly, I notice that breathing is far less of a problem with dbx discs. Unfortunately though, not that many were ever released and I've heard that they're being discontinued. Dolby C seems to be adequate for music with a narrow enough dynamic range to fit with it. It's certainly a big improvement over Dolby B in terms of tape hiss. Dolby has the added advantage of having a certain degree of compatibility for playback without decoding. This is useful for car and portable players; dbx decoders for these are rare (and expensive). I'm wondering if the addition of Dolby HX (for headroom extension - it's not a noise reduction system) adds considerably to the possible dynamic range available with Dolby C as it would seem capable of doing. Is there anyone out there who has experience with it and who would like to comment?