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?