Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles - hp 1.2 08/01/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!raan From: raan@hp-pcd.UUCP (raan) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Re: advice requested on brands of ca Message-ID: <5200013@hpcvry.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 14:50:00 EST Article-I.D.: hpcvry.5200013 Posted: Mon Nov 4 14:50:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 06:35:55 EST References: <112@emacs.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Corvallis, OR Lines: 23 Nf-ID: #R:emacs:-11200:hpcvry:5200013:000:1191 Nf-From: hpcvry!raan Nov 4 11:50:00 1985 >> I'm curious. Why get the best tape that you can? I seems to me that >> dbx would place less stress on the tape. This is because the signal is >> compressed and has no problem fitting above the noise floor and the >> signal ceiling. I have a Teac open-reel deck with dbx. I have experimented with several different brands of tape, ranging from cheap Radio Shack to Maxell XL-II (EE). The quality of the tape has a very noticable affect on the recording when using dbx. This affect includes the intensity of 'breathing' (tape hiss increasing with a sharp loud sound in the music). But, in the cheaper tapes, I also noticed some very strange distortions. The affect was to make a very sharp cutoff in volume at some point. Piano music had an unnatural decay rate, for example. It gave a sort of 'surging' quality to the music -- very annoying. The Maxell XL-II (EE) tape did not exhibit this behaviour at all. --- Raan Young Unix mail: [hplabs|uoregon|orstcs|harpo|microsoft|tekronix]->!hp-pcd!raan HPMAIL: Raan YOUNG / HP3900/50 US mail: Raan Young | Hewlett-Packard | 1000 NE Circle | Corvallis, OR 97330 Phone: (503) 757-2000 X2506 TELNET 81-757-2506