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