Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Oddity Archive: Episode 122 - DBX Noise Reduction System
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 мар 2017
- And welcome to the Oddity Archive…the show that rapidly contracts and expands-but clearly not rapidly enough.
ADDENDUM: It turns out there was a short-lived line of (legit) pre-recorded DBX cassettes. Watch my review at • Oddity Archive: Episod...
Visit our website at www.oddityarchive.com
Social Media:
Facebook: / oddityarchive
Twitter: @oddityarchive
Help out the Archive by making a monthly donation to our Patreon campaign at / oddityarchive
DBX was also the noise reduction system used by analog stereo TV in North America. Another noise reduction system which made it only vinyl was CX, by CBS Laboratories. CX noise reduction was also used on the analog audio tracks on LaserDiscs.
If I'm not mistaken, a form DBX was used in early medical tomography.
When I sold stereos and VCRs in 80s the new hotness was the Onkyo Integra TA-2090 cassette deck with dbx AND Dolby HXPro built in. Onkyo was one of the few (maybe the only) maker of component stereos that had dbx as an option. We also sold the Onkyo Integra TX-85 integrated amp/receiver with dbx included as well (it did decoding for dbx albums in the receiver). Naturally, we did some comparison recordings of several CDs (also the new hotness) in dbx as we were skeptical. As you point out, the external boxes from dbx were hit and miss. When recording from a digitally mastered CD, using Chrome tape with dbx on good speakers (JBL Studio Monitors) the recording was barely distinguishable from the source. Onkyo did a better implementation of dbx than dbx did.
We thought it was great, but unless you were willing to go "all in" and get a dbx car stereo decoder (let's face it, there were no cheap car CD players at the time) you couldn't take those cassettes anywhere because, without a decoder, the tapes sounded like crap.
Akai also sold a few models with dbx. I had an Akai GX-R66 that has Dolby B, C & dbx.
That sounds about right. Akai was a good brand, I had one of their Walkman style tape players, but it was high end with an all aluminum case and an included stereo microphone, That thing was a tank. I had it til I got a Discman.
I was dead wrong. Just about every manufacturer of stereo equipment made a dbx capable cassette deck at some point. I do remember my buds in the car stereo department selling Alpine head units with Dolby B-C and dbx. Of course there were probably more than that.
I never had a discman, I went from a walkman to a Creative NOMAD MuVo 128MB. 3 albums at once, wooo!
Technics had cassete decks with both Dolby-B and DBX. I loved DBX.
Come on and feel the noise... reduction system.
Kevin Dubrow would be proud.
I actually love OA a lot now, after absentmindedly coming across a video, and just binge-watching a bunch. It has a sweet 2007/10 basement RUclips laptop feel, but is so genuine and witty-in-a-weird-way that you can't find anywhere nowadays. I pride you man on keeping that genuine-ness.
So, does it go with red or white?
Great review. I had a Technics cassette deck in the 1980's with Doby B, C and DBX. After some experimenting with different NR systems and tapes I wound up only using Dolby B because my car's cassette deck had it. And I liked the extra brightness Dolby B gave when I recorded on basic normal bias tapes like TDK D or Maxell UR. I also didn't like DBX's extreme compression/expansion either. It seemed to work best on high bias tape.
It sounds like there's a bad transistor in your tape deck. If it's not a transistor, it's an op amp, which does what a transistor does, except there are a bunch of transistors in there internally.
My family actually still has a big Sanyo crt TV from 2000-2001 sitting in my father's room that has dbx. In fact, I just noticed the dbx logo on it earlier today.
Glad I’m not the only one that thinks Dolby removes the actual music.
Actually found a DBX pioneer deck after seeing your video. Thanks for this so much.
This format paralleled the intro of CD's and was the only way to record one without serious loss of sonic quality.
NX-40 was incredible for the mid 80's. Period. Back in the day, you never saw stuff in the Podunk if it didn't come in the DAK catalog.
Techmoan has an excellent video about DBX on vinyl. He swears by it... says it works incredibly well, making the vinyl virtually noiseless even in the dead wax and between tracks.
Matt Hayes I like Techmoan, but he seems to be vulnerable to audiophoolery.
You shouldn't have edited your comment. "Techbabble" was funnier. :)
Regarding your second additional thought, about dbx doing nothing about the sibilance at the end of the record side, also known as inner groove distortion.
That's not the job of a noise reduction system, as the problem lies either in a worn stylus, record or both, or a cartridge which hasn't been set up properly. And partially, of course, it's down to how the LP was mastered. Have a listen to Africa by Toto on my channel.
Holy crap, the theme music of your channel....its freaking awesome, lol, I've said it lot, but its just so freaking awesome. I sometimes listen to it a couple of times before watching your video.
I'm not able to be a patron, but think your work is great, thank you for the hard work and entertainment.
Have you considered picking it up on Bandcamp?
It's available for download or for whatever you want to pay.
You can read the reviews on the Grado signature cartridges to the point where it even makes sense that they had to swap them out to get a best overall picture because one did one thing well and the other did another thing well... from a signature for review from March June 1981 the absolute sound review of the Signature IV: (the sound of these has followed an up and down path)" I might mention that Joe Grado sent us a signature 3 / AP which was never released that cartridge was capable of tracking the entire 1812,[ the four , in the review did not and popped out regularly at the crescendo] however it did not have the excellent mid-range and top-end performance of the signature IV, indicating that there may be some trade-off in tracking and response involved here that Grado {still} cannot manage" those cost near $1,000 in 1980 to 81 each....
They use modified AKG microphones they used bryston and Audio Research and Infinity for their amplifications, when using just one would have been fine (at least the AR or bryston), they used monitoring speakers including Miller and Kreisel and modified quad electrostatics with ribbon Tweeter mods , which is a very odd but revealing choice for a monitor speaker , which of course they complemented with giant woofer Stacks from infinity and M&K They used top of the line cutting lathes , you name it. So what did they use to record this on ? studer ? revox? Maybe something crazy huh ? no they use the Sony PCM 1600. One of the foulest sounding recorders ever to grace the planet... and there were a good many digitally recorded vinyl released in the late 70s and early 80s but they're all pretty much hated on the secondary market now; and I get that the 1600 would have been one of the only choices at the time , digital wise... but man ,to put all that attention into everything analog...and then use that instead of going analog for the actual recording itself just blows my mind ...I guess it was the philosophy of the time, after all digital delivers lower Distortion LOL 16 bit 44.1 it's kind of a lie that it does , but whatever it's lower on measurements, and does have a wider dynamic range...but that they went through all that trouble even to get somewhat eclectic moving iron grado playback cartridges for the vinyls preview on the lacquer or whatever, (why not moving coil? i like grado a lot , but i wouldnt master with them) and yet didn't determine that an open reel recorder would have sounded better? it's strange to me...
I wonder if they used any Grado headphones also, or if they only mastered with speakers...lots and lots of different speakers... and I don't even know how that would typically go you put it on the electrostatics and you turn down the treble and then you put it on the cone drivers and you turn the treble back up and then you try to do what? Pick some compromise setting in the middle? I mean I know it's common to use more than one type of speaker to mix/ master/engineer ,but the disparity between a good cone speaker and a good electrostatic driver with ribbon mod to give it even more treble oh, that's a night and day sound difference indeed, kind of like the difference between everything else they used and a Sony PCM 1600
DBX takes the breath out of recordings, and compresses the freq's. This is how it can afford 30dB of gain.
"It sounded dull and lifeless..."
So, like every other Steely Dan song? *ZING*
No chance you'll ever get to polish their Grammys now.
Darn. My life's ambition, down the drain!
You wanted to be a plumber?
I have multiple dbx units. I have yet to hear "pumping and breathing". I use a type II 224 on my recapped and restored Teac A 6300 as well as my Otari MX 5050 BIII also at 15 IPS and unlike your low end Akai with whatever tape set up it has yet to disappoint. I also have a 122 as well as a 124 for my Teac 3340S and a NX-40 for cassette deck and use encoded LP's. No pumping and breathing.
Of course I have a room full of calibration gear and restore my own electronics as well as calibration tapes so the "pumping and breathing" is a problem I know of as gear that's not calibrated.
That 15ips reel is having dbx decode tracking issues.
That breathing is noticeable as surface noise on dbx LPs.
I had a Technics M-234X cassette deck with dbx NR (1984). The dynamic range was superb, no breathing, but the tapes you made couldn't be played in the car so I mostly just used the Dolby NR. As regards sibilance; no noise reduction system would get rid of it because it's part of the native signal, either from a worn or improperly aligned stylus on playback (LP), or a bad recording master lathe. I enjoyed your trek into dbx, for me it's the best NR system, but almost exactly like Beta vs. VHS the Double D won out.
You can filter SSSSSSSSibilance tho.
Thanks for the review and comparison! I bought the NX40 and a couple of disks. However, my record player is being rebuilt in Canada!
I picked up a dbx 224 at a thrift store last month. It's simpler than your 228, but I'm fine with this, fewer controls mean fewer things to go wrong. I haven't tested it out aside from making sure it powers on. It has the "dbx disc" button, and I lack any vinyl to try (yet). Yes, dbx was primarily sold as outboard units, but I remember seeing it on some cassette decks in the 1980s, but they were always priced higher than units with Dolby C. The first piece of equipment that I owned with dbx was a Tascam 424 4-track recorder. It was a simple off/on switch, and it made no mention if it was Type I or Type II or a scheme specific to these units. And yes, you can hear artifacts. "Breathing" is a good name for it, and it is most noticeable during changes in dynamics.
Sounds like your 122 has bad caps on the right input.
OMG, I knew somebody would bring up caps.
dbx was included in many high end cassette decks in the 80's and 80's I have a Technics RS-B905 3 head deck with dbx..The problem is when recording the right channel is dead.The left is low and scratchy.Dolby B and C both work fine.
We had dbx integrated into our cassette recorder. I remember it was a Technics with a VF VU meter and type III tape support.
Ferrichrome! That's another OA episode right there!
I really enjoyed this episode! I haven’t properly connected my dbx NX40 to my Sony AV 550 STR (to listen to quite a few dbx superdisks that I purchased). I don’t know how in my stereo to use the TapeMonitor position as it all works in source mode. If you want to listen to a record, then you press phono. If you want to record a record you play it and then press record on my tape deck. The part of the tests, is outstanding!
Thank you for the effort, really infornative, `I learned a lot....
I was, and am a happy owner of several DBX units (224, 2BX, 3BX DS [x2], and even two of their routers, the DBX 200 and DBX 400.) as well as a no longer used in-car decoder, the Clarion NRX-50.
As stated several times so far, If you understand the DBX noise reduction process, you will appreciate it for what it was in the day, and was by far the more superior noise reduction on the market at the time. DBX was not alone in the early eighties, as several companies were trying to gain footage in the noise reduction/range expansion market (Nakamichi NR-200, Pioneer RG-2 come to mind).
I have several DBX albums (maybe 3?) but they failed to impress me over the top of the mark Half Speed Masters stamped on JVC Supervinyl (thick cast virgin vinyl).
However....................Reproduction from album to cassette through DBX to my Nakamichi 680ZX was flawless and accurate, allowing albums to languish untouched for years before being recorded again as tapes wore out. DBX was very advanced, and only failed (IMHO) thanks to the inability to playback without a decoder.
My dad had a stand alone dolby (dolby a , retroactively) box for his open reel...someone stole it. Id love to have it back...
And speaking of DBX, I have a Sony SQ Decoder (SQD-1000) and it still works, because it's a Quadraphonic system that has 4 channels and it can be used for decoding SQ vinyl records. And also compatible as a home theater system that uses Dolby Digital and Dolby Surround sound.
Mine is an SQD-2020 but it needs repairs. Have the manual tho.
Man, some of that was almost painful to listen to. Yowsa. A very interesting and lucid video. I first heard an expander at a friends place in 1978. She had the Pioneer RG-1. I was impressed with it's performance on cassette and open reel tapes. It was boss. Bit by the bug, I got an RG-2 in 1980. I liked the multi band DBX units but cost was prohibitive. The RG-2 cost $115 and satisfied my needs. Setting expansion can be tricky. I set expansion at 7dB for classical, 10dB for rock and input level to 5. Caution is advised not to set expansion to high to avoid a breathing, pumping sound, unless you dig that. Also, these expanders have no amp, they use the power from your amplifier. Boost judiciously.
I had a dbx NX-40 and a few dbx albums. They sure were quiet compared to everything else out there at the time.
If your Dolby or dbx equipped components were set up and working properly, you would get excellent sound quality. I know I did 40 years ago. This stuff was not a joke. Noise was a big problem with analog sources back in the day.
I'm on a binge-watch of your videos in chronological order. Did you ever do one on DNR (Dynamic Noise Reduction), which I think was a lot more popular than DBX, but never at Dolby levels?
For some reason, I just recalled Gene Belcher.
dbx had a bigger strong hold my my field, studio recording.
Personally, my Technics cassette deck that had DBX was near Reel-to-Reel quality. I also never heard pumping and breathing.
Of course, it wasn't at all compatable with a non-DBX equipped player.
Helpful insight. I’m on self-imposed audio engineering-101 as I’m bldg small (246 Portastudio - 8-trk Model 5 console + 1/2” reel-reel, 122 mastering deck, dbx-161VU comp/limiters & original Auratone mix monitors) analogue recording studio. I know nothing BUT maybe u could do a critique on dbx’s pro-audio use. Actually I prefer dbx to Dolby in this context. Of-course good gear helps ... both systems but I prefer the dbx I/t studio.
9:46 Damn! That sounds like a low FM radio signal.
Your cartridge doesn't seem to track terribly well.. very rare I hear as much sibilance as you have in some of these samples. After you get the R2R sorted out is the vinyl playback chain down the road on the upgrade block..?
Pretty neat episode, I have a few Tascam 4-tracks with DBX - never use it, kind of defeats the purpose of why I'd be recording to cassette heh
I'm going to point this out to you, alot of these machines do need work and need calibration and I would really look into a dbx 1 unit over a 2, and honestly I have been wanting to try out nakamichi high com 2
Another thing about NR is you to have to be very precise on how you use it and all of these machines must be calibrated one way or another to get the best results, zappa used a telefunken high com C-4 unit that was trying to rival dolby A, on a solo called heidelberg, and probably most likely some of the european 78 tour
really to get the best listen, I listen without any NR if it's a vinyl but if I'm backing it up to tape
It goes straight to the nakamichi 700 with dolby B on, perfect recordings that sound good in any deck I throw it at
I had a Teac X-2000r that had dbx built in. I also had a Akai cassette deck that had dbx in it. After recording cd's to them I couldn't even tell the difference between the original and the copy. True that I couldn't play the cassettes on other decks, but the performance was awesome for the day, way better than dolby, which I agree, took away terribly from the upper frequencies on playback.
The Bad Sound on dolby Decoded Tapes has something to do with wrong bias and Recording Levels, they Must be adjusted exactly on the Tape sort you use for Recordings. Most Tapedecks don't have adjusting controls on the outside, so there is only One Tape sort for Every Tape type Setting that will work as it should. Same is with reel to reel. And also pre recorded Tapes or Tapes recorded on Other Decks won't Sound as good as they should because Every manufacter got their own Settings for bias, eq and Dolby Level and in Most cases the azimuth is a Bit Different on Every Tapedeck and that Makes it impossible to make a Dolby Recording good sounding on other Decks than the deck the tape was recorded on, but when everything is adjusted correctly dolby recordings definitely sound better than a non Dolby recording. Dbx is more efficient in reducing noise but those breathing effects you talk about are also harder than with dolby... on a good dolby recording you won't hear those artifacts.
@13:44; I blew up the video to full screen and I still couldn't read it. It was blurry.
Ain't my old potato cam wonderful? For what it's worth, I wound up more or less remaking this episode a couple years later (episode 164, to be exact).
Between Joan Armatrading and the cameo from Gert Fröbe, I think I may have a new favorite episode of Archive!
What is the Oddity Archive theme called?
"Pavanned".
You made an album, sir?
Check your cartridge alignment and maybe replace your stylus. The mis-tracking distortion is quite excessive.
I know. I redid this episode a couple years later with better (and properly calibrated) gear (and some legit DBX cassettes). ruclips.net/video/qTNMmT4rTzw/видео.html
All of the vinyl versions sounded distorted.
Colab with 8Bit-Guy and Techmoan pliz? you guys could have hour-long geek-outs, and we could all geek-along with you.
it would be so awesome....
Not without good BBQ pal. Bring the ribs.
21:45, the summary there isn't really right at all? gotta be honest, they recorded it to a 16 bit digital recorder, ouch, then used that to fuel a cutting lathe, also apparently an 'all passive console' so all passive equalization, assuming some kind of pultec derivative, basically its jargon for audio engineers who want to be disappointed when they listen to it
I had a nice Technic deck that had dbx AND dbx disc...never ever found a dbx disc.
Ben, why don't you use your own songs in your sound tests more often?
No more copyright issues.
Until he gets a copyright claim against his own song, its happened to others many times. You just can't always win with RUclips.
I used music in one of my "Trams & Trains" videos. got notified of copyright even though the music was intended for use in videos for RUclips. I now play it safe, I don't use music at all.
Depends on who published it or owns the rights. Since he has a website and asks for donations he can't call it a non-commercial venture and therefore will have those issues. My videos are purely for the description of my hobby. AND STAY AWQAY FROM SITES WITH "FREE AUDIO"...RUN RUNAWAY!
It's the bane of RUclipsrs, the world over, the issue of using music in video productions. The trouble is: RUclips, it seems, cannot distinguish between copyright-protected or royalty-free music, so it doesn't matter where you source the music, you may be flagged for copyright on what you've used. Even sound effects can be flagged, as I found out very recently.
If it is challenged and proof is established, that is that. Just stay away from those websites.
Yay!!! for Audacity, Boo!!! for the Mac.
Audacity saves the horrid 'HD' crap kids make to 'remaster' audio on YT videos.
It was musical March? huh?
Kari Martin But not in September like a certain Snob does.
While there is definitely a difference, and to me at least, DBX sounds... how do I say this, fuller, especially on the R-t-R, I doubt it was worth the extra expense back in the day.
Two people have Kraco car stereos and just won't fix them.
Ja, das Volkswoofer!
Listen up this is supreme geekspeak and Ben is ubergeek.
The 200 and 400 signal router boxes have diagrams to show how to hook stuff in and switch three decks , NR, EQ and a processor and run them through the tape monitor loop...works great. PS Get a compressor/limiter/gate, that's what they are for. --Owner of 2 222's, a 224, 155 4-channel Type I, two cassette decks with type II (Pioneer and Teac) and even a couple NR 40's (which I hear suck but I haven't used them yet...also have the Concord DBA-10 and Teac AN-60 Dolby B units...oh wait, I don't want to out uber the master, just brag to him. Or something...
HAMSTERS DO HAVE LIPS!!!!!
Of COURSE they do...and you dance to them.
What are you using for a turntable and cartridge? It sounds horrible. I hear tons of IGD and sibilance. Perhaps use a better turntable and cartridge and set up properly, then try again...
I found 17:28 on Shazam!
I used to watch that when I was young, liked it a lot.
The S sound terrible. Syphilis? Or what ever its called? That thing sucks.
dammit the armatrading lp has distortion
Why sound from reel-to-reel are better, than original sound in WAV? This shouldn't be happening. The sound should be as much as possible the same as it was in its original form. Apparently, because your 228 model has an expander and you used it when recording on a reel-to-reel tape recorder
And in my opinion, my cassette deck writes dbx much better than yours.
So much misinformation being perpetrated here.... maybe a good read of the operating manual would be in order. Then you might *get it* but, apparently you didn't. The manual isn't in a different language. Hmmm?
Early.
Then come later and let the human gather more dust.
You've missed to give us BIG component of noise reduction systems: to hear the difference with/without nrs in silent parts of vinyls, tapes . Why? And, you've missed to show your face.
Dolby B is garbage and C as well. You can achieve the same miserable results changing the Eq of the tape, a metal tape on normal will sound as mean as turning Dolby B on. Also, the time constant, or envelope of the "reduction" turns out very annoying when the music level changes suddenly many times in a short period of time. More a marketing figure than a real practical use. DBX was shipped with some prosumer open reels, FACTORY, so, it cant be that bad.
Dude, just learn how to use the deck, or get one with HX Pro and stop your sobbing (wait, now I have an uncontrollable urge to hear The Pretenders)...I love you Chrissie!!!!
Dolby B was created back in the 70's so yea I imagine it's not all that great these days
I have used decks since 90s up to date. And tried a few machines, NEVER got this system working to a better result. You get a different sound but not a better sound. I preffer the hissing and getting the full range. Preriod. Dolby is a tradeoff This is what you get with Dolby B anc C. HX Pro is a DIFFERENT STORY. If you know how o use a deck you know that adjuting the tape to its MOL before saturation is just the better Dolby you can get. Trial and error in 2 head, on real time with a three head. I you have used a deck you know how much time you have to spent getting the level adjusted RIGHT even between tracks. You need to hear or know in advance were the peak or peaks are to set the level with them. Lazy ones will just put normal tapes in 0, thats all, Many of the normal ones can get into almost +3db ... but it depend on brand and formulation. Same applies to TYPE II but the MOL is probably more consistent there. This comment section is to share experiences ....being rude does not make you look more smart or me like an 1d1ot. I have used tapes for almost 25 years and still using tapes very often and bought my last deck 5 months ago. Cheers.
HX Pro isn't noise reduction, it's a dynamics processor and results in a better quality signal by preventing more overloading of the tape.Anyway, what you are addicted to is a lot of brightness, and I suggest you refine your equipment accordingly, especially in the realm of the tweeters and crossovers you have. THAT and turn the freaking BASS down. You are thumping too much and compensating that way mistaking it for a lack of upper register. Dolby does not flatten anything, it boosts the sections where noise is perceived by most people and then drops the level the same amount in Dolby playback, dropping the noise floor X amount BELOW that. That is the basic and un-confusing way Dolby B and C work, no government conspiracies involved. PS 1981 here.
I actually like your choice of topics but the way you hide stupidly behind whatever just kills it for me. Grow up, mate!