What's wrong with dbx?
Learn how to become a better producer in your own home recording studio >>
Comments on this video
You can comment on this video at YouTube
You can comment on this video at YouTube
Thursday April 20, 2023
David Mellor
David Mellor is CEO and Course Director of Audio Masterclass. David has designed courses in audio education and training since 1986 and is the publisher and principal writer of Adventures In Audio.
Erwin Hooimeijer replies to Erwin Hooimeijer: Ow and so using a separate dbx2 unit is asking for trouble☺️(cables introduce more side affects where build-in units have short signal paths)
Anonymous Coward: Consumer grade equipment get consumer grade components...to do the things that dbx has to do well i.e. eliminate things like breathing, you need high slew rate op-amps, precision voltage references, etc. which are prohibitively expensive for the home “prosumer” use case.
analogkid455: I had a Yamaha MT100 with DBX in the 80s as well. I recorded mostly my band but a few other bands along the way until I upgraded to ADAT machines.
Colloidal Silver Water 15 ppm: Well, I've made COMPANDER, which is same thing as dbx. It was revelation in those days, because on my Pioneer deck was only dolby B and C.
Rui Cameira: not afordable to most of the people ,all companies had to change the way they recorded in vinyl and new cartridges were to be used , after bspending a lot of money one could hear the Police regatta de blanc with a perfect sound, but not much more than that, their professional equipment sold to studios is very good ,i have an equalizer that is so long that i don´t even remenber how much frequencies they have but also works as a noidse reducer, which in my opinion is much more perfect than Dolby
RetroVideo: I've never used dbx noise reduction with cassettes. dbx type II was developed for cassettes but also open reel machines running at 7.5 and 3.75ips, so type II was always considered the domestic version of dbx. Type I was used mostly on open reel recorders running at 15ips, though you could get good results at 7.5ips if the machine was electronically and mechanically aligned correctly. At 15ips, type I was a revelation. I could never really notice any noise pumping issues, but the criteria was always flatness of frequency response and a properly aligned machine. If you could hear obvious noise issues with dbx on an open reel at 15ips, usually the problem was the machine, not the noise reduction unit.
Not Insane: I still have a dozen or so dbx vinyl records as well as a matching DBX decoder. They were a nice stop gap before CDs came out.
zumazmusic: I dig your instrumental! 😎🤘🎶🍻
Doberman guy: I have a Yamaha 3head cassette deck with dbx I'm very happy with it one thing you failed to mention sir dbx came out a lot later after Dolby did and by the time dbx started getting a little popular cassette decks started to fade out but cassette decks an hour coming back but it's a fact dbx came out after Dolby on cassette decks
Audio Masterclass replies to Doberman guy: Dolby definitely had a head-start advantage but I'd also say that Dolby was better at licensing. It has happened elsewhere that the format that was more widely licensed (VHS) was the one that won (Betamax). DM
J tavegia: A little bit late to have this discussion.
Scott Lowell: I had a DBX "Compander" in the 80's. DBX NR was pretty extreme. It didn't always sound better.
Rune Pedersen: I have some old cassette-recordings from the start of the 80's, the non-dolby ones sound quite good, the dolby ones sound muffled.
As mentioned in this video, it's tracking errors - lower output from the tape makes the dolby circuit reduce the treble level more than they should be.
It would be nice with a variable gain between the playback-head and the dolby circuits, restoring the correct playback level, without having to re-adjust the trimmers in the deck, only to adjust them back to their former position, once finished listening to the old tapes.
Some NAD decks had "Play Trim" knobs - don't know if that took care of this problem - AFAIK it was more a treble adjustment than a gain control.
Pickersgill: Like listening to my granny over-explaining something incredibly simple.
Al Rude: From the 80's through the mid 90's my studio had a 1" 16 track Tascam 85-16B with dbx. Did a few releases for JSP and a few other labels. I was always VERY careful to maintain that machine. The results were quite acceptable, we were always reviewed against 24 track studios with much better gear.
rEdf196: In the early 1980's I always heard a lot of complaints about DBX mostly due to compatibility and the poor sound quality on conventional stereos . Unlike Dolby NR , which was everywhere, there were just not enough DBX players, or the will, by me or others to commit to this rather obscure format, unlike the "all new" emerging digital new compact disc which the general public was very exited about back then and did take off in popularity. I put DBX alongside quadraphonic vinyl, Edison disc, Elcasset, CED video, Beta, Lased disc, and other failed formats.
Bob Withrow: If a cassette starts at 45db SNR, dbx type II will improve SNR by 30db hence yielding a total SNR or 75db. It's known as noise modulation not modulation noise. IMHO, the best reel to reel format is 2 track 15IPS with IEC/CCIR EQ.
Bob Withrow replies to Bob Withrow: I worked for Julius Konins at Cassette Productions in New Jersey in the 80s. We made high end chrome Dolby B 0:26 classical music cassettes utilizing type I 120us premephasis instead of the usual type II setting of 70us. Julius told Ray Dolby that Dolby B produced noise modulation on certain percussion instruments. We had to have golden ears to serve the customers we had
Audio Masterclass replies to Bob Withrow: I don't mind you calling it noise modulation, but other people have it differently https://www.google.com/search?q=noise%20modulation+site:aes.org DM
Phil Shifley: Pop music has become as simple and shallow as the majority of people who make it their audio diet. Junk food for the ears that is written by a few for overconsumption by the masses.
MrGhostown81: When you mentioned about how the CD was mastered. I have two commercial albums I bought on CD where the cassette version sounds better. Anthrax's "Armed and Dangerous" and Megadeth's original version of "Killing Is My Business...". Especially with the Anthrax CD. It sounds like it was mastered through a soup can.
Searchiemusic: what's wrong with dbx? someone didn't calibrate the machine, that's what
Thom Osburn: I really loved your instrumental!
Great video here, the one thing you didn't address is that if you bought once deck and recorded music (with built-in dbx)
and then tried to play the tape on a different built-in dbx deck, the signal would pump up and down like crazy.
So you had to pray that your cassette deck wouldn't die.
Manky Frilla: Loved this one.. 👍🏽
Börli Bär: And what's wrong with HiCom 🤔
Audio Masterclass replies to Börli Bär: I have no experience, but the information at Wikipedia under the heading 'Impact' offers some information on the possible problems. It may however just be the case that Dolby got in first and were better at licensing. DM
Tucson Analog Workshop: Well you avoided the biggest issue with Dolby and that is the differing alignment of tape heads, even when these decks were new. Let alone between brands of decks, the problem exists within the same brand or even model. The alignment tolerances for a mass-produced cassette deck could never be good enough for Dolby. (Only Nakamichi addressed the issue with their auto azimuth). For the vast majority of cassette users, a Dolby recording more often than not, only sounded good on the same deck it was recorded on. That's the problem. Not head cleaning or 'using the right tape'. You also glossed over the great improvements in circuitry in the 80s-90s among most deck manufacturers, and the addition of HX Pro, to the point where by the mid-late 80s, Dolby was no longer needed, but just included because of tradition. This is my experience. Dolby should always be off, whether playback or recording. Who listens to music at such ear damaging volume that tape hiss becomes obtrusive? Dolby was a theoretically great idea that should never have seen the light of day in consumer or even pro-sumer decks. If you can't stand a little noise in this day and age, you really shouldn't be playing with analog formats anyway.
Tucson Analog Workshop replies to Tucson Analog Workshop: @MacXpert74 So true!
MacXpert74 replies to Tucson Analog Workshop: Besides everything you've mentioned, it should also be noted that the quality of the tape cassettes themself was significantly improved from the late 60 to the early 90s, with constant development of new tape formulas, that allowed for lower noise and higher recording levels, increasing the dynamic range to a decent level without using any noise reduction.
John Wright: While dbx is more annoyingly obtrusive on overall mixes with multiple instruments and voices mixed, it wasn't quite so bad on individual tracks of single instruments... 🤔
macronencer: I had a Portastudio (or was it a Porta One?) in the 1990s. A few years ago I bought a Yamaha MT120S with dbx so I could archive the tapes digitally. It was a nightmare! I had often used whatever tape was lying about, sometimes recording in the middle of another recording, and sometimes even on the wrong side of the cassette so that time was reversed - and in addition, I didn't always remember to switch on the dbx... so I had a right mess in Cubase when I'd finished. For some of the tapes I decided to run them right through, once with dbx and once without, then sort out which version was the right one later on in Cubase (not to mention reversing the reversed sections...) And THEN I started to wonder whether using dbx on a dbx recording that was playing backwards would actually work OK. I mean, it's a companding effect, right? So it has attack and release... oh dear. In the end I decided not to worry about it because the music wasn't exactly stellar :) These archiving projects can end up stealing half your life if you're not careful.
Audio Masterclass replies to macronencer: Even the world's greatest philosophers can't answer the question, "When to archive, when to move on?" DM
basspig: The challenge with dbx noise reduction is that you have to have extremely well-known characteristics of the tape transfer characteristic and dynamic level compression otherwise you get tracking errors. The more aggressive a noise reduction system is the worst the tracking errors can be and the requirement for a perfect tracking is even more critical. Another often overlooked problem is transient response of dbx. I had dealt with a recording that had pops and ticks in it and noticed that the dvx gate didn't close down quickly enough and you could hear at the end of the pop just a little trailing edge of tape hiss. It only lasted about a millisecond or two but it was definitely an artifact.
Keith Spillett: That closing demo doesn't actually sound too bad, but, as with all things, it IS a demonstration of an 'audio pro' using non pro kit, which probably notches things up a gear anyway 😀. I was senior engineer in a London studio complex that specialised in audio for video and visitor attractions. We used a mixture of Dolby A and SR, as well as dbx type 1. We even ended up using Dolby C on Fostex 1/2 inch 16 track machines for onsite replay at visitor attractions like the Lands End visitor centre in the mid 80s. dbx 1 sounded surprisingly good at first generation level, but second generation copies REALLY began to exhibit the pumping effects dbx was famous for!
David Morley: I use DBX on my Tascam 388. People love to hit tape hard but in my experience if you record with conservative levels and DBX (as they recommend) it works extremely well on most stuff. No noise and few side effects. So if used properly and carefully, it can be excellent. But I don't do solo piano! Subscribed!
Remy David: Oh really? You use your DBX Type II noise reduction on a common cassette deck? My God man! Of course you can hear modulation noise!
Unlike your misinformation. DBX is highly affected by, non-flat, frequency response bandwidth. Whatever it is? It's twice as bad with DBX! So if you are down 2 DB at say, 2 kHz? It's going to be down 4 DB. It gives you automatic Equalization at frequencies you don't want, automatically! Free of charge! Everything you don't want where you don't want it.
Which is why DBX noise reduction. Should never be used on any recorder. That does not have a razor flat response from 50-15,000 Hz plus or minus, one quarter,, DB. And that would be acceptable. Sort of. But nobody's going to have a cassette there so finely tweaked like that. Other than possibly myself?
Now I have had a lot of, high-end, studio, cassette decks. By Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer and Knock Amici. Which is an Italian cassette deck made in Japan. Because it sounds Italian. Yes. Good enough for operatic and symphonic recording playbacks. As they are unlike in the other professional cassette deck ever made. Including Studer. Including TASCAM. All pale in comparison to never, Knock A Miche! They just can't be beat in sound quality. Take it from a real analog tape recorder manufacturing and maintenance genius. No other cassette that compares to, knock amici. Printed as it is pronounced. Not as it is written. I mean how many Japanese guys have Italian names? And made cassette decks? That sound great! That sound almost as good as one of my studio Scully's. And no other cassette deck sounds like that. None! Nada!
Only on one of those finely adjusted and tweaked Knock's. Might I have tried DBX tape noise reduction? But I have forever hated and despised the sound of the analog Compact Cassette. They are just plain, awful. And no reason to go back to them. None!
And so today. If you want quieter cassette tape playbacks? Don't use any, Dolby or DBX noise reduction. No.
Simply transfer it into your computer. Via really anybody's, USB soundcard interface. Pick up a copy of, Adobe, Audition. Any version. Or the earlier Cool Edit, free shareware program from 1996. And the noise reduction program within. For free. Is virtually the same and every bit as good. As some of these other specialized noise reduction programs costing upwards of $1500. And Cool Edit/Adobe Audition has that built in. And it's really superb. I have been using it since 1996. It's a lifesaver. A miracle worker. A magician. And don't over abuse it. If you never want to hear it work. You Golightly. You only need lightly. Unless it's a recovery and restoration. And that's different. Those are harder. A lot harder. To bring back broken crappy audio, from the dead.
So today I prefer to do my noisy duction in software. As there is no hardware. That can do a good or better job than software. Nothing. And so it's great! If you don't use your Dolby or DBX. Lots will already be encoded. That you go to playback. And most of that is going to sound like mud. And so for that. You need software. To make it sound real and alive and recorded yesterday. And then you take out the noise that's objectionable. Et Voilà! Acceptable sounding audio recovered from a compact analog audio cassette. From a Knock and Amici cassette deck.
It's very funny and I'm 100% serious. All the other cassette decks sound like mud. Knock''s, don't. And that's the only analog audio cassette deck. I will used to archived to digital. Because they sound as wonderful as very costly. As analog studio tape recorders costing many thousands of dollars each. As much as my 1978 Toyota Corolla did. For a stereo recorder. And that's what I made. Lots of.
So I got the real information here. But it might not be your cup of tea? Oh well. That's the way it is.
RemyRAD
Remy David: And so this is what it looks like when you get to be an old British guy. Forlorn, disenchanted, disenfranchised, disheartened in disarray. We get it. I'm right there also. Nobody told us old age would be like this. Where are the rock shows? Everybody's dead!
I mean we are baby boomers! And they said we would live forever! In some rock 'n' roll song? And so what went wrong? Nonreturnable soda pop bottles? Yes! The plastic bottles have destroyed our minds. And there's no going back. We are all going extinct. Just like Neanderthal and those before them. All gone. All dead. All extinct. Why should we be any different? We are just as stupid. We all breed from within our own ethnicities. That wasn't the plan. As no one actually knew or realized the plan. It was better to fight amongst ourselves. Who had the better God. Who were the superior people that should kill the inferior ones? And decided to make it their life's effort, to do so. Yeah that didn't fly. They all went to live with Satan for all eternity to come. And some just returned. We didn't expect. Yes. Donnie Trump is still very much, alive. Unfortunately. And his spawn. This is why God created abortion. Now we have to do it retroactively. Because it wasn't done a few weeks after conception and we got Junior and Eric and Eyevonkkka. And the world comes to an end. If, they have anything to do with it.
I don't know why Eyevonkkka has to be so dastardly? As her father's new wife. I mean it's not like she's in competition with, Melanoma Trump.. But she is starting to look kind of tired and old. So Donnie will then marry Eyevonkkka to himself. Some have even referred to Eyevonkkka as Mrs. Donald Trump. And so what do they know we don't know? We've always known he's got the hots for his daughter Eyevonkkka. Tiffany not so much. He doesn't want to hop in the sack with daughter Tiffany. But Eyevonkkka? That's different. They look great as a couple together. And it makes him look so much younger. Don't you think? Eyevonkkka and Donald make the perfect couple. And Jared can drive the family car. As he now looks old enough to drive. Without getting stopped by the cops. But only barely.
They will have to declare a holiday. When Donnie keels over with a massive heart attack. From eating KFC and McDonald's at the same meal. Who knew they were poisonous together? And we will declare it a holiday! A day of peace and tranquility. Without any drama. We are all looking forward to that holiday.
Who will get Junior and Eric out of trouble after daddy dies? The JDL? I think not.
RemyRAD
Remy David: Oh no no no my British brother. If you've got dirty heads misaligned tape path, warped tape. DBX Type II Analog Tape Noise Reduction. Mangles the audio, terribly. Much worse than Dolby B, C or, S. Not so much S.. And C simply miserable.
I mean you are mostly on track with everything else. For the most part. I say this. As I'm the last Quality Control Manager and Final Test Engineer and overall Troubleshooter.. For the legendary and famed, Scully Recording Instruments. And I was trained by all the other American ones like Ampex, 3M, MCI. I've also built my own when younger.
It's really hard to beat the sound of, barefoot, No Noise Reduction, Analog Tape. With no process. That gargles and colors the sound. When I needed some analog tape noise reduction. I would use a gentle downward expander carefully set. Nobody would ever hear working. And it did not influence nor color the sound. And I can play some of my recordings that are, 8 generations down. And you'd never know it. All recorded on Scully and MCI recorders. I fully tweak myself. As no one knows how to do it better.
So from an old codger like me. Who's been in the recording and broadcast industry for over 50 years. All the way back to Motown Studios in Detroit. When they still existed in the early 1960s. When my father played violin tracks for them. And started taking me down to the studio when I was 7 years old. Yup. And then to find myself working at Scully at 23. How did this happen? Who is responsible for this!? Oh? I am.
And so as great as analog recording used to be. I walked away from it 30 years ago. There is just no reason for it anymore. I mean I do like some analog tape saturation on Bass Drums, Snare Drums and Tom's. Cool on some Bass and Guitars. Useful on brass. Just the right zip on a vocal. While delivering smoothness. But is that smoothness we no longer really need. We want articulation now! No more hiding the sound under grunge.
Great recordings can be had with virtually any well working gear. There is no magic beans nor fairy dust. There are those pieces that have, characteristic tonalities to them. Neve, API, SSL, Sphere, MCI, Auditronics, Op Amp Labs, Phillips, Neumann and others. But in the end to most folks. It all sounds the same. It does not. But since nobody can really tell? No one really cares anymore. It's nothing to care about anymore. Nothing that needs to be cared about anymore. Because nobody is really making any kind of, Technological Breakthroughs nor Statements anymore. It's over. The fun and all the discovery is, over. It has been taken to its absolute, physics, limits. And so now time to worry about important issues. At not about the right tone on some fuzzy guitar. Which means nothing in life. It's just entertainment. Strictly, entertainment. And has no bearing on real life situations and circumstances. Though important to those youngsters at the time. But then so are the keys to the car that night.. But mom! But but but but ugh.
And thus will always be such for most raised well.
RemyRAD
duncan rmi: "dolby" & "gave" in the same sentence.... 😂 his entire business model was *licensing*.
Sound On Sound magazine: Thanks for the magazine plug, David. 🙏👍
Alex: dbx can be thought of as an exchange: improved noise floor for a reduction in resolution. For a 15ips 2 track that makes sense. There's an abundance of resolution, so trading some of it away for improved noise floor is a good trade off. Especially if it's the same unit recording and playing back.
Meanwhile, Compact Cassette has almost no resolution to spare. 1 7/8th's ips is absurdly slow and it's a technological feat that it worked as well as it did. Losing more resolution from dbx is going to sound bad even in the best case scenario, and it did sound bad.
It's notable that the 4 track cassette portastudios of the 80's and 90's often had dbx, but they had the option to run at normal or double speed with dbx. At double speed dbx was passable. At normal speed it was unusable.
Editing SECRETS revealed!: In addition to the technical issues, it seems that Dolby company was very successful at licensing deals with all the manufacturers, while dbx was a rarity. The kind of thing on a deck now and then from the DAK catalog with a headline like "Doubling the noise wipes out the noise!" but not what you'd find available for sale at Sears.
Editing SECRETS revealed!: Let me be the tenth fan of your nice song from back in the day! Interesting changes of tone, and an overall relaxing feel. Reminds me of the gently flowing Seeburg licensed background music that someone is putting online now, but with 80s synth tones instead of an orchestra.
Companding was an engineering shortcut in the early samplers - Fairlight I & II, Emulator I & II, Ensoniq Mirage, Synclavier - until CD quality i/o became the standard with Fairlight III, Emulator III, Ensoniq ASR. Along with the anti-alias tracking filters that opened and closed up and down the keyboard range, a not completely realistic but very musically compelling, thick and gritty transformation of whatever was played through the system.
Audio Masterclass replies to Editing SECRETS revealed!: I had, and still have, a liking for the gritty sound of some samplers of old. DM
Floppi J: You should cover Dolby C and HX-pro. I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about them.
lespaul667 replies to Floppi J: @Audio Masterclass This looks very interesting. Maybe a kind or type of 32 but float?
Floppi J replies to Floppi J: @lespaul667 yes that's what I meant whoops!
Audio Masterclass replies to Floppi J: Here's a link mentioning HDR audio - https://www.audiokinetic.com/en/library/edge/?source=Help&id=understanding_hdr I might look into this in future. DM
lespaul667 replies to Floppi J: What’s HDR? Do you mean HX Pro?
John Smith: Reading all the comments leaves me thinking I must be living in a parallel universe. I use dbx all the time and love it. I have several 224x units that I use mainly with my cr7e or whatever other deck I choose to swap in. I must be deaf as I have never encountered any pumping or breathing artifacts, and that is with any type of music, folk, rock, pop etc. I push my levels hard and find that I can swap decks for playback with no issues. My Onkyo Ta 2900 or Technics RS B965 with built in dbx also have no issues with tapes recorded with dbx on other decks. Compatibility these days I find not so much of an issue, as it's really only me who will be listening to my recordings on my units. The only slight difference I find is a very slight loss of high end treble on the recordings, easily compensated for with a tiny tweak of the treble knob on my amp. As someone else quoted, "silence has more noise that dbx". OK a slight push, but I love cassettes, hate intrusive hiss so adore dbx. Yes I also love digital and streaming. I'm not someone who thinks digital is soulless, but no way I'm I consigning all theses beautiful vintage cassette decks to the dump. They were designed and manufactured in an age when tech companies took pride in what they made and were clearly competing to be the best. No money to be made now in these things, so that is all a thing of the past. Wait and see how your new tech stands the test of time.
Bruce Ramsay: Have a dbx 2bx expander. It wasn't cheap but worked to a degree with my cassette player.
Shirley Márquez Dúlcey: Another problem with dbx was that it was incompatible with listening without dbx processing. Listening to a Dolby B tape without Dolby B processing isn't ideal but it's at least tolerable. By the time Dolby C was introduced nearly everybody at least had Dolby B; much like listening to a Dolby B tape without any processing, listening to a Dolby C tape with Dolby B processing was tolerable.
In contrast, listening to a tape recorded with dbx noise reduction without the proper playback processing was just about unlistenable. That made dbx a non-starter for prerecorded tapes, aside from a handful that were made specifically for audiophiles, and it also meant that you couldn't use dbx processing if you were making a tape for somebody else since few listeners had dbx.
Curt Gozaydin: Oh this is an excellent video with excellent exclamations I’ll give you a quick little story about the Harmon-Kardon tape deck in about either 1982 or 83 that I really loved and I would have it connected to a techniques receiver techniques turntable with a nice AT (AudioTechnica) cartridge attached and I would have a clean and I mean really cleaned and De-stat with a static gun thing, an album I could make pristine recordings under that Harman Cardin tape deck with either DolbyC used or with “DBX” NR used (sorry my spellchecker just want to be right there any other way). Anyway I also had a fairly early generation of 1984 techniques CD player and whether I was recording on turntable or from CD player or from a clean De-stat’d album LP I found it difficult to tell the difference in those DBX recorded cassette tapes. I can vouch for how good DBX noise reduction worked!
Curt Gozaydin replies to Curt Gozaydin: I think I Kind of remeber stuff - it had DBX HX-Pro setting. I’ve been googling just now until the cows come home and I just can’t be sure of the exact model number of it when you look at CD 91 CD 101 cd 20 one cd 401 model number is a kind of all look similar to what I had.From HK (Harmon Kardon). Great sounding tape deck!
Curt Gozaydin replies to Curt Gozaydin: Hey folks, sorry for me being foggy on details because I no longer have this equipment and having for many years but I’m pretty sure the Harmon Cardin tape deck of purchased in the 1983 time frame had a special version of DBX noise reduction when I can’t remember is what it was called like DBXHE like high extension or DBXHD or DBXHX anyway, it implied that it had a better compounding expansion design than the previous DBX II did. Everything else I’m saying is the same I just was amazed at how good either doll BC NR was or this DBXHX or whatever it was but of course you had to have used it when recording the tape and as well as playback and it’s just, I mean it made my turntable sound quieter. It just had really good quality recordings from a clean record on that techniques turntable with AT cartridge. Loved it!
Mix Our Band: Back in the early 80's my first studio recorder was a Fostex A-8 and a Mackie 8 ch mixer. And the SMPTE tone laid on ch-8 from my Alesis sequencer and HR16-B drum computer. I made a lot of money back then when producers and musicians where like Gods.
Mix Our Band replies to Mix Our Band: @Audio Masterclass I hear ya. SMPTE was the only way to lock my Poly-800 and Korg-M1 keyboards to the tape. It worked well once you get the SMPTE tone level right.
Audio Masterclass replies to Mix Our Band: I doubt if many producers and home recordists have much nostalgia for SMPTE timecode. But who knows? If I make a video on it I might learn differently. DM
Todd Sauve: I used to own a very good Aiwa cassette deck with Dolby B and C and HX-Pro. It was a beautiful machine and could, more or less, make a recording of a CD just as enjoyable as the original. What drove me up the wall was that Aiwa did not produce a decent fast forward or rewind mechanical assembly. It would make the cassettes rattle and shake like no one's business! I wonder if other people had similar experiences with Aiwa cassette decks? The top of the line cassette decks were always Nakamichi and their "Dragon" decks, the most coveted around the globe! One of those with Dolby SR would be the bee's knees! If, of course, you can find cassettes somewhere. 🤔🤷♂😉💘
Todd Sauve replies to Todd Sauve: @Paul Dionne Mine was the Aiwa AD-S40. The only thing it lacked was Dolby S, but Dolby C is extremely quiet anyway. Digital has eclipsed cassettes, however, and I enjoy how much faster it is to make a playlist on my PC, and even transfer it to my cell phone to listen to when I take a walk.
Paul Dionne replies to Todd Sauve: I still have my AD-F810. It still rocks. Got rid of more expensive decks to hold onto this one.
TeeKay: Having used dbx on reel to reel tapes a long time ago, the problem with it is that if you don't have a processor to decode it, the audio is unlistenable. I still have the tapes, but the dbx failed two decades ago.
doublebass5y: Hey can't believe your tascam 244 sounds that good still. Cool tune. There can't be be a lot of head wear on that beauty. I had the Fostex equivalent back in the 80,s and i wore it out with all the overdubs.. bounces etc. Thanks for a wonderful video. off to make another compilation mix on my Pioneer TR 909 with no Dolby. Sounds lush.
Paul: I had plenty of Q-tips and alcohol. My cassette deck head was clean. Still, I would rather listen to noise than any form of Dolby. To my ears, Dolby turned everything to mud.
herbertmathews: Do you have any docs or advice on calibrating my dbx 222?. Cant find a service manual anywhere.
herbertmathews replies to herbertmathews: @Audio Masterclass Thanks, I use it on an x10r it works but im sure a calibration would help, excessive chuffing, I know its a symptom of dbx but my cassette deck is way better in that area. There are 12 pots on the circuit board, i have looked at other schematics but they are not close enough to be of any use.
Audio Masterclass replies to herbertmathews: No. The best I can suggest is a) keep looking, or b) possibly another dbx model has similar internals and its service manual might be of use. DM
Emmanuel Gutierrez: I got a used dbx NR unit. My recordings sounded thin. I sure my tape deck had clean heads, did not matter.
The Chuckster: DBX is king! If you align the machine and the DBX correctly, the results are stunning!
John Martins: What's your thoughts on Telefunkens and via license Nakamichi HighCom and HighComII ?
watching watches: That's would make a great outra for your videos
Johns Clinton music and more: nice tune i like your videos but i leave a like but no comment
Michael Martinez: Both of my tape decks that I bought back in the day were both dbx because it was just so much better than Dolby B & C. My first deck IIRC was a Technics RS-B54 Dolby B&C and dbx. Then I bought a top of the line 3-head TEAC cassette V-850X, a deck so good that long after it stopped playing a tape, I was still able to draw out an $80 winning bid on eBay + shipping fee to France. It would power up, but even one of the meters LEDs were burnt out. I think its MSRP was about $600, I was able to leverage a dealership discount and buy it direct from TEAC for $305 because I was selling audio way back then. I also had a small dbx model 22 Tpye 2 decoder that I used in my car stereo setup. It was glorious fidelity for high volume low noise for not only my LP recordings but also my CD recordings because it would be a little while before Car CD players his the market or were reasonably priced. My car rig was nice and I leveraged my employee discounts on my Kenwood removable AM/FM cassette head unit, dbx 22, Kenwood electronic crossover, 3 Kenwood amps driving Kenwood tweeters, Sony mid-woofers, and Sony subwoofers. Gawd, it was a fun system and all thanks to dbx noise reduction!
Solo Performer: I am guessing you are, at the very least, sponsored by Nagra as you never seem to make mention of Studer when referring to good professional equipment.
jagmarc: I found dbx a pain in the arse prefer the noise
Michael Graves: I used dbx on Tascam open reel decks. If the deck was well aligned, it worked really well.
Diane Carone: Speaking about dolby, Way back in' 77 I had a Teac 1/4in two track 15ips machine and as part of some testing of my deck and two or three others I discovered my machine had a full 1mv (unweighted) output noise.It didn't mater what speed or type of tape was used or no tape this was pure playback amp noise. Other machines measured only slightly better(including a 3M 8 track machine). I was used to line amps, phono amps with outputs of 20-30uv. So I did a cheap and non destructive experiment, I took an off the shelf chip (LM381) whipped a tape playback amp together and running on the piece of crap power supply of the Teac the noise was reduced to 100uv. A full 20db improvement.(Also recorded test signals had several tenth's % less THD). This improved the S/N from ruffly 45 to 65db. This could easily have been reduced another 10db with better P.S. and even better preamp. Since then I've thought Dolby was pure unnessary bullshit. If anyone using tape machines had 75db back in those days (or now apparently) then they would have been amazed. Am I missing something here? If the playback amp sucks your stuck with it. Never mind if the fucking heads are aligned or you have the perfect tape formulation. Unless I'm missing something the recording,mixing,mastering studio is truly a chamber of horrors. Dennis C.
Diane Carone replies to Diane Carone: @Editing SECRETS revealed! I hope you are correct. I admit the 3M machine I measured was probably from the late 60's. I should look for specs of newer tape machines. Noise in audio has always been an obsession with me. Dennis C.
Editing SECRETS revealed! replies to Diane Carone: My guess is that engineers of the day knew that was possible - big studio reel to reels had those kind of specs - but for the target market the bill of materials had to be kept within a certain cost limit and higher quality components like that would have blown out the manufacturing budget.
Diane Carone replies to Diane Carone: @Audio Masterclass Thank You for commenting. I enjoy your videos. My Teac measured 45db(1mv), A Sony using "LOW NOISE FETS" measured 50db, A 3M Studio 8 track the size of a Mini Cooper measured 59db. I achieved 65db(100uv). I don't believe your "POSSIBLE". <30uv output noise was possible in 1973. Tape did not increase the noise on my deck with my preamp. "Tape Hiss" must be below 20uv if it exists. Since 1977 a deck with well designed record & playback amp should be capable of 80db. No black boxes needed. D.C.
Audio Masterclass replies to Diane Carone: I remember Teac reel to reels as being excessively noisy. The later Tascam (same company) stereo and 8-track were about as good as is possible with analogue tape. DM
Andrew Dewar: I think you are cool and I only just started watching you. I would like to know more about your background.
Andrew Dewar replies to Andrew Dewar: @Audio Masterclass Awesome ! I read it with interest. My brother has loads of synthesizers. I used to play guitar (clasical/acoustic) but it triggers the neighbour.
Audio Masterclass replies to Andrew Dewar: You can find a brief bio at https://www.audiomasterclass.com/about-us DM
Sergio Iturbide L: Nice composition!!!
Eric Block: Talking about dbx in 2023 is wild. Pro tip for video, put the shotgun over head just out of frame for a clean picture.
lespaul667: DBX worked pretty good on the 1/2” 8 track machines of the 80’s, but any smaller formats suffered from a lot of modulation noise.
Search what happened to steely Dan when they used DBX on the multi track machines for ‘Katy Lied’. 😅
Stephen Wise: I used dbx a lot with cassette. At the time, I was in the organ business and listened to a lot of organ music. The combination of huge dynamic range and slow volume changes made dbx ideal here.
Sacto1654: Two issues: 1) undecoded dbx audio sounds terrible and 2) dbx processing introduces some not-pleasant audio side effects. No wonder everyone got on board the digital audio bandwagon.
video99.co.uk: 8:50 I have the very similar Akai 1721L. They're OK but don't have very good back tension control, so don't play very small "message tape" reels properly.
Audio Masterclass replies to video99.co.uk: This isn't unexpected. In the old days you could get 7--inch spools with larger centres so they held less tape but would play more reliably. DM
Nikolaki A: Getting me all nostalgic again over my Proton 740 cassette deck! Factory calibrated to XL-IS and XL-II-S tape. Recordings on the latter were awesome. B,C and dbx.
The dbx on it was revelational. Great for rock, pop and most jazz. Not great for solo piano.
It was the only way I got to hear a dbx vinyl I bought. Jaw dropping back in the 80s.
Scott Wolf: In 1975 bought the dbx 119, for my Teac 360 cassette deck. A totally discrete, separate enclosure, model with adjustable gain and, "Compander", pots. So the compression and expansion varied from 1:1 to 2:1. There may have been an Infinity setting too. I still have the pamphlet somewhere but sold the unit decades ago. The auditory," Breathing", introduced made the use unfeasible.
Audio Masterclass replies to Scott Wolf: I had a demo of one of these. It was an interesting idea but in practice I didn't like it. Opinions may vary. DM
Mikexception: The logarythmic scale is widely misuderstood The difference between 50 dB noise measurement and 59 dB is "only" 9dB but perceived noise for first value is about 8x (800%) bigger then for 59dB. That is why every dB counts so much. Only many times cascade cppying of analodg signal to analog may require more than 70 dB noise gap. In popular case already 50 dB makes no issue. . Digital to digital is not affected by noise at all.
. Typical noise level in analog tape recording is about 52- 60 dB and it means that in compare to usable audio 1V l there is only 1mv - 2,5 mV measured noise. I think it is not fair to say that analog tapes are "noisy" Yes, noise level is supposed to be matter of consideration in accordance to fairy used volume level - not like in digital storage where it is technicaly removed . . In analog reproduction users often amplify noise by aplaying heavy amplification to sopranos when they were damped by other issues. As result of this action will appear noise in background
Mikexception replies to Mikexception: @Ralf Schmoll You probably are right - Actualy I did not check it myself. But it does not input to explanation of all confuses.
People forget that they are never listening to "0dB" but to natural surrounding them "floor noise". in my quite silent flat that measured by industrial unit noise is 30 dB (with tiny l peaks from two clocks) . It means that any tape noise will overlay that room noise when it will reach loudness 31 dB . With even -50dB noise level in tape recording it's max music peak will be at 81 dB hardly making any chance to spot tape (or equal room) noise
Ralf Schmoll replies to Mikexception: Sorry, but I think you are wrong. It is not the percepted noise that is 8x times bigger but the absolute electrical values. Perception is logarithmic to the absolute values and that is one of the reasons for db as a logarithmic measure.
Christoph Martin: Now I understand the strange behaviour of recorded pianos that have that "pumping" modulation sound especially at lower and slower levels. You do not hear only the one sound of the key, you hear additionally a second sound, maybe I am wrong but it sounds like if the pianist always pushes the damper even if he doesn't. It always distracted me when I've heard that. Thank you for that information.
Editing SECRETS revealed! replies to Christoph Martin: @Christoph Martin Depends on the song. Amy Grant's song "If these walls could speak" has VERY intense close micing of the piano action and dampers. It works great for the song as a kind of shared secret within the building.
Christoph Martin replies to Christoph Martin: @Audio Masterclass Thanks again ! Even when this is a complete different issue and does not relate to the topic.
Audio Masterclass replies to Christoph Martin: @Christoph Martin This is a tricky question. The first thing is that the piano should be well set up so that the pedals don't make more noise than necessary. The second is the player, although it's generally unwise to ask a performer to do anything different to what they normally do. After that, it's a compromise between getting the best sound from the instrument through mic positioning and selection. Putting a mic under a grand piano can sound surprisingly good, but of course that's the worst place for pedal noise. DM
Christoph Martin replies to Christoph Martin: @Audio Masterclass Thank you! Would you say that this is then bad recording if mechanical noise from the piano is so explicitly recognizable?
Audio Masterclass replies to Christoph Martin: Bear in mind that it may be the damper. Microphones close to the piano will pick this up whereas to a listener in an auditorium the sound is usually unnoticeable. DM
MacinMind Software: Explained very well. In doing noise reduction on historical recordings I have to work with both ET (record) and tape noise. And i learned very early on how distracting gated noise reduction is compared to just leaving the noise there. Some gates people would use in their noise reduction were particularly grating because the gate seemed to open and close the frequency envelope. Argh! It sounded like someone was constantly muffling and unmuffling your ears. And I also noticed how poorly done FM radio compression destroys the piano first.
Audio Masterclass replies to MacinMind Software: Thank you for your comment. I have an aversion for sound that is 'messed about with'. Sometimes I'd rather just have the noise. Single ended noise reduction done well however can work wonders. DM
Marcus Magellan: The original song at the end was super cute. 🎹 I love it!
Marcus Magellan replies to Marcus Magellan: @Audio Masterclass 🤣
Audio Masterclass replies to Marcus Magellan: Thank you. You're the second person to say they like it. The first was 40 years ago. DM
TheEleventeen: <<<<<⚜️x🤘🏻x⚜️>>>>>
Nurd Afrikhan: just letting you know!! i actually find this channel very useful and inspiring 👍
Audio Masterclass replies to Nurd Afrikhan: Thank you. I hope you'll continue to watch. DM
Thomas Shea: nice song
Audio Masterclass replies to Thomas Shea: Thank you. DM
Thomas Shea: another excellent video ------ well done thanks
Andre Iannuzzi: By the way, your song is very good! Sounded a little like Hank Marvin's Fender
Audio Masterclass replies to Andre Iannuzzi: Thank you. It's a similar model. I can't remember what amp I used but at various times I had a Fender Twin, Vibrolux, and Champ so one of those. DM
D Johnson: I own a Luxman cassette deck, which I mostly used during the '80s and '90s. With high-quality chrome and metal tapes, I always found slight to moderate increase in bias improved record fidelity. And I also liked to introduce just a bit of saturation by finding the absolute peak signal volume of the entire song and adjusting the record gain to peak at 100% and with some content slightly above. I did not perceive hideous noise. And when played in the car or through my buddies' high-fi's I had the best sounding mix-tapes, by far. (Having the best sounding mix-tapes you could share with friends was important back then! You, certainly, already know this.) As for the Dolby B and C, those sounded great played back through my own system, but hit-or-miss results elsewhere - mostly miss. Have we covered tape AC bias in Audio Masterclass? Enjoy your videos, very much! Your Tascam PS recording with dbx sounds fantastic! Love tape.
poofygoof replies to D Johnson: @Audio Masterclass My father and I both had mid 90s Sony TC-K series decks, and dubs I made with Dolby C transferred well between the two. His was a fewer years newer than mine so it had Dolby S, but both had a bias setting function which recorded an alternating low and high frequency on two channels, and the bias level was set by matching the VU meters. Dolby C was a hugely noticeable improvement over B, and a quality type II tape with S took some attention and a quiet listening environment to distinguish from CD. My college had cassette decks with dbx (Yamaha I think) but that's the only place I ever personally recall seeing it.
In the early 2000s I became the owner of a 1/2" 8-track Otari, along with an audio precision system one. With MRL tapes and a smorgasbord of tape stock, I learned about bias and IEC vs NAB equalization the hard way, but never got the chance to put my cassette deck to the same level of scrutiny: my father lost his deck in a move, and mine succumbed to mechanical failure of the loading mechanism. I got a replacement Aiwa deck (with Dolby C) shortly before having to put my studio in storage due to my growing family, but I plan on running it through its paces in the future. (Assuming the system one and supporting PC are still working... I wouldn't be surprised if I'm faced with some recapping.)
I understand the appeal of cassettes as a hand-sized inexpensive physical format, but nobody is manufacturing decks that are capable of extracting the performance that the media was capable of nearly 40 years ago. This seems to have lead to indy record labels releasing type I cassettes with no noise reduction, but are still apparently sufficient for their target market. I found one label that uses a duplicator with XDR and Dolby B and it was a great sanity check -- it sounded head and shoulders better than other contemporary cassette releases.
Audio Masterclass replies to D Johnson: Your care over bias and level setting is admirable. Bias is often set by rule, but setting it by ear is likely to be better. I'd like to do a video on bias but whether my Revox still works is an open question at present. DM
Nic c: The effectiveness of dbx did also depend on the material being recorded. Today's compressed pop that you've covered would be ideal for dbx on a cassette. You can't unhear the breathing or pumping effect for some material, but it does come down to are you listening to the music itself or listening to what's wrong with the recording and replay process. Some of my vinyl collection I have heard tape dropouts. I've heard the same in some CD re-releases. It doesn't stop me enjoying what I'm listening to.
Rui Cameira replies to Nic c: for sure! i agree with you
Editing SECRETS revealed! replies to Nic c: "Because of its high resolution the CD format can reveal drawbacks in the original source tape." Remember that disclaimer?
Mrsteve4761: I never could get past the "breathing" or "pumping" effect of dbx. Once heard, it's inescapable in subsequent listening. To me, Dolby S is among the best noise reduction (with HX Pro assisting), however it came to the game much too late to be of any real impact in the cassette deck market.
Rui Cameira replies to Mrsteve4761: i have a lot of more modern cassette decks but i never used dolby it limits the quality of sound of the cassette deck that if working with regular manitenance one never hear any hiss ,if that happens ,something is wrong
Nikolaki A replies to Mrsteve4761: Seems to be the way so often. A technology will reach its pinnacle to be supplanted by something new that surpasses it technically in performance, workflow and cost.
Kristian Wontroba: Too bad Walkmans and things didn’t have built in noise gates. I guess it would have been too costly and perhaps too complicated for a typical consumer.
Kristian Wontroba: I ❤ it when this McCartney doppelgänger talks Dolby and dbx to us. 😅
deebeenine: What's really amazing about dbx is the absolute elimination of noise between tracks. I understand the problems dbx can have with classical music but the pop & rock recordings I made on a Technics RS-B608R deck with dbx sound much better than Dolby B or C. Ray Dolby was a better marketeer and the missing compatibility of dbx recordings for non-dbx devices gave dbx a real disadvantage. Do you plan another episode of this series with Dolby SR?
Michael Martinez replies to deebeenine: I used to sell the whole range of Technics cassette deck (and TEAC too) in my old and ancient Audio Sales days.
Audio Masterclass replies to deebeenine: Thank you for your comment. I didn't use Dolby SR that much and I will really be struggling with my memory. I might however make some comments on it, and Types C and S too. I'm amazed how much interest there is in audio history. DM
grant bovee: nice
Jim Rogers: I worked in a recording studio in the 80s and early 90s that did a LOT of ad work. We used dbx NR on all of our production 2 tracks (for the ad tapes) and had Dolby A units for our music 2 tracks and multi tracks. dbx was good if you kept it in house, as I kept the 2 tracks aligned every day. However, taking any dbx masters out of the studio, into another studio, there was a decent amount of pumping and breathing that our "friendly competitor" would complain about.
We did a double blind noise reduction shootout that I used to write an article for R/EP. The systems compared were dbx, Dolby A, Dolby SR, and Telcom C4. For me, the clear winner was Telcom C4, a system that was developed in Europe because the engineer who developed it wanted a Dolby A system, but couldn't afford it. One of our in-house engineers thought he had golden ears. In the playback, he said that Dolby SR was dbx... so much for his golden ears.
Remember, cassette was a format that was originally designed for dictation only, but somehow it was able to reproduce music with better than reasonable fidelity... I have cassettes that are more than 30 years old that sound great. BASF did a series of lab studies and found that 90% of the signal degradation took place within a very short time. In some ways, I wish that we still had cassettes instead of CDs because cassettes were a known quantity. Phillips took in a small licensing fee for EVERY EMPTY CASSETTE SHELL MANUFACTURED AND SOLD!! Although the fee was small, with the millions of cassettes made every year, it was quite an income for them.
I worked for a high speed cassette duplicator for a few years back in the early 90s... what a trip that was. If you kept the systems maintained (which was EASY to do) you could turn out a very high quality product... and they didn't skip like CDs can.
Sorry for the rambling, but this video brought back a LOT of memories. Cheers!
Rui Cameira replies to Jim Rogers: @Jim Rogers i agree with you, i also use since mid 80´s TDK SA cassettes
Rui Cameira replies to Jim Rogers: @Editing SECRETS revealed! i was referiring the brands that didn´t cause problems to cassette decks, not my personal taste, as maxell already in the 90´s they appeared with some light grey casing cassettes ,those were deck destroyers
Editing SECRETS revealed! replies to Jim Rogers: @Rui Cameira Agree on those TDK SA's, or Sony if TDK's are out of stock. I don't remember SKC chrome.
Jim Rogers replies to Jim Rogers: @Rui Cameira... I have TDK SA cassettes that are over 30 years old that still sound great and play well. The reason that cassettes jammed in the shell was because they either didn't have a 'slip sheet' in them (a 'lubricated' sheet that kept the cassette tape moving without binding) or the slip sheet was of poor quality. Good TDK cassettes were the highest quality that I can ever remember. I used to buy them by the case back in the day!
Rui Cameira replies to Jim Rogers: i started with Basf tapes this refering to cassettes but in late 85 it was a gamble one in 3 could be good ,or none ,that´s when i turned more for maxell cassettes and TDK, but later in the 90´s the only cassettes that didn´t destroy cassette decks were the TDK and sony ,this refering to the most known brands, i once met a guy that between he and his wife they had 2.000 records , some of them i never had them at home so to record the more records i could i tried some SKC chrome from late 70´s or early 80´s ,with a golden sticker(not only), my surprise is that today they still sound perfect and don´t dirt the heads they costed me at the time what today is 45 cents.maybe a bit less ,i remenber buying around 20, all are good today
Michael Beeny: A long time ago in a land far from here (NZ) NEAL made cassette decks. But, did you know that they also made a high-speed version?? Yes they did, we used to sell them. It ran a 3.75ips and was the best sound EVER from a cassette deck. Almost flat up to 18khz not 10dB down like most decks. Sadly, they were quite hard to sell. Everyone agreed the sound was near 100% but you could not change the speed to play normal cassettes. Of course, you needed a C120 to get 60 minutes of play time. This arrangement was short lived however as it contravened the license agreement of Philips.
Just imagine if cassette decks had all been 2 speed, one speed for the sound deaf and one speed for the sound enthusiast. Now that would have given cassettes a real boost in sales.
Mikexception replies to Michael Beeny: Interesting solution. Anyway later engineers were able to improve electronic and tapes so much that the same good become popular with 4,7 cm speed In my case my hearing silence all above 13 khz while microphone register it well. Still my reception of quality is not changed but in accordance to what I remember 50 years ago.
John Severson: I had a Tascam Porta Studio too. The same model!!! I have been a drummer most of my life and I am now 66 years old. I have quite a home studio now, optimized for drums of course.
Stig Henning Johansen: Used a similar device, the Sanyo NR55 Super D two band compander, connected to a Tandberg TCD3034. I know companders
limit the frequency response but since the deck was flat (-15db) from 11Hz to 26,5kHz, Maxell UD XLII, that was not a problem.
No one at the time was able to tell the difference between a cassette recording, and the source CD
Stig Henning Johansen replies to Stig Henning Johansen: I read the answrers, the Sanyo super D was a TWO BAND compander, so no pumping, and a tape rec/play on that system was as dead silent as that a CD was, it was black. No noise whatsoever
Grzegorz Ociesa: It's ironic that we are actually adding artificial noise to some records now.
Michael Lenz replies to Grzegorz Ociesa: Noise is a part of our world. It required at some level for us to feel that we are in natural environments. Background noise allways exist, otherwise we wouldn’t be alive.
Darryl Douglas replies to Grzegorz Ociesa: It drives me nuts that almost every plugin adds some sort of noise to recreate “analog” feel. 😃
Mikexception replies to Grzegorz Ociesa: It is interesting phenomena. I think it has something to do with physiology of hearing.. In real life we experience usable audio acompanied with wide spectrum of outer apparent sounds which we perceive in moments of silence. . In total it sends to us more information about surrounding than only selected harmonics that are for us priority at moment. .
Produced by people audio is cleaned from everything except desired by producer harmonics which may lead to feeling like not whole hearing desire is satisfied. .
. When I listen to my AM radio recordings and it is almost no noise it feels like they possibly may have issue with hi sounds lowered level But when the same a are acompanied by much wider noise which anyway my radio can present it fills up feeling of lack of desired spectrum. It may be compared to music with or without instruments like percussion. With percussion we feel more comfort because our hearing is not stripped forom wide spectrum
Audio Masterclass replies to Grzegorz Ociesa: This is too true. Many plugin emulations of classic equipment have the option to add noise and hum - sometimes you can set 50 Hz / 60 Hz. I've even made a video on DIY noise - https://youtu.be/07ftA-Z0I-E DM
squirrelarch: Love these videos. I can't believe you've got that demo outro stuck in my head. I wonder if an updated dbx could work for vinyl without the modulation noise.
John Martins replies to squirrelarch: Check out Techmoan's review of dbx for vinyl
Audio Masterclass replies to squirrelarch: There was a version of dbx for vinyl. I'd have to search my memory whether I've heard it or not but I would expect it to work quite well considering the signal to noise ratio of vinyl is about 10 dB better than cassette. DM
Nabman: I like the track. Give it a rock beat and extend the guitar solo a bit, and you have a great Prog tune. 🤘
Audio Masterclass replies to Nabman: It might turn out to be a second-rate Dave Gilmour impersonation but maybe I'll give it a try. DM
William Palminteri: I never had an issue with dbx.
Dolby was great at licensing, and not much else except gimmicks, even as I type this, we're having 'ATMOS' forced on us.
"Hey, why is the bassist on the ceiling ?"
Bill P.
William Palminteri replies to William Palminteri: @KoshK I'm with you !
KoshK replies to William Palminteri: Give me good stereo any day
William Palminteri replies to William Palminteri: @Audio Masterclass I look forward to your assessment of ATMOS.
Bill P.
Audio Masterclass replies to William Palminteri: I will have things to say about Atmos at some point. It's a clever technology, but sometimes too much cleverness isn't a good thing. DM
Michael Basic: Just curious. Why does the boom mike appear in some of your videos and not in others?
Editing SECRETS revealed! replies to Michael Basic: Seeing the mic gives a warmer, more vintage feel to the video. It's hidden when he has a digital talk.
Audio Masterclass replies to Michael Basic: You're the first with this one. I prefer without, but it takes more time. DM
Fidelis Catholica Militia - Nova Genesis replies to Michael Basic: Because when it appears it explodes (boom) then they need time to rebuild the room without it; then again in the scene
Fernando Ferrero: that casio 1000p was my first synth , I was 11 .
Audio Masterclass replies to Fernando Ferrero: It was a nice instrument, a bit limited in its range of sounds, but it worked well for me in its day. DM
Macromark: Yup, I had a model II 122 as well back in college and also heard the same pumping and breathing with cassette tapes. Horrible! However, I also had a couple dbx vinyl discs (Virgil Fox pipe organ and Heart's Dreamboat Annie). Those actually sounded quite nice. But... I purchased it for cassettes so it was basically useless for me.
Audio Masterclass replies to Macromark: It's interesting to hear your comment on dbx for vinyl. I would expect it to work better than cassette because of vinyl's better signal to noise ratio to start with. DM