I'm a big fan of DBX to this day. I have a DBX 224 that I use with my Akai GX-635D reel to reel and also have several DBX albums, all of which I bought in 1981 while stationed in Okinawa. At the time the Yen rate was 200 to the dollar, so everything was pretty much half price. Just my two cents, but it's nice to see a video about DBX. Thanks for posting!
DBX is magic. I've often wondered how the heck did they come up with this process? ...... from Wikipedia. "David E. Blackmer (January 11, 1927 - March 21, 2002) was an American audio electronics engineer, most famous as the inventor of the DBX noise reduction system and founder of dbx. As well as audio noise reduction, Blackmer worked on extending the frequency response of audio electronics beyond the conventionally accepted audible range of 20 kHz. He also published research on the value of ultrasonic frequencies in sound reproduction, claiming that the time resolution of human hearing is 5 microseconds or better-which would correspond to a frequency of 200 kHz, requiring audio equipment ideally to have a flat response to that frequency. Blackmer was a life member of the IEEE and a fellow of the Audio Engineering Society from 1976. He was also a great reader of science fiction. He had ten children." I personally own a couple sets of DBX noise elimination components for tape recording, but the one component by DBX I am really proud of is a device called the 4BX. I can really do some amazing recording from vinyl over to digital, making the music sound very dynamic and open air-ish. The VU meters get pegged when I do this, but it does not sound like it's going to oversaturation. Also, when recording from a CD and using really good tape and recording at the highest possible speed, does anyone else notice that the tape actually sounds better than the CD?
There was a procedure I followed to calibrate my cassette decks for maximum headroom. I would play a 400hz tone and set it to 0db without dbx, then with dbx engaged, the same tone would record at -5db. With the knobs on the back, the outputs were matched and balanced so switching dbx in and out produced NO jump in volume. This also allowed the tape to stay under distortion levels. A good tape with -55db noise would produce 110+ db dynamic range, plenty good to copy CDs. Dbx tapes lack compatibility, but if your's is the system you're playing them on, dbx was the way to go for removal of tape hiss.
+douglas787 - Awesome! I made some Christmas music mix tapes this season in dbx from digital sources and they too sounded like the real thing but added a nice warmth to the sound.
Nice demo. I had a Technics cassette deck with a built-in DBX encoder from the mid 80's to early 90's. I remember DBX worked well, especially dubbing from a CD onto high bias tape. But because it was incompatible with Dolby B (which my car's tape deck had) and recordings sounded too bright and compressed played back on a non-DBX deck I never used it much.
databits Right, I dont remember seeing any car decks with DBX, if they existed they would have been expensive. Dolby B didn't add much to the tape's sound besides giving it a high end boost. When I recorded on cheaper normal bias tape (like TDK D's or Maxell UR) I recorded with Dolby B but took it off when playing it back.
@@wildbilltexas i agree! I eventuallygot into JVC cassette decks, and actually owned two of the KD-A8's which had ANRS and SUPER ANRS. But when making tapes for my car, I would mostly not use any noise reduction and just record flat, but use the best tape I could find. TDK-SA and Maxell UD-XLII were the best. And actually there was one car stereo brand that you could get DBX on, and that was Concord. which offered it on one model.
I have a Nautlius Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore HSM audiophile vinyl LP, and it is supposedly a dbx encoded record. It sounds fine on my turntable and stereo. Do you think I should get one of there nx 40s just for that one record? Or are modern stereo receivers better able to handle the noise? The LP was released in 1981-2. Thanks...ZP
If you really prize that record, you will hear more from the dbx decoder than a lack of noise! Much of the bass and depth have been compressed in the recording. The decoder will bring it back (or enhance it). Yes, I think it's worth it! Brad T - sent via mobile
databits ok thanks. I night try that out. Id like to be able to try one out. Maybe someone with a return policy will sell me one. The LP sounds really good on its own with the EQ settings that my current receiver has, and it's on the super quiet virgin vinyl HSM label, Nautilus, from the late 70s and early 80s. So it would have to be a marked difference for me to buy one, but ill check around. Thanks for the information...ZP
James Tervit It's been a year, I also really want to see this. I can only find demos from dbx on tape and vinyl and it would be really cool to see it on something else, and 8 track is low fidelity too so it would also really be good for testing.
@@cooliofoolio I've got a dbx encoder too now and working 8 tracks, I'll try it when i got time, i tried it on my cassette deck and its horrible but on my reel to reel its perfect, although its made for reel to reels, my encoder is a tascam dx 2d
I have a dbx encoder decoder and used it . But the artifacts that you speek of are like someone is turning the volume and bass up and down. My akai x crossfield makes great recordings without dbx and with maxell udxl tape at 7 1/2 ips the sound quality is awsum and if you record a cd you cant tell the difference.
Always been interested in hearing one of those DBx discs. I hear they sound really good, though of course there are some people who can't stand the artifacts. Though even if I bought one of the decoders, I certainly don't have the money to through at the DBX records right now. Only other experience I have with DBX is on this 4 track cassette recorder I own. When you can find a tape that plays nice with it it's very nice. Noise level sits just a hair above my sound card at about -75 dB, very good for a simple cassette. Also, I noticed that we may share the same set of speakers (or at least very similar speakers), and I'm curious to hear an outside opinion on them. Model number on mine is SS-MB215.
VicVac Mine are Sony floor standing speakers that are huge. They have incredible bass, most people think I have a sub-woofer hidden somewhere in the room. I don't recall the model number but I can check.
databits Oh, if they're full size floor standers they aren't the same speakers, but at least share the same tweeter and general design. Not sure what size you'd call them, they're not bookshelf speakers but aren't really full size floor standers, I've always just called them 80s/90s box speakers.
I have a CX noise reduction and expansion decoder for LP's. They are very rare. I have 1 LP Pink Floyd The Wall in CX format. This is much like the DBX format. It also works great on some tapes without NR too like a DNR decoder.
I just picked up CX LP Santana Shango in n LP lot today.The encoder is not s aggressive as a DBX. It does not pulse like the DBX encoder. It does a good job removing the hiss from tapes with no change at all on the high end unlike you DNR encoder. I don't know why it wasn't adopted by more companies. The music still sounded great without the decoder unlike DBX which didn't. I still want to find a DNR encoder for those difficult tapes to de-hiss. I also have a HiComp encode/decoder system. It works alot like Dolby S and can be reproduced on a Dolby B system. the sound played back is like Dolby S quality.
+databits I have already had that model in my search as well as others. I could also build one instead. There are easy diagrams on the net, board layouts and the chips on being sold on eBay.
Could this work on an analog hybrid setup even if i dont have a Tape Machine? My setup currently on the mixbuss is: Neve MBP Warm Pultec EQs (which introduces more hiss) Wonder if this DBX will be the solution, if it can fit in of course.
Compared to a Pultec EQ the DBX cost much less, It might be worth a try, just to see if it works well with it. I have used a Pultec EQ they were standard in the late 1950's and 1960's in most studios, and certainly sound great, though yes, if not totally recapped have noise. When using tube equipment, it is best to have a huge, dedicated copper ground stake outside, and ground all the Chassis to the ground stake, and you will have little hum and noise, if you replace the filter caps, extreme, but makes all the difference, in fact sometimes has so low a noise floor, it beats solid state, in noise when properly filtered and grounded. My tube equipment I use, actually shows the tape hiss on commercial records, from the master tapes, that you don't hear on solid state gear.
To my understanding the dbx system would only make the VHS soundtrack sound even worse. If it was originally recorded with dbx, yes, then it would really make a positive difference to the sound quality.
Let me know if this will work: I transfer Vinyl to MP3. if I got a DVX and connected it between my turntable and my computer I cam make MP3 files with a lot less of the crackles and pops and scratches???
Dbx definitely sounds better. But It is quite surprising how similar both dbx and Dolby systems do; Boost the bass and some mids and highs around 2 or 3khz. It would have been awkward to hear the difference captured directly from the source instead of the microphone audio. (it is not very difficult to do), if the difference is incredibly abysmal even with a mono microphone, with the pure stereo source wave, it must be incredible
I was just at a store today that had a few DBX LPs and they only wanted $5.00 to $7.00, which is impressive, esp. since some of the titles were from name artists. Hit those used stores!
DBX is awesome these days when you don't need to share recordings anymore, and can listen in a same room where you made it. People even try to find decks with dbx paying extra $200-500 at a time they can purchase an external dbx compander for $30 ) This is sad that DBX was killed by its marketing department. Otherwise it could be literally everywhere, slowing down a CD expansion.
databits i've been using dbx since the 80s (technics rs-m228x and b405) and recordings that are over 25 years old still sounds good. they indeed have lost a bit of the HF, but turning the treble on the amp doesn't add any noise, so they're good as in the time. it worked absolutely great on cheap type 1 tapes, and normal tdk-c90 and d90 are great. it's kinda wasted on type 2 tapes, since it sounds almost the same. and no - playing dbx encoded tapes with dolby b and c sounds bad. it just removes the HF including the dbx control track. playing a dbx encoded tape with both dolby and dbx sounds bad too. the dolby removes HF and dbx control track, so the sound dbx decodes is dynamically correct, but lacks HF and has a strong pumping effect.
Cool technology, but video could definitely have been improved if you edited in the audio from an external source instead of your camera's audio. It's really hard to tell the difference between the two.
For better sound Quality, I prefer better speakers, like original 70s and 80s klipsch, Bose, Bowers and Wilkins, Definitive, and bang and olufsens. That's just my preference.
I'm a big fan of DBX to this day. I have a DBX 224 that I use with my Akai GX-635D reel to reel and also have several DBX albums, all of which I bought in 1981 while stationed in Okinawa. At the time the Yen rate was 200 to the dollar, so everything was pretty much half price. Just my two cents, but it's nice to see a video about DBX. Thanks for posting!
Ditto on dbx
Thank you for your suggestion I'm getting a 224 to use with my gx 77
DBX is magic. I've often wondered how the heck did they come up with this process? ...... from Wikipedia. "David E. Blackmer (January 11, 1927 - March 21, 2002) was an American audio electronics engineer, most famous as the inventor of the DBX noise reduction system and founder of dbx. As well as audio noise reduction, Blackmer worked on extending the frequency response of audio electronics beyond the conventionally accepted audible range of 20 kHz. He also published research on the value of ultrasonic frequencies in sound reproduction, claiming that the time resolution of human hearing is 5 microseconds or better-which would correspond to a frequency of 200 kHz, requiring audio equipment ideally to have a flat response to that frequency. Blackmer was a life member of the IEEE and a fellow of the Audio Engineering Society from 1976. He was also a great reader of science fiction. He had ten children."
I personally own a couple sets of DBX noise elimination components for tape recording, but the one component by DBX I am really proud of is a device called the 4BX. I can really do some amazing recording from vinyl over to digital, making the music sound very dynamic and open air-ish. The VU meters get pegged when I do this, but it does not sound like it's going to oversaturation. Also, when recording from a CD and using really good tape and recording at the highest possible speed, does anyone else notice that the tape actually sounds better than the CD?
i love the sound of your system
that bass is incredible on reels
The DBX playback does introduce some slight compression ,, but having said that,, it’s still much better than listening to Tape hiss 🤷♂️
There was a procedure I followed to calibrate my cassette decks for maximum headroom. I would play a 400hz tone and set it to 0db without dbx, then with dbx engaged, the same tone would record at -5db. With the knobs on the back, the outputs were matched and balanced so switching dbx in and out produced NO jump in volume. This also allowed the tape to stay under distortion levels. A good tape with -55db noise would produce 110+ db dynamic range, plenty good to copy CDs. Dbx tapes lack compatibility, but if your's is the system you're playing them on, dbx was the way to go for removal of tape hiss.
I had dbx on my Teac x2000. It made incredibly clean copys of cds that were so good you couldn't tell the difference between the original and a copy.
+douglas787 - Awesome! I made some Christmas music mix tapes this season in dbx from digital sources and they too sounded like the real thing but added a nice warmth to the sound.
@@databits The tapes added this nice warmth like you said to the sound because they are tapes - analog tapes that's why
or from a regular LP
Nice demo. I had a Technics cassette deck with a built-in DBX encoder from the mid 80's to early 90's. I remember DBX worked well, especially dubbing from a CD onto high bias tape. But because it was incompatible with Dolby B (which my car's tape deck had) and recordings sounded too bright and compressed played back on a non-DBX deck I never used it much.
***** Yeah dbx was useless on the go without dbx in the car.
databits Right, I dont remember seeing any car decks with DBX, if they existed they would have been expensive. Dolby B didn't add much to the tape's sound besides giving it a high end boost. When I recorded on cheaper normal bias tape (like TDK D's or Maxell UR) I recorded with Dolby B but took it off when playing it back.
@@wildbilltexas i agree! I eventuallygot into JVC cassette decks, and actually owned two of the KD-A8's which had ANRS and SUPER ANRS. But when making tapes for my car, I would mostly not use any noise reduction and just record flat, but use the best tape I could find. TDK-SA and Maxell UD-XLII were the best. And actually there was one car stereo brand that you could get DBX on, and that was Concord. which offered it on one model.
I did note that on the lp that dbx would help eliminate subsonic rumble and feedback inheritent with vinyl.
Super tare nu stiam ca exista asa ceva separat.
Perfect. That’s why I have a model 128 in my setup.
DBX is now acquired by harman kardon of samsung
dbx Noise Reduction on Tape and Vinyl
I have a Nautlius Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore HSM audiophile vinyl LP, and it is supposedly a dbx encoded record. It sounds fine on my turntable and stereo. Do you think I should get one of there nx 40s just for that one record? Or are modern stereo receivers better able to handle the noise? The LP was released in 1981-2. Thanks...ZP
If you really prize that record, you will hear more from the dbx decoder than a lack of noise! Much of the bass and depth have been compressed in the recording. The decoder will bring it back (or enhance it). Yes, I think it's worth it!
Brad T
- sent via mobile
I would get this one.
Brad T
- sent via mobile
databits ok thanks. I night try that out. Id like to be able to try one out. Maybe someone with a return policy will sell me one. The LP sounds really good on its own with the EQ settings that my current receiver has, and it's on the super quiet virgin vinyl HSM label, Nautilus, from the late 70s and early 80s. So it would have to be a marked difference for me to buy one, but ill check around. Thanks for the information...ZP
hi, i have a question, the dbx 224x can do better the sound at moment to pass video from VHS (analog) to digital ?
i hope you can help me
I would love to someday see someone use DBX on an 8-track recording
I am waiting for my 8 track unit and I will post exactly this. will organise it within the next week.
James Tervit
It's been a year, I also really want to see this. I can only find demos from dbx on tape and vinyl and it would be really cool to see it on something else, and 8 track is low fidelity too so it would also really be good for testing.
@@cooliofoolio 6 years and we're still waiting 😂
@@marcviej.5635 I have a DBX encoder of my own now, now all I need to do is see if my 8-track recorder works
@@cooliofoolio I've got a dbx encoder too now and working 8 tracks, I'll try it when i got time, i tried it on my cassette deck and its horrible but on my reel to reel its perfect, although its made for reel to reels, my encoder is a tascam dx 2d
i couldn't hear any hiss any samples thru youtube granted not wearing headphones
late to this video but just got one of these at a thrift, could u go more into detail how to hook it up to my tape deck
I have a dbx encoder decoder and used it . But the artifacts that you speek of are like someone is turning the volume and bass up and down. My akai x crossfield makes great recordings without dbx and with maxell udxl tape at 7 1/2 ips the sound quality is awsum and if you record a cd you cant tell the difference.
Always been interested in hearing one of those DBx discs. I hear they sound really good, though of course there are some people who can't stand the artifacts. Though even if I bought one of the decoders, I certainly don't have the money to through at the DBX records right now. Only other experience I have with DBX is on this 4 track cassette recorder I own. When you can find a tape that plays nice with it it's very nice. Noise level sits just a hair above my sound card at about -75 dB, very good for a simple cassette.
Also, I noticed that we may share the same set of speakers (or at least very similar speakers), and I'm curious to hear an outside opinion on them. Model number on mine is SS-MB215.
VicVac Mine are Sony floor standing speakers that are huge. They have incredible bass, most people think I have a sub-woofer hidden somewhere in the room. I don't recall the model number but I can check.
databits Oh, if they're full size floor standers they aren't the same speakers, but at least share the same tweeter and general design. Not sure what size you'd call them, they're not bookshelf speakers but aren't really full size floor standers, I've always just called them 80s/90s box speakers.
Now I Know What It Is For Thanks
A Friend wanted To Trow The Deck He Dosent Know Anything About Audio
I have a CX noise reduction and expansion decoder for LP's. They are very rare. I have 1 LP Pink Floyd The Wall in CX format. This is much like the DBX format. It also works great on some tapes without NR too like a DNR decoder.
Wow, i can only imagine the rarity of that Pink Floyd disc. The decoders are also quite rare!
I just picked up CX LP Santana Shango in n LP lot today.The encoder is not s aggressive as a DBX. It does not pulse like the DBX encoder. It does a good job removing the hiss from tapes with no change at all on the high end unlike you DNR encoder. I don't know why it wasn't adopted by more companies. The music still sounded great without the decoder unlike DBX which didn't. I still want to find a DNR encoder for those difficult tapes to de-hiss.
I also have a HiComp encode/decoder system. It works alot like Dolby S and can be reproduced on a Dolby B system. the sound played back is like Dolby S quality.
+stvlu733 - Look on ebay for a "Archer Video Sound Processor w/ Surround Sound Model 15-1279A" it has DNR built in. Of course, it's decode only.
+databits I have already had that model in my search as well as others. I could also build one instead. There are easy diagrams on the net, board layouts and the chips on being sold on eBay.
someone needs to do a review of the Blizzard of Ozz CX version from CBS, wonder what that sounds like
My Technics M234X cassette has built in DBX
I had one of those too, the sound output was less than exciting. Hope yours is better.
databits can you do a how to video to how to replace the belt on the technics M234X
Man im not sure it soundrd better without the noise
5:00
6:45
Could this work on an analog hybrid setup even if i dont have a Tape Machine?
My setup currently on the mixbuss is:
Neve MBP
Warm Pultec EQs (which introduces more hiss)
Wonder if this DBX will be the solution, if it can fit in of course.
Compared to a Pultec EQ the DBX cost much less, It might be worth a try, just to see if it works well with it. I have used a Pultec EQ they were standard in the late 1950's and 1960's in most studios, and certainly sound great, though yes, if not totally recapped have noise. When using tube equipment, it is best to have a huge, dedicated copper ground stake outside, and ground all the Chassis to the ground stake, and you will have little hum and noise, if you replace the filter caps, extreme, but makes all the difference, in fact sometimes has so low a noise floor, it beats solid state, in noise when properly filtered and grounded. My tube equipment I use, actually shows the tape hiss on commercial records, from the master tapes, that you don't hear on solid state gear.
Nice.
i got the Technics RS T80 R Model With dbx Noise Reduction
vinyl with a digital footprint? that's so cool
George Moore Yeah, and funky to say the least, right?
can this box also encode when recoding? Can I attach it between my non-dbx cassette deck and a cd player and record with dbx? thanks
Yes you can! This encodes and decodes.
ba3884 can be used for HD audio output, noise reduction is something other topic
hi, i have a question, the dbx 224x can do better the sound at moment to pass video from VHS (analog) to digital ?
i hope you can help me
To my understanding the dbx system would only make the VHS soundtrack sound even worse. If it was originally recorded with dbx, yes, then it would really make a positive difference to the sound quality.
Let me know if this will work: I transfer Vinyl to MP3. if I got a DVX and connected it between my turntable and my computer I cam make MP3 files with a lot less of the crackles and pops and scratches???
Larry TGroce No, that would not work. You would need computer software to clean up the Mp3 file.
You would need Audacity to "clean up" your mp3 files, in other words, get rid of the annoying pops and crackles.
Does anyone know the name of the classical piece played at 11:18?
have a listen to "goddess of the woods" by patrick hawes
@databits would you be able to share the info?
Dbx definitely sounds better. But It is quite surprising how similar both dbx and Dolby systems do; Boost the bass and some mids and highs around 2 or 3khz.
It would have been awkward to hear the difference captured directly from the source instead of the microphone audio. (it is not very difficult to do), if the difference is incredibly abysmal even with a mono microphone, with the pure stereo source wave, it must be incredible
I was just at a store today that had a few DBX LPs and they only wanted $5.00 to $7.00, which is impressive, esp. since some of the titles were from name artists. Hit those used stores!
DBX is awesome these days when you don't need to share recordings anymore, and can listen in a same room where you made it. People even try to find decks with dbx paying extra $200-500 at a time they can purchase an external dbx compander for $30 ) This is sad that DBX was killed by its marketing department. Otherwise it could be literally everywhere, slowing down a CD expansion.
Love that. Have you tryed to play dbx with dolby b or c just to see if it sounded better, would be fun to kow ? Great video also.
Nintenloup wolf Haven't tried that, sounds like a fun idea. Thanks!
databits i've been using dbx since the 80s (technics rs-m228x and b405) and recordings that are over 25 years old still sounds good. they indeed have lost a bit of the HF, but turning the treble on the amp doesn't add any noise, so they're good as in the time. it worked absolutely great on cheap type 1 tapes, and normal tdk-c90 and d90 are great. it's kinda wasted on type 2 tapes, since it sounds almost the same.
and no - playing dbx encoded tapes with dolby b and c sounds bad. it just removes the HF including the dbx control track. playing a dbx encoded tape with both dolby and dbx sounds bad too. the dolby removes HF and dbx control track, so the sound dbx decodes is dynamically correct, but lacks HF and has a strong pumping effect.
Cool technology, but video could definitely have been improved if you edited in the audio from an external source instead of your camera's audio. It's really hard to tell the difference between the two.
😮
Will this work on normal vinyl and tapes
..
No. The content must be "encoded".
Excellent
cool, and your dads band is cool!
How great it sounded. But today, my phone can do this.Time moves on.
For better sound Quality, I prefer better speakers, like original 70s and 80s klipsch, Bose, Bowers and Wilkins, Definitive, and bang and olufsens. That's just my preference.
Digital is not cool because it's not sine wave. Sine wave is real sounds like peoples voices and instruments.
It's clear you have absolutely no fundamental understanding of the advantages of digital audio.
no. just, no.