Vinyl Asylum

Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

Return to Vinyl Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

DBX

69.156.49.141

Posted on April 19, 2014 at 19:37:30
zhemini
Audiophile

Posts: 12
Location: Ontario
Joined: April 19, 2014
In the 1970s I bought into DBX and have a number of albums. I don't know anyone else who bought into that system. Anyone else in here use DBX vinyl?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: DBX, posted on April 19, 2014 at 20:06:51
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
I owned 20 DBX albums at one time many years ago. I also owned a couple of DBX 4-BX dynamic range expanders and a couple DBX 224 noise reduction units. Additionally, I bought a Teac X-1000 open reel tape deck with DBX noise reduction. I thought it was pretty cool until I got into direct-to-disc LPs. The DBX vinyl sounded artificial to me after listening to direct-to-disc and Reference Recordings LPs. The dynamic range expanders also began to sound artificial and unnatural. I finally dumped everything DBX and concentrated on upgrading my turntables and phono cartridges. I focused on audiophile vinyl, which I think sounds much more real and natural than anything DBX. Unfortunately, a lot of the content on audiophile vinyl is less than interesting, but when a good performance comes around, it simply blows away DBX.

Best regards,
John Elison

 

RE: DBX, posted on April 20, 2014 at 02:48:49
reuben
Audiophile

Posts: 1637
Joined: September 28, 2004
I still enjoy the dbx discs. All disc decoders are not created equal. I am presently using a 122, and when it occasionally sounds wrong or 'in your face' I switch to the model 21.

-reub
Dark energy? Ridiculous!
We live in an electric universe.

 

RE: DBX, posted on April 20, 2014 at 02:55:51
reuben
Audiophile

Posts: 1637
Joined: September 28, 2004
I find the linear expanders and peak unlimiters a must for FM, and still helpful on most of my conventional records. Audofile recordings usually sound better without signal processing.

-reub
Dark energy? Ridiculous!
We live in an electric universe.

 

RE: DBX, posted on April 20, 2014 at 03:23:37
zhemini
Audiophile

Posts: 12
Location: Ontario
Joined: April 19, 2014
I have just dug out my old system to give my daughter, because she has decided that vinyl is fashionable. I stored it away about 20 years ago. I have been trying to explain to her what DBX is and why she needs that special box to play some of my old records.

 

I still have a DBX 21., posted on April 20, 2014 at 05:23:08
Like a lot of other people, in the late 70's and early 80's I went through that whole compressor/expander thing with DBX products. And then some of us began to suspect that additional signal conditioning wasn't what we had hoped, and went back to a more basic system.

I always liked the sound of DBX albums, and will buy them if I find a title in good condition that I want. Unfortunately, people seem to want a premium for them, and that I'm not willing to pay - it just doesn't mean that much to me.

I do have DBX albums, a total of 15 titles and use the DBX 21 to decode them on playback.

 

RE: DBX, posted on April 20, 2014 at 06:07:54
Dave Pogue
Audiophile

Posts: 11686
Location: DC Area
Joined: October 9, 2001
Couldn't agree more, John. And one point you didn't mention. I had the same Teac X1000, and made some recordings using the dbx (always lower case, tut tut) noise reduction. Once I sold the deck, the dbx recordings were essentially unplayable. At least without buying a separate outboard dbx box.

I should have known better, because earlier I had recorded some 10 1/2" reels using one of three outboard Dolby processors, all of which died. I still have a Dolbyized Teac deck, but it doesn't play 10 1/2" reels. As you say, live and learn.

 

RE: DBX, posted on April 20, 2014 at 11:09:31
Dman
Audiophile

Posts: 7211
Location: Kansas
Joined: January 28, 2001
I have exactly TWO DBX titles, one is Melissa Manchester and the other is some Mexican classical-type music. I still have my trusty old 224X (encode/decode/dbx disc) processor, but haven't used it in a few years.

I am still looking for a schematic/service manual for this bad boy (I was hoping to upgrade the PS 'lytics and get some decent films in the audio path), but I'm not willing to pay the over $15 that I was asked for a few years back (probably more by now). I don't need to play those records THAT BADLY!



Dman
Analog Junkie

 

RE: DBX, posted on April 21, 2014 at 11:25:21
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
Hi Dave,

The Teac X-1000 had hyperbolic heads that really accentuated the low-frequency head bumps. They were emphasized even more with dbx noise reduction. All the tapes I made with dbx had very boomy bass so I quit using dbx for reel-to-reel. I didn't keep the Teac X-1000 very long because I also owned a Revox A77 that sounded much better. It had cylindrical heads with a much smoother frequency response in the bass. I really didn't feel the need for noise reduction with reel-to-reel tape.

It would be fun to get back into reel-to-reel, but the media is just too expensive for me now. It was a lot of fun back in the day, though. I was a PMEL technician with a fully equipped electronics laboratory and I kept my Revox A77 tuned to perfection.

Best regards,
John Elison

 

My own Revox experience ..., posted on April 21, 2014 at 12:19:13
Dave Pogue
Audiophile

Posts: 11686
Location: DC Area
Joined: October 9, 2001
... was pretty awful. I had heard great things about the A77 and bought a Mk IV (Dolby) deck two years ago on Ebay that LOOKED absolutely beautiful. Then things started happening. First a couple of caps went, with a bang (my tech calls them "firecracker capacitors"). He replaced the caps. Then it caught on fire. Just a wee blaze, but still. He fixed that and then I discovered that its Dolby circuitry didn't make my Barclay-Crocker and other Dolbyized tapes sound right -- for one thing, it was impossible to reach "Dolby Level" on the A77's meters. My tech couldn't fix that, though he tried. Then I discovered that the unit was produced BEFORE the first commercial Dolby tapes were released, which may have had something to do with the problem.

Then I gave up on it :-)

 

RE: My own Revox experience ..., posted on April 21, 2014 at 14:16:22
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
Well, that's a shame. I never owned the A77 with Dolby. However, we're talking about a pretty old tape deck. I owned my first A77 in 1971 and then I bought my second one in 1976 or '77. Mine were both brand new and they worked just fine. I don't think I'd want an A77 today. I think I'd go with a Studer if I were going to refurbish an old analog tape deck. Of course, the A77 is certainly a very simple design in comparison to the Revox A700 or a Studer. I always wanted an A700 in those days, but I couldn't afford it.

Best regards,
John Elison

 

My own favorite deck., posted on April 21, 2014 at 14:38:02
Dave Pogue
Audiophile

Posts: 11686
Location: DC Area
Joined: October 9, 2001
Yeah, my particular Revox was just a bummer. I can strongly recommend the Otari MX5050 series deck. Mine is an MX5050 BII2, not much to look at but a studio and radio station workhorse with everything -- 3 speeds, 2- and 4-track playback (2-speed record), NAB and IEC equalization, plenty of parts and replacement headstacks available and best of all it just sounds wonderful . Even better with a slight mod to allow tapehead output so I can use the stellar, new-production deHaviland 222 tapehead preamp. I still listen to tapes a LOT.

These Otaris go for as little as $200 on Ebay and even after you have them fully serviced and brought back to spec they're well under $1K.

 

Page processed in 0.029 seconds.