to dbx or not dbx...

[HomeGos]

hummm Ive found nice results recordign with my 388 with dbx on but then on playback I´ve found too much frequencies are lost, could it be my dbx is faulty? I think its ok is just the way it is

Here is our first take of a new song, I mastered to minidisk ( I know is not digital heaven but sounded pretty decent for me) then to my m-audio firewire solo

Troubles started when I passed from .wav to mp3, humm such a great lost in bass and dinamics

Ive mastered using wavelab and a bunch of plugins. Im playing bass and singing some lead and oh oh ohs

song is called "oh ... oh oh oh " ( dont get too ... about our music skills )
theres feedback too ,

http://www.myspace.com/studiogranvia431

 

[RRuskin]

hummm Ive found nice results recordign with my 388 with dbx on but then on playback I´ve found too much frequencies are lost, could it be my dbx is faulty? I think its ok is just the way it is

Here is our first take of a new song, I mastered to minidisk ( I know is not digital heaven but sounded pretty decent for me) then to my m-audio firewire solo

Troubles started when I passed from .wav to mp3, humm such a great lost in bass and dinamics

Ive mastered using wavelab and a bunch of plugins. Im playing bass and singing some lead and oh oh ohs

song is called "oh ... oh oh oh " ( dont get too ... about our music skills )
theres feedback too ,

http://www.myspace.com/studiogranvia431

If the problem developed when converting from wav to mp3, the problem can't be with the dbx. Nothing it did would have an influence at that stage. You'd have noticed it long before that.

 

[sweetbeats]

In general I think folks use the dbx on the 388...most find the noise on the narrow format at 7.5ips to be too much but YOU DECIDE. Try it both ways and see what works for YOU.

I can tell you that mastering to minidisk and then transfering to PC makes no sense. The minidisk compresses the audio (not like a compressor, but like a conversion to a data compressed mp3 format). You loose detail and bottom end. So you are compressing the data, going back to analog for the transfer to PC, then to digital and then to another data compression. I'd leave the minidisk out of the mixdown path altogether, and when you are converting to your data compressed format, try wma instead of mp3...I've found that both wma and aac sound better than mp3 when comparing bitrate to bitrate...

Haven't listened yet. Will do later.

 

[sweetbeats]

HomeGos,

Hey, I really enjoyed all the songs you have on the myspace page. Oh...oh oh oh sounds pretty good to my ears and actually for me there is TOO much high-end presence.

Like Rick said, your issue, as far as I can tell from the info you put in the first post, has nothing to do with dbx.

Take the minidisk out of the mastering loop...it can do nothing but bad to the process. Master direct to PC via the M-Audio interface. Be careful with Wavelab...try a remix being careful and choosy about those mastering plugins. It sounds over-compressed and there is a really nice ambiance from your recording room that is getting tossed all over the place.

So maybe try those things and see what comes out of that but good job to all of you. Once again we see that, IMHO, 1/4 inch 8-track at 7.5ips can indeed capture plenty of information at the tracking stage to have room to work with during mixing and mastering for a nice result.

The 388 really is a nice sounding unit isn't it?

 

[Beck]

hummm Ive found nice results recordign with my 388 with dbx on but then on playback I´ve found too much frequencies are lost, could it be my dbx is faulty? I think its ok is just the way it is

Do you mean playback on the 388 or the final mix format?

If it's the former, here's some info from a recent post in another thread.

You may have a problem with the dbx calibration on the 388... might need to be adjusted, or the whole machine calibrated. The dbx on the 388 isn't as tight as it is on the TSR/MSR machines, but you really need it on tracks that narrow.

Noise reduction made these narrow formats possible. Without it the 388 has a signal-to-noise ratio of about 59 dB... pretty close to that of a cassette, which is not so good.

So although you can turn the dbx off, it's not really optional per se. The tolerances are very tight on narrow format machines and experience will help you get the last drop of goodness out of them. You've got to have the right kind of tape... what the machine is set for, and you need to keep the peak levels around zero VU. There's not much wiggle room with dbx and narrow tracks. If you push the levels you'll get artifacts that don't sound too good.

IMO, dbx sounds fine on the 388 if all is within spec and you’re recording technique is appropriate for the machine.

I'll just add that when the 388 was new (I used them a few times back then, but never owned one) it sounded incredible. But seeing that was back in the late 80's we should expect that these machines have drifted quite a bit... some never calibrated since they were new. So part of the expense of a vintage machine is a full calibration, by a Tech or learn how to do it yourself.

So to reiterate, noise reduction on cassette multitrack or narrow track open-reel is a must. In fact, even 2-inch 24-track was made practical compliments of Dolby-A and later improved with Dolby SR. It’s technically a “Narrow” format compared to the old standard of 16 on 2-inch.

~Tim

 

[Blue Jinn]

Beck

NOt that I'm in the market for one, I can't afford the order of magnitude cost increase in tape, but what are your thoughts on the one inch 24 tracks? Seems to be a nice compromise, not quite as narrow as 1/2" 16 track, but not as wide as 1" 16 (presumably the comparable track width to 1/2" 8-track) The heads are actually cheaper than the 1/2" 16 track heads.