Plays well.Pretty red & yellow lights.On sale at ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...PageName= ADM
E:B:LC:US:1

Steve Kral wrote:

Plays well.Pretty red & yellow lights.On sale at ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...PageName= ADM
E:B:LC:US:1



How long have you had that? Or I should ask, do you know how old
it is? I worked at an audio store in the mid to late 70's and we
carried the dBX line including that expander. We never really figured
out exactly what the purpose of it was past the "pretty red and
yeller lights" and it's distinct ability to blow speaker components
if one was not careful and it was not set up properly. P

In article DN_Va.2943$Or.2463@lakeread06,
"WindsorFox[SS]" wrote:

Steve Kral wrote:

Plays well.Pretty red & yellow lights.On sale at ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...PageName= ADM
E:B:LC:US:1



How long have you had that? Or I should ask, do you know how old
it is? I worked at an audio store in the mid to late 70's and we
carried the dBX line including that expander. We never really figured
out exactly what the purpose of it was past the "pretty red and
yeller lights" and it's distinct ability to blow speaker components
if one was not careful and it was not set up properly. P


I used to work at dbx in 1979 and helped to build many a 3bx. I even
have one around here somewhere. The idea was to restore lost dynamic
range from vinyl. In the current day of CDs it really is unnecessary,
but back in the day, it could make records sound great if it were set up
properly (ie. not overused).



Edwin
--
Remove the obvious to reply

DBX 3BX dynamic range expander

WindsorFox[SS] wrote:

We never really figured out
exactly what the purpose of it was past the "pretty red and yeller
lights"

Maybe to expand dynamic range?

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:

How long have you had that? Or I should ask, do you know how old
it is? I worked at an audio store in the mid to late 70's and we
carried the dBX line including that expander. We never really figured
out exactly what the purpose of it was past the "pretty red and
yeller lights" and it's distinct ability to blow speaker components
if one was not careful and it was not set up properly. P



I used to work at dbx in 1979 and helped to build many a 3bx. I even
have one around here somewhere. The idea was to restore lost dynamic
range from vinyl. In the current day of CDs it really is unnecessary,
but back in the day, it could make records sound great if it were set up
properly (ie. not overused).



Edwin


Heh, yeah, over used. Been there, done that. But I was only like
14 at the time. P The store I worked at sold mostly highend home
audio and most of our customers weren't interested in addons like
that and equalizers, though we sold a few to night clubs and the
like, it was the hayday of Saturday Night Fever!

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I worked at an audio store in the mid to late 70's and we
carried the dbx line including that expander. We never really
figured out exactly what the purpose of it was past the "pretty
red and yeller lights" and it's distinct ability to blow speaker
components if one was not careful and it was not set up properly.


You've got to be joking.

Didn't you bother to read the literature and the user manuals? Or was that just
too much trouble?

No wonder people complain they get rotten, crappy advice from hi-fi salesman.



I'm sure someone read it, but I didn't do the pro audio stuff. I
sold Electro-Voice, JBL Pro monitors and McIntosh and Nikko to home
users with expensive taste. I also was explaining total harmonic
distortion, signal to noise ratio, and the difference between peak
and RMS power when I was selling it to them at 13 years old. So no,
contrary to your jab I was not a poor sales person, in the area that
I worked.

Rob Adelman wrote:

DBX 3BX dynamic range expander

WindsorFox[SS] wrote:

We never really figured out exactly what the purpose of it was past
the "pretty red and yeller lights"


Maybe to expand dynamic range?



Ya think? Point being we used it and played with it and it did
stuff, but kind of like an equalizer we just never saw the point.
Perhapse that is why we only ever sold a couple of them, no one else
saw the point either. I was of the opinion that it did make records
sound different though not particularly better, however when playing
on an Empire TT through a McIntosh amp out of a pair of JBL 4333A
Monitors, you really didn't need anything added to it.

Well... Yes and no.

Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range on LPs. (The
dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing the "appropriate" music,
of course -- is about 60dB, including crest factor.)

It is fairly common knowledge that recording engineers "rode gain." Whether this
was just to override tape hiss, or to "prepare" the recording for LP transfer, I
don't know.

LP _does_ have a "problem of lack of dynamic range." If you've ever heard a
dbx-encoded LP, you know this is true. You could never record the full range of
the "showpieces" without overcutting or (perhaps) losing the quieter passages in
noise.


Vinyl has no problem of lack of dynamic range.

I have heard this complaint and I just don't get it. Again I don't think
the problem is with the medium but rather the use of it. I have many
albums, as this is what I use for my serious listening, along with the
few SACD's I have. I have some albums that definitely lack in dynamic
range, yet I have others that have a huge amount of range. I listened to
Alan Parson's 'Tales of Mystery' the other day and the amount of dynamic
range is astounding. In fact it has such a range I found myself turning
it up during the quiet passages and down a little on the loud parts. And
my room is very quiet. This is a Mobile Fidelity vinyl disk, so that
helps, but I have plenty of standard vinyl releases with similar range.

-Rob

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Well... Yes and no.

Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range on LPs. (The
dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing the "appropriate" music,
of course -- is about 60dB, including crest factor.)

It is fairly common knowledge that recording engineers "rode gain." Whether this
was just to override tape hiss, or to "prepare" the recording for LP transfer, I
don't know.

LP _does_ have a "problem of lack of dynamic range." If you've ever heard a
dbx-encoded LP, you know this is true. You could never record the full range of
the "showpieces" without overcutting or (perhaps) losing the quieter passages in
noise.



Vinyl has no problem of lack of dynamic range.

I won't gainsay you, as the MFSL LPs are certainly superior to the average LP.
But you really need to hear dbx LPs before making up your mind.

It is also true that most listeners don't like wide dynamic range, protesting
when they have to raise and lower the volume level.


I have heard this complaint and I just don't get it. Again I don't think
the problem is with the medium but rather the use of it. I have many
albums, as this is what I use for my serious listening, along with the
few SACD's I have. I have some albums that definitely lack in dynamic
range, yet I have others that have a huge amount of range. I listened to
Alan Parson's 'Tales of Mystery' the other day and the amount of dynamic
range is astounding. In fact it has such a range I found myself turning
it up during the quiet passages and down a little on the loud parts.
And my room is very quiet. This is a Mobile Fidelity vinyl disk, so that
helps, but I have plenty of standard vinyl releases with similar range.


Well... Yes and no.

Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range
on LPs. (The dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing
the "appropriate" music, of course -- is about 60dB, including crest
factor.)

It is fairly common knowledge that recording engineers "rode gain."
Whether this was just to override tape hiss, or to "prepare" the
recording for LP transfer, I don't know.

LP _does_ have a "problem of lack of dynamic range." If you've ever
heard a dbx-encoded LP, you know this is true. You could never record
the full range of the "showpieces" without overcutting or (perhaps) losing
the quieter passages in noise.


Vinyl has no problem of lack of dynamic range.

dbx LP's have upwards of 90 dB of dynamic range. I own probably 50 of
them. Gotta have a dbx decoder unit like a dbx 224 to hear them
properly. These LP's are so quiet that you can't hear the lead-in part
of the groove. Because it is so quiet, you have to be careful not to
jack up the volume after the stylus is put on the record. If you do,
you'll be splattered against the rear wall when the actual program starts.


William Sommerwerck wrote:

I won't gainsay you, as the MFSL LPs are certainly superior to the average LP.
But you really need to hear dbx LPs before making up your mind.

It is also true that most listeners don't like wide dynamic range, protesting
when they have to raise and lower the volume level.




I have heard this complaint and I just don't get it. Again I don't think
the problem is with the medium but rather the use of it. I have many
albums, as this is what I use for my serious listening, along with the
few SACD's I have. I have some albums that definitely lack in dynamic
range, yet I have others that have a huge amount of range. I listened to
Alan Parson's 'Tales of Mystery' the other day and the amount of dynamic
range is astounding. In fact it has such a range I found myself turning
it up during the quiet passages and down a little on the loud parts.
And my room is very quiet. This is a Mobile Fidelity vinyl disk, so that
helps, but I have plenty of standard vinyl releases with similar range.






Well... Yes and no.





Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range
on LPs. (The dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing
the "appropriate" music, of course -- is about 60dB, including crest
factor.)





It is fairly common knowledge that recording engineers "rode gain."
Whether this was just to override tape hiss, or to "prepare" the
recording for LP transfer, I don't know.





LP _does_ have a "problem of lack of dynamic range." If you've ever
heard a dbx-encoded LP, you know this is true. You could never record
the full range of the "showpieces" without overcutting or (perhaps) losing
the quieter passages in noise.






Vinyl has no problem of lack of dynamic range.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range on LPs. (The
dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing the "appropriate" music,
of course -- is about 60dB, including crest factor.)

Yup, and a LOT of that had to do with the urge to cram as much material
as possible onto an LP. More so than the high noise floor from early
vinyl formulations, or the low excursion available from early cutters.

Once labels learned that putting all of Beethoven's Fifth onto one side of
a disk was a bad idea (like the Murray Hill label did), dynamic range
problems were greatly reduced.

It is fairly common knowledge that recording engineers "rode gain." Whether this
was just to override tape hiss, or to "prepare" the recording for LP transfer, I
don't know.

Both. It was also to compensate for poor playback gear, too. But there
is a difference between a little bit of light gainriding and major squashing.

LP _does_ have a "problem of lack of dynamic range." If you've ever heard a
dbx-encoded LP, you know this is true. You could never record the full range of
the "showpieces" without overcutting or (perhaps) losing the quieter passages in
noise.

I can give you all the dynamic range you want on an LP without any goofy
companding. BUT, you'll get ten minutes on a side and you'll also get
discs that are impossible to track on consumer gear.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Once labels learned that putting all of Beethoven's Fifth
onto one side of a disk was a bad idea (like the Murray
Hill label did), dynamic range problems were greatly reduced.

One solution to this problem was to lop off the last minute or two of the fourth
movement. Really.

Didn't Murray Hill release the definitive London Festival recordings of the
Beethoven symphonies?


I can give you all the dynamic range you want on an LP
without any goofy companding. BUT, you'll get ten minutes
on a side and you'll also get discs that are impossible to
track on consumer gear.

My point exactly (as the fencer in the commercial says).

There's nothing goofy about dbx companding. One of the nice things about dbx LPs
is that they're cut at an overall lower level, farther from the center of the
disk. They're the cleanest-sounding LPs I've ever heard.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Well... Yes and no.

Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range on LPs. (The
dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing the "appropriate" music,
of course -- is about 60dB, including crest factor.)

It is fairly common knowledge that recording engineers "rode gain." Whether this
was just to override tape hiss, or to "prepare" the recording for LP transfer, I
don't know.

LP _does_ have a "problem of lack of dynamic range." If you've ever heard a
dbx-encoded LP, you know this is true. You could never record the full range of
the "showpieces" without overcutting or (perhaps) losing the quieter passages in
noise.




AHHH! Now I remember, that was the problem. Though the device
worked, it only worked REALLY well when playing dBX encoded records.
We had a hard time finding them and when found, the were a little
pricey. Now there were a couple of people who cliamed they heard a
big difference in any system with any tape or record, maybe they did,
none of us at the store could.

There seems to some confusion about what the various dbx boxes do. The
1BX, 2BX, 3BX, 4BX and 5BX units do dynamic range expansion and
transient impact restoration. They did not decode dbx-encoded LP's and
tapes. The 124 and 224 units decoded dbx-encoded LP's and tapes, but do
not expand dynamic range or have impact restoration. Only one unit, the
dbx 228 did both.

I use a dbx 4BX and a dbx 224X ganged together through a dbx 400XG
switch box to listen to music that would benefit from these processors.


WindsorFox[SS] wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Well... Yes and no.

Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range on
LPs. (The
dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing the
"appropriate" music,
of course -- is about 60dB, including crest factor.)

It is fairly common knowledge that recording engineers "rode gain."
Whether this
was just to override tape hiss, or to "prepare" the recording for LP
transfer, I
don't know.

LP _does_ have a "problem of lack of dynamic range." If you've ever
heard a
dbx-encoded LP, you know this is true. You could never record the
full range of
the "showpieces" without overcutting or (perhaps) losing the quieter
passages in
noise.




AHHH! Now I remember, that was the problem. Though the device
worked, it only worked REALLY well when playing dBX encoded records.
We had a hard time finding them and when found, the were a little
pricey. Now there were a couple of people who cliamed they heard a big
difference in any system with any tape or record, maybe they did, none
of us at the store could.

Correct. An xBX unit cannot be used to decode dbx LPs.

There seems to some confusion about what the various dbx boxes do.
The 1BX, 2BX, 3BX, 4BX and 5BX units do dynamic range expansion
and transient impact restoration. They did not decode dbx LPs and
tapes. The 124 and 224 units decode dbx LPs and tapes, but do not
expand dynamic range or have impact restoration.

In article writes:

Bud Fried (as in IMF) used to tell me that, in the early days of stereo
recording, the Decca guys had trouble getting 20dB dynamic range on LPs. (The
dynamic range of a full symphony orchestra -- playing the "appropriate" music,
of course -- is about 60dB, including crest factor.)

Maybe in the earliest days, but the can do a lot better than that.
A CD definitely has greater potential dynamic range, but few people
have listening spaces that can support much more than a 30 dB or so
dynamic range. The idea of the 3BX was to "punch up" the louder parts,
but it would only make your system louder if the power amplifier and
speakers could take it. Keep those expanded peaks down to the same
peak level as you had before and the average listener would lose the
quiet parts.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Screws up the bass"? In what way?

I've done many live recordings with dbx NR, and have never heard it "screw up"
the bass in any obvious sort of way.

Yes, I was wondering why we were comparing apples to
oranges. But, my experience with dbxencoding/decoding
systems has been that it screws up the bass.

"WindsorFox[SS]" wrote in message news:dP%Va.2970$Or.2524@lakeread06...

I also was explaining total harmonic
distortion, signal to noise ratio, and the difference between peak
and RMS power when I was selling it to them at 13 years old. So no,
contrary to your jab I was not a poor sales person

Begs the question: Did you sell a lot? Because in my experience (and,
I would dare say, that of most consumers), the guy who explains "total
harmonic distortion, signal to noise ratio, and the difference between
peak and RMS power" is not necessarily going to get the sale. It's the
guy who can quickly and efficiently take stock of the cleints' needs,
lifestyle, & tastes, and then effortlessly point them towards a
product that fulfills (or exceeds) their expectations that gets to
take home the big commission checks.

Rob,

Can you be a little more descriptive about "it screws up the bass". I
have listened to gobs and gobs of glorious, full bass from dbx LP's ,
regular LP's and tapes.

I view dbx processors as simply post production devices that one uses in
the home. dbx makes lots of processors that are used all the time in
recording studios.


Rob Adelman wrote:



William Sommerwerck wrote:

Correct. An xBX unit cannot be used to decode dbx LPs.


Yes, I was wondering why we were comparing apples to oranges. But, my
experience with DBX encoding/decoding systems has been that it screws
up the bass.

-Rob

musicdude wrote:
Rob,

Can you be a little more descriptive about "it screws up the bass". I
have listened to gobs and gobs of glorious, full bass from dbx LP's ,
regular LP's and tapes.
I view dbx processors as simply post production devices that one uses in
the home. dbx makes lots of processors that are used all the time in
recording studios.

I have no experience with DBX LPs and processors. My experience was with
DBX noise reduction (Akai 12 track) and I found that the bass sounded
a little weird (flabby?) after this processing. Others have said they
don't notice this with DBX noise reduction so of course y.m.m.v.

Correct. Note that WindsorFox said he was doing this as a teenager.

It's been my experience that the salesman who knows the LEAST about what he's
selling moves the most merchandise. Factual information is a hindrance to
getting the customer to buy.

I also was explaining total harmonic
distortion, signal to noise ratio, and the difference between peak
and RMS power when I was selling it to them at 13 years old. So no,
contrary to your jab I was not a poor sales person

Begs the question: Did you sell a lot? Because in my experience (and,
I would dare say, that of most consumers), the guy who explains "total
harmonic distortion, signal to noise ratio, and the difference between
peak and RMS power" is not necessarily going to get the sale. It's the
guy who can quickly and efficiently take stock of the cleints' needs,
lifestyle, & tastes, and then effortlessly point them towards a
product that fulfills (or exceeds) their expectations that gets to
take home the big commission checks.

This probably occurred because you were using Type 1 NR rather than Type 2.

Type 1 is intended for professional decks with flat response to 20Hz, while Type
2 assumes the response is flat to no lower than 50Hz. If you use Type 1 on a
machine with poor deep-bass response, isolated low-frequency signals will
mistrack in playback.

I have no experience with dbx LPs and processors. My experience
was with dbx noise reduction (Akai 12 track) and I found that the
bass sounded a little weird (flabby?) after this processing. Others
have said they don't notice this with dbx noise reduction so
of course y.m.m.v.

"Rob Adelman" wrote

DBX 3BX dynamic range expander

WindsorFox[SS] wrote:

We never really figured out exactly what the
purpose of it was past the "pretty red and yeller
lights"

Maybe to expand dynamic range?

Well, yes and no... they were indicators of the
degree of processing taking place over three
bands. The yellow LEDs made quiet sounds
quieter, and simultaneously reducing noise
from the source. The red LEDs light during
upward expansion (making loud sounds louder
and restoring prominence to crescendos and
percussive passages in music). The degree
to which was controled by the expansion control
(-20dB to +12db) for a max increase of 32 dB.

This device was definitely NOT a
set-it-and-forget-it. One was always fiddling with
it depending on the source (music type, records,
tapes, radio).

No kidding! I rarely made much more than my weekly draw.

In order to be a "good" salesman, you have to _want_ to extract the money from
the customer's wallet, regardless. I worked with a guy who was a kind, decent,
friendly, good-hearted human being you knew you could always trust to do the
right thing. But he once told me that all he cared about was getting the
customer to buy something. Period.

I'm not wired that way. I make up my own mind about things, so I'm reluctant to
be much of an influence on the customer.

When I help people buy hi-fi equipment, I limit my advice (other than suggesting
products to audition, of course) to telling them what _not_ to purchase. That
way the decision is theirs, but I protect them from making A Really Big Mistake.


Powell wrote...

William Sommerwerck wrote...

It's been my experience that the salesman who
knows the LEAST about what he's selling moves
the most merchandise. Factual information is a
hindrance to getting the customer to buy.

Hehehe... oh my! I guess your experiences were
that of a Broke-A$$® salesman.

Rob Adelman wrote:
musicdude wrote:
Rob,

Can you be a little more descriptive about "it screws up the bass". I
have listened to gobs and gobs of glorious, full bass from dbx LP's ,
regular LP's and tapes.
I view dbx processors as simply post production devices that one uses in
the home. dbx makes lots of processors that are used all the time in
recording studios.

I have no experience with DBX LPs and processors. My experience was with
DBX noise reduction (Akai 12 track) and I found that the bass sounded
a little weird (flabby?) after this processing. Others have said they
don't notice this with DBX noise reduction so of course y.m.m.v.


Companding will exaggerate any frequency response problems in the signal
path. So if you are hearing something going wrong with the bass with the
NR, odds are there is something wrong without it that is just made worse.

Just another reason to do regular alignment and do a sweep test (or at least
a tone ladder) at least monthly.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I used to work at dbx in 1979 and helped to build many a 3bx

You must know The Abdunabi's (hope I remembered the correct spelling). They
were our next door neighbors in Weston for many years. I have just about all of
the products DBX made past and present and there were alot that did about the
same thing. Someone else in this thread mentioned that this unit did a great
job at speaker demolition..actually, the 128 was much better than the 3BX at
overdriving the **** out of an amp and trashing monitors. On an Off Topic note;
the Ultimate Monitors Link is dead, replaced with a photo Lionel Hampton took
for me years ago. Ahhh..the things you find when cleaning house.


Glenn Davis
"Creating the perfect mix is like painting a 747 with Q-Tips"

Companding will exaggerate any frequency response problems in the signal
path. So if you are hearing something going wrong with the bass with the
NR, odds are there is something wrong without it that is just made worse.

Just another reason to do regular alignment and do a sweep test (or at least
a tone ladder) at least monthly.

I don't know why we continue to argue this, but it is absolutely, totally
incorrect.

dbx noise reduction is a single-band system. It therefore has NO EFFECT
WHATSOEVER on the frequency response of the recorder. It DOES NOT exaggerate
response errors.

If you don't believe this, change the bias on a tape deck to noticeably screw up
the HF response. Connect a dbx NR unit in the path, then start making a
recording. With the NR off, switch between input and output to get familiar with
what the change in response sounds like. Then turn on the NR and listen again,
switching between input and output. You will hear NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER in
the response error.

Someone else in this thread mentioned that this unit did
a great job at speaker demolition. Actually, the 128 was
much better than the 3BX at overdriving the **** out of
an amp and trashing monitors.

Baloney. Both devices have level-match controls. When speaker damage occurs, it
is 100% the user's fault.

Baloney. Both devices have level-match controls. When speaker damage occurs,
it
is 100% the user's fault.

Of course it is the user's fault. Since the 128 was aimed at a consumer market
for playback of "finished" recordings, it was often used wrong by 'some'
people. I should know, I used one the wrong way back in the 1970's and fried
the **** out of a Kenwood KR7600 and pair of BIC Venturi's that were unfused. I
am sure this would not have happened if I was not using the 128 and yes, I was
using (or rather abusing it) over and above what it was meant to be used for.
But to say that is was 100% my fault, baloney right back at you unless you are
saying that it was my fault for using the 128 at all too. The 128 HAS the
ability to fry the living **** out of amps and speakers. Used the right way, it
is a cool box with nice wood panels...great for coloring playbacks (and adding
controlled distortion) which is an audio purist's no-no. Music has all of the
eq and processing done during recording/mixing/mastering and other than maybe
some eq (used properly with a SA) to calibrate the listening position (not
needed if using cans - I swear by AKG240-DF's) you should not use anything
other than player to amp to monitors or turntable to preamp to amp to monitors
if you want to listen to an accurate playback. The only exception to this is if
the program material is encoded with anything that needs a proper box (add that
to the chain) to decode whatever it was encoded with so that that you will have
an accurate playback. The word "accurate" implies what the artist and or
producer and or engineer and or mastering lab and or final say at the record
company (delete any which are N/A) etc., wanted the listener of the final
product to hear. This does not take into account the size/model/brand/etc. of
amp, preamp, monitors, or player that the listener is using for playback which
will yield different results.



Glenn Davis
"Creating the perfect mix is like painting a 747 with Q-Tips"

Buster Mudd wrote:

"WindsorFox[SS]" wrote in message news:dP%Va.2970$Or.2524@lakeread06...


I also was explaining total harmonic
distortion, signal to noise ratio, and the difference between peak
and RMS power when I was selling it to them at 13 years old. So no,
contrary to your jab I was not a poor sales person


Begs the question: Did you sell a lot? Because in my experience (and,
I would dare say, that of most consumers), the guy who explains "total
harmonic distortion, signal to noise ratio, and the difference between
peak and RMS power" is not necessarily going to get the sale. It's the
guy who can quickly and efficiently take stock of the cleints' needs,
lifestyle, & tastes, and then effortlessly point them towards a
product that fulfills (or exceeds) their expectations that gets to
take home the big commission checks.


It's important when they ask you what the specifications are.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Correct. Note that WindsorFox said he was doing this as a teenager.

It's been my experience that the salesman who knows the LEAST about what he's
selling moves the most merchandise. Factual information is a hindrance to
getting the customer to buy.


Not for me. When I ask questions I want truethful and correct
answers. When I ask the car salesman specific technical questions, I
want an ahnswer. I guess if you're used to dealing with morons who
don't have a clue what they are buying you'll do fine and we had
those, but when someone with a little knowledge and starts asking
questions that you can not answer, you're hosed.

Powell wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote


It's been my experience that the salesman who
knows the LEAST about what he's selling
moves the most merchandise. Factual information
is a hindrance to getting the customer to buy.


Hehehe... oh my! I guess your experiences were
that of a Broke-A$$® salesman.





"So, what kind of power do these speakers need?"

"I dunno, just trust me, they go really well with that amp, but not
this one"

"Well does that amp have as good of sound quality as this one?"

"I dunno, it's sounds great with these speakers, but you can't
compare because these speakers go with that amp, not this one"

"Right, so much for Circuit City, I think I will check at the locally
owned store down the street"

William Sommerwerck wrote:

No kidding! I rarely made much more than my weekly draw.

In order to be a "good" salesman, you have to _want_ to extract the money from
the customer's wallet, regardless. I worked with a guy who was a kind, decent,
friendly, good-hearted human being you knew you could always trust to do the
right thing. But he once told me that all he cared about was getting the
customer to buy something. Period.

I'm not wired that way. I make up my own mind about things, so I'm reluctant to
be much of an influence on the customer.

When I help people buy hi-fi equipment, I limit my advice (other than suggesting
products to audition, of course) to telling them what _not_ to purchase. That
way the decision is theirs, but I protect them from making A Really Big Mistake.


I understand your point and I guess a majority of shoppers are as
they say Baffled by bull**** and give in to the high pressure guys
who know little about their product.

"William (CAN'T STOP TOP POSTING) Sommerwerck" wrote

No kidding! I rarely made much more than my
weekly draw.

No shame, sales is not for the faint of heart.

In order to be a "good" salesman, you have
to _want_ to extract the money from the customer's
wallet, regardless.

Perhaps this is true of low end sales like electronics
and the like. In higher paid commission sales where
the stakes are higher (stock, real estate, etc.) this
attribute is much less profitable for the successful
professional salesperson.

I worked with a guy who was a kind, decent, friendly,
good-hearted human being you knew you could always
trust to do the right thing. But he once told me that all
he cared about was getting the customer to buy
something. Period.

Yup, that's life... that was his job.

I'm not wired that way. I make up my own mind
about things, so I'm reluctant to be much of an
influence on the customer.

Sales is not for you then.

When I help people buy hi-fi equipment, I limit my
advice (other than suggesting products to audition,
of course) to telling them what _not_ to purchase.
That way the decision is theirs, but I protect them
from making A Really Big Mistake.

Sales is not for you then. No shame, sales
is not for the faint of heart.

In article WbEWa.3593$qf.2428@lakeread06 writes:

When I ask questions I want truethful and correct
answers. When I ask the car salesman specific technical questions, I
want an ahnswer.

Do you ever get one? I rarely do. I can't even get an answer that he
actually knows, like to the question "How much is it??

I'd be happy with a car salesman who said "I don't know, but let's
take a walk over to the shop and ask one of the mechanics." But they
don't do that.

If you insist on not dealing with morons, you won't buy much today.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"WindsorFox[SS]" wrote:

I worked at an audio store in the mid to late 70's and we carried
the dBX line including that expander. We never really figured
out exactly what the purpose of it was past the "pretty red and
yeller lights" and it's distinct ability to blow speaker components
if one was not careful and it was not set up properly.

The dbx expanders were offered as a solution to a very real problem, but
they do not and cannot solve the problem as it actually exists. Instead
they make the problem different and (one hopes) somewhat better sometimes.

Each model "undoes" a particular type of compression. If gradual, linear
overall compression based on rms detection and the same frequency bands
and time constants had been used in mastering a given LP, the dbx expanders
would then have reversed that compression and in the process, reduced
surface noise and rumble during the playback of that LP. They would have
functioned as encode/decode noise reduction systems which would also allow
the same recordings to also be listened to without the expander--a kind of
engineering holy grail at the time.

But no matching compressor was ever sold or used, and this type of gradual
overall compression is not at all typical of the recording industry.

So it was always like, try out the expander on each of your favorite records
to see whether it made them sound better or not, and if so, what settings
sounded best to you on a given day--very much a "season to taste" type of
thing, and also an "I hope I can find a justifying application for this box
that I've just paid for" type of thing.

The 3BX was the three-band version (divided the frequency spectrum into
three bands and expanding them separately) which gave fewer noise-pumping
problems than the original model 117 or the 1BX and 2BX. I believe there
were two models of 3BX, one of which had special processing to emphasize
transients.

--best regards

The 3BX divided the spectrum into three bands and expanded
them separately, which gave fewer noise-pumping problems
than the 117/119 or the 1BX and 2BX.

I believe the 3BX predated the 1BX and 2BX. Regardless, multi-band operation
allows the attack and release times to be optimized for each band, which
minimizes audible side-effects.

I have a 5BX, and it's amazing how much expansion you can apply without it being
audible as expansion. However, the processing "does something" to the sound that
there are no words to describe. So I limit use of the 5BX to badly compressed
recordings.


I believe there were two models of 3BX, one of which
had special processing to emphasize transients.

The 4BX was the 3BX with a circuit that "goosed" transients. The 5BX not only
offered five-band operation, but each band has its own transient enhancement. It
can also compress.

In connection with our recent discussion of the supposed tendency of dbx
expanders to blow out speakers, it should be noted that the 5BX had its default
unity-gain level set very high (almost 3V, I think), which meant that it almost
always worked as a downward expander. Switching it in almost always caused the
volume to drop, making it virtually impossible to blast your ears or blow out an
amp or speaker.

In article HK%Va.2951$Or.1671@lakeread06,
"WindsorFox[SS]" wrote:

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:

How long have you had that? Or I should ask, do you know how old
it is? I worked at an audio store in the mid to late 70's and we
carried the dBX line including that expander. We never really figured
out exactly what the purpose of it was past the "pretty red and
yeller lights" and it's distinct ability to blow speaker components
if one was not careful and it was not set up properly. P



I used to work at dbx in 1979 and helped to build many a 3bx. I even
have one around here somewhere. The idea was to restore lost dynamic
range from vinyl. In the current day of CDs it really is unnecessary,
but back in the day, it could make records sound great if it were set up
properly (ie. not overused).



Edwin


Heh, yeah, over used. Been there, done that. But I was only like
14 at the time. P The store I worked at sold mostly highend home
audio and most of our customers weren't interested in addons like
that and equalizers, though we sold a few to night clubs and the
like, it was the hayday of Saturday Night Fever!


Disco was a big consumer of dbx gear. We made something called a Boom
Box that was a subharmonic synthesizer. There was also a combination of
the dynamic range expander and the boom box. Right above where I sat
soldering all day, there were these concrete subwoofers that they used
to demo the boxes. Ridiculous! I also got to do a little work on Studio
54s combo units, which is guess is a little piece of history but at the
time I felt dirty as I hated disco and it was like touching detritus of
a fallen civilization.

Later I added a boom box to my bass rig for a while and had a soundman
threaten to beat me up if I didn't turn off the unit as he seemed to
think I was trying to blow his subs. Pointing out that he was running
the PA and that the box had garnered compliments from other soundmen
seemed to do no good.

Edwin
--
Remove the obvious to reply

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1059680734k@trad...

Maybe in the earliest days, but the can do a lot better than that.
A CD definitely has greater potential dynamic range, but few people
have listening spaces that can support much more than a 30 dB or so
dynamic range. The idea of the 3BX was to "punch up" the louder parts,
but it would only make your system louder if the power amplifier and
speakers could take it. Keep those expanded peaks down to the same
peak level as you had before and the average listener would lose the
quiet parts.

But that's what the xBX units were best at, single ended noise reduction for
vinyl and pre-recorded tapes.

TonyP.