dbx 160 x & 160xt

[halfguard]

what is the difference between these 2 units. is it the sound or are there tech differences? thanx for any help....

[HudHudson]

http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...=160+160X+160A

160 ("VU") has some heft and buzz that the later models don't have, to my ears. I use it on almost every mix on something. 160X (I have 2) is cleaner sounding but still has that dbx VCA character. I recall the XT is an X with XLR outs. 165/165A sounds in between those units and has the benefit of attack and release controls, which the other units don't. I'm considering buying a second 165 so I can try stereo drum submixes thru them instead of a 162, which is like a stereo 160 (but can't use as dual mono). Anyone else tried dual 165s on a drum bus?

[TonyBelmont]

Biggest difference circuitry wise is the X has an output transformer, and the XT does not.... They basically sound the same though, and I have used them interchangably my entire career. Also the X has barrier strip and i/4", while the XT has XLR and 1/4"!

[halfguard]

thanx guys, i lost my ebay auction....try try again......do you think one is better than the other, or is it apples to oranges?????thanxxxxx

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by HudHudson

Anyone else tried dual 165s on a drum bus?

165's work great for loops.

When mixing a loop into a drum track it works really well.

[poomka]

Originally Posted by TonyBelmont

Biggest difference circuitry wise is the X has an output transformer, and the XT does not....

I think you would say "Biggest difference circuitry wise is the XT has an output transformer, and the X does not....

[halfguard]

what does the output transformer do or not do?

[blackbox]

it transforms.

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by poomka

I think you would say "Biggest difference circuitry wise is the XT has an output transformer, and the X does not....

Ha Ha Ha... WRONG!

I can see where you could make that mistake though... In DBX's infinite wisdom they used the T in XT to signify transformerless...

So the XT has NO output transformer, and the X does....

Wow, now I know how to use colors. Cool!

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by halfguard

what does the output transformer do or not do?

In this situation, the output transformer was to allow for the running of longer cables. The transformer balances the output and helps keep noise out of the signal. In a lot of gear, people say that an output transformer can add more character to the tone of the piece. Does it change the sound in this case? I would say not really, but YMMV.

[DC11]

Got 'em both, love 'em both

[nukmusic]

so what did they do to the 160A??? re-issue?? are they that much different? can the 160A be motified to match(as close) 160XT or X ???

[DC11]

Does that one have the peakstop limiter or is that the 166's

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by nukmusic

so what did they do to the 160A??? re-issue?? are they that much different? can the 160A be motified to match(as close) 160XT or X ???

They all work the same.... I don't know if there is any difference between the 160XT and the 160A other than the color of the knobs.

[nukmusic]

T, i think some have said that the 160A is not as open/clear(top end) as the XT or X. I may have read it wrong.

[absrec]

Tony, I hate to disagree with you. However, I recently in the last year purchased a pair of vintage 160s. You know, the half-rack ones sometimes referred to as the 160"VU". In the process, I learned that the original 160s are the ones that have the transformer. And I want to say that it is an input transformer. I could be wrong about that one, though. Also, my friend who is an amp repairman opened up his 160X and 160XT and found no transformers in either of them. Just though this info might help. Again, mucho respect...

[Curve Dominant]

Tom Cram could clear up this transformer issue with the quickness.

You still around Tom??

[TonyBelmont]

Originally Posted by absrec

Tony, I hate to disagree with you. However, I recently in the last year purchased a pair of vintage 160s. You know, the half-rack ones sometimes referred to as the 160"VU". In the process, I learned that the original 160s are the ones that have the transformer. And I want to say that it is an input transformer. I could be wrong about that one, though. Also, my friend who is an amp repairman opened up his 160X and 160XT and found no transformers in either of them. Just though this info might help. Again, mucho respect...

You have a great piece of gear there. I know for sure the old half racks had transformers and the old "tin can" VCA's which are the key to the sound of those units.

I don't know about the units your friend has. The couple 160x's I've opened had output transformers...

[poomka]

My 160Xs don't have transformers, but they explain in the operating manual that you could install a Jensen transformer inside for the output, that's why I thought the 160 XT got a transformer naturally and you could install a transformer as an option in the 160X, Tony did you buy your 160X used ? Maybe the precedent owner installed the optional transformer...

Anyway 160X is nice, I never tried the 160XT

[Ijustmake-Beats]

My understanding is that both the 160 X and 106 XT have been discontinued, right?

I noticed thought that DBX have released the 160A as a follow-up...

http://www.dbxpro.com/160A.htm

Does anyone know anything about the 160A? You don't hear many people talk about the 160A, is it the same thing as the X and XT? As good?

[Scinx]

Per Tom Cram, [who work(ed/s) at DBX] and a couple others who know hardware, the 160A and 160X/T is the same thing - but of course, to most, it doesnt sound the same. I think this might be due to older units having less precise calibration, etc.

As he puts it in another thread "The differences are quite minimal. They use the same input circuit and same VCA . The 160a was redesigned from the 160x/xt to allow for auto insertion manufacture. Even though it is the same exact circuit, the law requires a new revision name. In fact excluding older "tin can" VCA's, this is why there are so many different 160 family members." The difference is that "the XT was a hand stuffed PCB and the 160a is machine stuffed surface mount"

Now, as far as the difference between the X and the XT - per Jim Williams "The older 160 X has a lf351 opamp with a couple of really slow output transistors which give the X a cloudy sound. The XT has the identical circuit for the unbalanced output. The XT's balanced output uses a couple of 5534 opamps without the slow transistors. This is the sonic difference between the two. Many folks have commented on the sonic difference on these outputs. With the XT you have options: a cleaner, faster output or a "vintage" cloudy unbalanced output."

Of course there are also the obvious differences apparent by looking at them that the XTs (as mentioned above) have the 1/4" and XLR connections vs. the X's barrier strip and 1/4".

As for the transformer option - Tom says that the 160X has that option and that the VU, XT and A do not. There was a posting however that someone (I believe it was "no ssl yet") had an XT manual which said he had the transformer option. Tom said there may have been a revision on the XT that he was not aware of or the manual could be erroneous.

[absrec]

Originally Posted by Ijustmake-Beats

My understanding is that both the 160 X and 106 XT have been discontinued, right?

I noticed thought that DBX have released the 160A as a follow-up...

http://www.dbxpro.com/160A.htm

Does anyone know anything about the 160A? You don't hear many people talk about the 160A, is it the same thing as the X and XT? As good?

I've used the A a little bit at other studios. They all kinda sound the same to me. I did see a thread on here (I think it was here...) a long time ago where a rep from dbx actually was answering questions about it. He said that he had heard people say the A models sounded different from the X and XT. He admitted that there were a couple slight component differences but nothing that should make a huge difference in sound. I personally think everything changes sound. The only one that sounds remarkably different to me is the original 160(VU). I wouldn't hesitate to buy a pair of any of them. The upside to buying an X model is that for some reason that's the one the big "SSL" rooms have and the most you'll pay for them is right around $225. I paid about $100 a piece for both of mine.

[XHipHop]

I have three DBX 160X's, 1 DBX 160XT, and 1 DBX 160A.

The A feels more "plasticy" and uses cheaper parts on the front. I think it's all machine assembled too on the inside...

I've never compared them to each other though as far as sounds go...I just use the X's first, the XT next, and the A last in order of importance.

[XHipHop]

As far as the A being "cheaper", you can see it in that picture above. It has those really cheap plastic buttons for example.

[rickrock305]

i just got a 160A, and yes, it does have a "cheap" feel. But the one i got came from Doug Grama from D & D Studios, so the only reason i bought it was because of that. Had to own a little piece of D & D history!!!

[Ijustmake-Beats]

The cheap feel you guys are referring to though is purely with regard to the knobs though right? Long as we're not looking at any significant compromises in sound quality.

Don't suppose anyone has a short mp3 featuring 160 compression to post-up?

[halfguard]

last question. will the x and xt work equally as well on vocals. i know the inputs and outputs are a little different. this would be my first hardware compressor, so i wann amake sure. thanx for all the help.

[cram]

Originally Posted by Curve Dominant

Tom Cram could clear up this transformer issue with the quickness.

You still around Tom??

I'm still here, Scinx nailed it.

[bradb]

I have 2 dbx 160XTs, one older, one newer. They both have a space on the pcb to mount a transformer. There is no transformer in either of mine. The Jensen transformer you can add is model JT-DBX-123. go to www.jensen-transformers.com

[poomka]

Does anyone installed a transformer in his 160X, and could tell if it worth it ?