DBX Gurus - 165, 160, 162, 161, 160x, etc., etc

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by drBill

DBX users & (ab)users - I did a search and got some info, but I couldn't quite find what I was looking for.

I've used DBX compressors w/ VU's (160, 165, etc.) and of course the 160a/x with LED's every once in a while for years in other studios, but never paid a lot of attention to them. ??? Too busy working I guess. I was thinking about picking up some for drum tracking.

The problem is, I really don't know what the differences are and which are more desireable for tracking drums. DBX's model #'s seem pretty confusing to me and I'm having a hard time figuring out what is what. My rememberance is that the VU models had more personality to them. I want to add some meat and some punch and color the sound a little. Can anyone here give a little DBX history lesson for me!!!

Thanks for any comments you DBX lovers might have. thumbsup thumbsup Cheers,

Bill

For tracking drums i would say none of them.


For mixing drums its a different story.

[gainreduction]

I track drums without or with very little compression, room mics beeing the exception.

The 160 VU's are great for adding some balls on snare mults.

Also great for tightening up the bottom snare mic.

That's what I use mine for.

[djui5]

Only one's I'd even track with would be 160VU's on room.

The 160A/X's are nice for kick/snare on the mix end...

I've never used a 165, and the other's I could live without.

[absrec]

I agree partly with all of the above. I wouldn't say that you shouldn't track with compression, but dBX compression is agressive as a muther! You can ruin your tracks quite easily with a 160. If you are looking for compression to track with, I would look into the Empirical labs Distressor. Extremely versitale and easy to use, plus it's hard to dial in a bad sound! They are great for rooms as well. Matter of fact, there's nothing they don't sound good on. I've recently fallen in love all over again with the 10:1 opto mode on vocals.

I have a pair of VU meter 160s and a pair of 160X. I love them on bass and kick.

Originally Posted by gainreduction

The 160 VU's are great for adding some balls on snare mults.

I'll have to try that.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

The 160 VU's are great for adding some balls on snare mults.

And 165's(not the 165a) are it for drum loops.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by absrec

... but dBX compression is agressive as a muther! You can ruin your tracks quite easily with a 160.

That really only applies to the 160VU, and it's because of the hard knee and the terrible metering. With the GR needle just barely twitching, you're already hammering your signal.

[drBill]

Cool. Thanks for the input guys. What I'm really looking for is a bit of a history lesson on the differences between the models. I'll let my ears make the decisions about when to use the compression or when not to. Now that I don't have to worry so much about overloading "tape" I generally track my drums with little to no compression and as little EQ as possible. Still, I'd like to know more about the DBX sound and what differentiates the models from one another.

[dementedchord]

in as much as he's asked specifically for tracking.... why not recommend the 1046...
if i remember you dont get gates or side chain but for $1K you could get 8 channels...

[gainreduction]

The 161 is basically a 160 with unbalanced, -10dB I/O.

The 160 is x-former balanced, +4dB I/O.

BTW, there is no 160VU, the one with VU meters is simply the 160.

The 162 is basically a stereo 160.

There are some other small differences, it's been discussed in another thread.

I'm not very familiar with the different 165's. Thrill ?

And then there are the newer blue 160's but I guess we're not talking about them now. They're something completely different.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

The 161 is basically a 160 with unbalanced, -10dB I/O.

And because of it, it doesn't sound exactly like a 160.

Originally Posted by gainreduction

The 160 is x-former balanced, +4dB I/O.

BTW, there is no 160VU, the one with VU meters is simply the 160.

Still the best of the bunch.

Originally Posted by gainreduction

The 162 is basically a stereo 160.

And doesn't sound like a 160.

Originally Posted by gainreduction

I'm not very familiar with the different 165's. Thrill ?

Main difference between the 165 and 165a is the addition of the peak stop limiter.

It supports the addage less is more.

Originally Posted by gainreduction

And then there are the newer blue 160's but I guess we're not talking about them now. They're something completely different.

Yes a different soumd all together.

[guitarsandsynths]

Originally Posted by gainreduction

The 160 is x-former balanced, +4dB I/O.

That's not true. It's electronically balanced. According to Jim Willians.

[sat159p1]

Will DBX 162 be good as an stereo mastering comp? (in this price range?)

[mjrippe]

Originally Posted by sat159p1

Will DBX 162 be good as an stereo mastering comp? (in this price range?)

In short, no. The 162 is to the 160 sort of what an 1178 is to an 1176 - meaning it is not as good as one 160, let alone two. For some reason these stereo boxes don't have the same magic (for lack of a better term) as their mono counterparts. Even if it did, I don't think the 162 would be good for general mastering duties. Too aggressive, not transparent, not very adjustable.

[old ghost]

I use 160x's for tracking, but essentially only as a peak limiter. It can yield some cool sounds on kick and snare, but I wouldn't risk being stuck with something heavily compressed through those, even if I liked what I was hearing at the time.

Know my limits enough to know that my early opinions change a lot when all the other elements are in place during mixing.

[machineintel]

Has anyone had any success with dbx comps outside of drum & bass sources?

[sat159p1]

Originally Posted by mjrippe

In short, no. The 162 is to the 160 sort of what an 1178 is to an 1176 - meaning it is not as good as one 160, let alone two. For some reason these stereo boxes don't have the same magic (for lack of a better term) as their mono counterparts. Even if it did, I don't think the 162 would be good for general mastering duties. Too aggressive, not transparent, not very adjustable.

Thanks. That cleaned my thoughts a bit.
Is there any "vintage" compressor that can be used for mastering (or just let's say, compressing stereo mixes) and its price doesn't exceed $3000?

[leaper]

Originally Posted by machineintel

Has anyone had any success with dbx comps outside of drum & bass sources?

Yes.. 160 and 161(VU) on vocal mixdown, usually if the singer is a screamer and then quite often coupled with some other comp (vari mu type or opto).
Many times on distorted guitars and on acoustic rhythm when you want the sound to bounce around.
Tonally these comps roll off a bit of presence and low end when you use them, so this can dictate when you want to use them for color artifacts rather than compression.
And I'm afraid I'm going to contradict mjrippe... sorry!
I've mastered a lot of records with 162 (VU) in the chain. Especially hiphop and more aggressive rock and dance stuff. Used judicially, it can add a certain weight and color to proceedings that can prove beneficial.
Must add that I've always complimented it with another comp because we are talking about barely tickling the threshold light, let alone the GR meter.
IMO it is precisely because it sounds cleaner than a 160 or 161 (which, in my experience is actually the dirtiest of the lot) that makes it more suitable for mastering.
Different strokes....

[666666]

I will never sell my 165As, they have the most control of the lot and achieve a sound that cannot be gotten by any other compressor. But they're big of course, 2U for one channel, sucks if you don't have a lot of space, for years I tried to find smaller "clone" type compressors to replace them but could never find anything else that could come close to achieving the sound / character these things put out.

Great painting tool. These have a color that can be really great on certain things or terrible on other things. Again, I've tried to force myself to sell these quite a few times over the years but I just can't seem to do it. They seem to be a very important part of the arsenal.

I've considered getting some 160VUs instead but I like the extra control of the 165As, I do use all the attack and release controls and would not want to be without them. The auto attack / release setting on the 165A is good too. The peak stop limiter (on the "A" version only)... never seem to have much success with this, it's not very forgiving, and thus I don't use it. You may be able to save a few bucks by just getting a 165 (non-A version), but then again there are probably some nuts out there that will tell you that the older 165 is "better" than the 165A (because it's older )... I've heard both the A and non-A, several of each, they're all essentially identical.

[KRStudio]

I love clean electric guitars through a 160/161.

[vernier]

I like the one-knob-squeezer and not the others.

[extendedplay]

As far as drum tracking goes, I'm with Thrill, I wouldn't choose the dbx's for that duty. Mixing on the other hand…
I like the 160 or 162 for tracking acoustic guitars with the meter showing about 1 to 2 db of deflection on peaks, and depending on the song I'll use the 165 on bass trying to keep it averaging 1-2 db of gain reduction through out. For a while I used the 160x into a Summit TLA-100 as a vocal chain, but that was a few decades ago.
I remember working with another engineer on a project and he had 160x's on the kick and snare and was getting 10-20 db of GR minimum, and it was that 90's urban/dance sound. Of course it was MPC drum tracks, you couldn't do that with live drums because of the leakage. But still a fun sound.

Steve

[decocco]

I've always liked dbx 160's on drums, mostly toms. Sometimes kick and snare.

Other models of dbx compressors work just fine, but don't sound as groovy on drums as the 160's. 160a/x/xt is totally decent for numerous tasks, but again I'd rather have a 160 for drums. I've never been happy with a 163x on drums but I LOVE it on many electric basses.

I've used 160's for lots of other stuff too, with success. I like them the most out of all the dbx's.

[thenoiseflower]

160VU and 165

that's all we need.


160 for tracking(posteq ) kick, mixing kick. mixing snare, lame tom toms, bass guitar, other shit.

165 for tracking bass after 1176, mixing bass, female vocals (post fader rides), and Loops or stuff that wants too much lowend.

some people love the old newton 160a 's but those are completely different sounding.

[mjrippe]

Originally Posted by leaper

And I'm afraid I'm going to contradict mjrippe... sorry!
I've mastered a lot of records with 162 (VU) in the chain. Especially hiphop and more aggressive rock and dance stuff. Used judicially, it can add a certain weight and color to proceedings that can prove beneficial.
Must add that I've always complimented it with another comp because we are talking about barely tickling the threshold light, let alone the GR meter.
IMO it is precisely because it sounds cleaner than a 160 or 161 (which, in my experience is actually the dirtiest of the lot) that makes it more suitable for mastering.
Different strokes....

No need to apologize. I meant I would not have the 162 as my only comp/limiter in a mastering situation. I am sure there are sources that it would work well on.

As for the 165 vs 165A debate, I have seen a few 165A where the peak limit part of the circuit has had problems while the rest of the unit works fine. This can cause distortion or complete loss of signal even with the peak limit off. Since we never used that feature anyhow, we got a 165.

[Marcocet]

I don't really understand the purpose of a distinction between something that's good for tracking or mixing. I try to track with as close to a finished mix as possible.

I use 160A's all the time while tracking and mixing for places where I don't need something too aggressive, particularly on kick or bass guitar. I rarely really crank em hard, and most of the time they're in series with something else.

Original 160s (with the VU) are suppose to be fantastic, but I've never owned one or been particularly impressed when I worked on one somewhere else. I'd love to have some around for a while and get a feel for them.

I had a 165a for a long time on loan and it was fantastic, but I think my favorite thing about it was probably that peak limiter. Even without the limiter in play it's a pretty damn aggressive sound, it always seemed to make the upper mids hard as a rock. Never used a 165 (non a)

Oh, and I worked for a year or so at a studio that had a 162. I didn't really know what I was doing way back then but I can remember that I barely ever used the thing. Whatever the hell that's worth.