The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
dbx 160 used on most 80s hard&heavy songs for guitar?
Old 17th September 2018
  #61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
When you say thin in the bass, do you mean you lose some? The frequency is not balanced and this replacement makes it flatter?

If so, why didn't DBX choose the 3.3 value to begin with?
Tape was why. Most pro productions were at 30 IPS and that has nothing below 30 hz. Digital allows for a full range low end. The resultant phase shift is also not very good in the 160VU and 165.

Mouser sells the 3.3 uf 63V 10 mm mylar cap, buy one and add it to the rear of the 1 uf. That will give you 4.3 uf total and decent low end.
Old 18th September 2018
  #62
Lives for gear
 
127Riot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OceanMan View Post
I engineer a fair amount of heavy music and pretty much always compress distorted guitar about 2-3db. Optical compression like my Tube-Tube CL1b, 1176's Distressors in the "tape emulation" mode, CLA-3A, Kramer Pye, SSL Channel plug...they all add a certain thing, useful for different situations.

Yes, the source is compressed already because of the nature of distortion. "Musical" compression as we use it in the role of engineer or producer is entirely different. Distortion is not compression that helps place it dynamically in the context of the song, or tightens up a performance. So I usually find even heavy guitars can benefit from some dynamic molding so to speak. CLA, TLA, Joe Barressi all compress here. Another thing you can try is creating a duplicate in parallel that is being distorted by a preamp. I picked this up from Joe Barressi - he calls in an "Enforcer" track. Dude has created some of the meanest guitar tones in music. So there are no rules...compress or dont compress, whatever. Try it out, use your ears
I agree with your post. It can help mold/gel the overdriven guitars into a mix. Ears are most important!
Old 18th September 2018
  #63
Lives for gear
 
127Riot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Tape was why. Most pro productions were at 30 IPS and that has nothing below 30 hz. Digital allows for a full range low end. The resultant phase shift is also not very good in the 160VU and 165.

Mouser sells the 3.3 uf 63V 10 mm mylar cap, buy one and add it to the rear of the 1 uf. That will give you 4.3 uf total and decent low end.
Thanks for the info, I might try this.
Old 18th September 2018
  #64
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Tape was why. Most pro productions were at 30 IPS and that has nothing below 30 hz. Digital allows for a full range low end.
So they were designed to filter out audio below 30 hz?
Old 18th September 2018
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So they were designed to filter out audio below 30 hz?
Low end below that wasn't designed in because no one at that time needed it.
Old 19th September 2018
  #66
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Low end below that wasn't designed in because no one at that time needed it.
What do you mean designed in? Pro gear, even from that era was built to be as flat as possible, no?

If a different value in that capacitor makes the circuit flatter, why wouldn't it have been designed using that value?
Old 19th September 2018
  #67
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
What do you mean designed in? Pro gear, even from that era was built to be as flat as possible, no?

If a different value in that capacitor makes the circuit flatter, why wouldn't it have been designed using that value?
I assume he's referring to consumer playback devices.
Old 19th September 2018
  #68
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I assume he's referring to consumer playback devices.
We're talking about the DBX 160 and 165.
Old 19th September 2018
  #69
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
We're talking about the DBX 160 and 165.
I believe his mention of not having the need to have the bass go all the down to the theoretical bottom was because the consumer playback system that music was delivered to the public (i.e. LPs, played on consumer turntables through speakers and receivers of the time).
Old 19th September 2018
  #70
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

DBX 165 was made in early 90's.

Spec sheet shows +0, -1 db from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.

dbx Model 165 Instruction Manual
Old 19th September 2018
  #71
-1 db at 20 hz means - 2 db at 10 hz. It also adds around 40~60 degrees of phase shift at 20 hz. Roll off at 2 hz and the phase shift will reside below 20 hz. For kick drum and 5 string bass you will hear that. The 3.3 uf mylar cap costs under a buck and it will correct that. For analog tape don't bother, the tape machine will wash out those gains. For digital, you will hear that difference.
Old 20th September 2018
  #72
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
-1 db at 20 hz means - 2 db at 10 hz. It also adds around 40~60 degrees of phase shift at 20 hz. Roll off at 2 hz and the phase shift will reside below 20 hz. For kick drum and 5 string bass you will hear that. The 3.3 uf mylar cap costs under a buck and it will correct that. For analog tape don't bother, the tape machine will wash out those gains. For digital, you will hear that difference.
You are hearing 20Hz frequencies? On what?
Old 20th September 2018
  #73
Kick drum. I like to record the wind blast. Through a full range system that wind blast is reproduced and hits you like the real thing does. Plus I record some folks with extended range instruments. Garry Goodman's 12 string bass is an example. The low C is 16 hz like on a very large pipe organ.
Garry Goodman
Old 20th September 2018
  #74
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Kick drum. I like to record the wind blast. Through a full range system that wind blast is reproduced and hits you like the real thing does.
Even acoustic guitar. The fundamental of the lowest note isn't all that low, but smack the top of a dread with the side of your thumb? That's got content that's surprisingly low.
Old 21st September 2018
  #75
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

A sound system putting out content at 20 Hz is pretty rare, as you know.
Old 21st September 2018
  #76
Used to be. Not any more. My earbuds do 10 hz easily and were not expensive.
Old 21st September 2018
  #77
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Used to be. Not any more. My earbuds do 10 hz easily and were not expensive.
Also, "not ruler flat" in the low end doesn't mean "absent." I've got a pair of small home-made-with-science nearfields with single 4" full-range drivers that are only flat, in theory, down to 110. But play "In Your Eyes" on them and that big, soft parade drum is definitely there. And that thing goes loooooow.
Old 22nd September 2018
  #78
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

As Mr. Williams pointed out earlier, these caps do more than just effect the "cut-off point" at the low-end of the spectrum:

They also introduce phase shift at frequencies ABOVE the "cut-off point".

...To me, this is often more of a problem than any actual lack of low-end content.
.
Old 22nd September 2018
  #79
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by recordT View Post
Im a guitar player, Id like to know if its true that the dbx160 was most used for electric guitar tracks in the 80s for hard&heavy songs.
Im referring to Whitesnake, Iron Maiden, Dokken etc etc

Thanks a lot for any help on this

The dbx stuff (which I owned 160s, 161s, 162s that I bought new in the 1970s) was...... and I like to reiterate this...... compressor stuff that many of us on the planet bought new because we couldn't afford a pile of other brands/models. I had seven or 8 dbx compressor limiters...... at a then-street-price of about $300 each. Compared to the other brands/models that started at way north of $1500 (at the time.... way north of $10k now I guess).

Dbx was the alesis or behringer of it's moment.

Oh yes it was

I do not personally remember anyone anywhere jumping en masse onto a dbx bandwagon in the 80s.... or 70s. (well, except for their nr products which were the main biz).

Major studios tended.... imo ... to eventually have a few around because they were so dirt cheap compared to the still-valid 1950s-1960s compressors that were still in prominent service (and no.... everyone didn't throw out their tube stuff when solid state dbx compressors and solid state mics showed up at the door in 1973 or whatever).

But I can't imagine that the hair bands walked into studios and requested dbx stuff to be dialed in.

And as someone else said, the sound of those hair bands wasn't due to a compressor model/brand. In fact, I attribute the majority of that sound of those bands to be due to mastering... not anything magical in the tracking.

And in mastering, dbx didn't exactly cause a storm either.

imo
Old 22nd September 2018
  #80
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Used to be. Not any more. My earbuds do 10 hz easily and were not expensive.
LOL

This conversation has gone into the absurd.
Old 22nd September 2018
  #81
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
Major studios tended.... imo ... to eventually have a few around because they were so dirt cheap compared to the still-valid 1950s-1960s compressors that were still in prominent service (and no.... everyone didn't throw out their tube stuff when solid state dbx compressors and solid state mics showed up at the door in 1973 or whatever).
I was either a second or a first in four different rooms that had 160VU's and they were always the compressor of last resort. For everyone.
Old 22nd September 2018
  #82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
LOL

This conversation has gone into the absurd.
Tell that to the dance mix guys mixing heavy low end for large clubs. Feed that crowd enough 2 hz and most of them will end up in the restroom.
Old 22nd September 2018
  #83
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Tell that to the dance mix guys mixing heavy low end for large clubs. Feed that crowd enough 2 hz and most of them will end up in the restroom.
Having what to do with the notion that earbuds are moving air at 10 Hz?

Last edited by Sounds Great; 23rd September 2018 at 04:20 AM..
Old 22nd September 2018
  #84
Lives for gear
 
s.d.finley's Avatar
I have owned all variants of the dbx 160 line, VU, X, XT and A. I did enjoy the dirtiness of the 160X. At our studio now we have 2 165As and 3 160VU. I really enjoy the VU on snare. 165 is no slouch on snare either! Normally when I compress GTRs I prefer a transformer based compressor on them. Using Purple Actions for GTR bus adds some nice depth.
Old 23rd September 2018
  #85
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
... In fact, I attribute the majority of that sound of those bands to be due to mastering... not anything magical in the tracking.

And in mastering, dbx didn't exactly cause a storm either.

imo
thanks for your help, may I ask you to elaborate this quote a little further? Im a guitar player and Id like to get an idea of what shaped those guitar sounds from the speakers to the final record release.

What is puzzling me is that in those records you hear huge treble detail but its not s***** at all, it seems like "distant" but at the same time direct in your ear... I considered the mixing of near and distant mics tracks the "secret" recipe but everytime Ive tried that it did not sound anything near, got good results but not quite like those.
So i leaned towards all the other gear that could be in, I got to try (briefly I have to admit) some high end compressing stuff and to my ears the dbx (didnt know it was the behringer of the time) was the closest to the 80s hard&heavy tone... so I got the idea to ask here about this.. Im still wrong but I need a clue ;-)

Thanks everyone again for chiming in I greatly appreciate
Old 23rd September 2018
  #86
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Having what to do with the notion that earbuds are moving air at 10 Hz?
I do not pretend to speak for Mr. Williams, but I think the subject matter he was addressing was the statement at Post #75:
"A sound system putting out content at 20 Hz is pretty rare, as you know."
...He then gave two examples of the inaccuracy of that statement (at Posts #76 and #82).
.
Old 23rd September 2018
  #87
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12ax7 View Post
I do not pretend to speak for Mr. Williams, but I think the subject matter he was addressing was the statement at Post #75:
"A sound system putting out content at 20 Hz is pretty rare, as you know."
...He then gave two examples of the inaccuracy of that statement (at Posts #76 and #82).
.
So plug in your earbuds, use this sound generator and report back as to what you hear/feel from them.


Speaker Frequency vs Audio Frequency

Last edited by Sounds Great; 24th September 2018 at 12:24 AM..
Old 23rd September 2018
  #88
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Old 24th September 2018
  #89
Lives for gear
 
12ax7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So plug in your earbuds, use this sound generator and report back as to what you hear/feel from them.


Speaker Frequency vs Audio Frequency
1) I do NOT own ANY "earbuds".

2) I sometimes work in a joint with speakers that go down that far (and yes, I can hear/feel it).

3) I DO own a 160VU.

4) I intend to change the cap as per Jim's suggestion and see what's what with it.

5) I have no desire to get into a pizzing contest about this.

6) I strongly suggest that you do whatever the hell you want to do with your own damn 160VU.
.
Old 24th September 2018
  #90
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

I was responding to Jim's posts and asking him questions. Not sure why you felt you had to step into it.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump