Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2022 20:16:17 GMT -6
EDIT: OP deleted his post. Dr. Dre and a ton of other rap producers used various dbx 160 for vocals. It's perfectly serviceable provided you have an effective limiter.
160a is more hifi. NE5532 vs old school 70s opamps in the older versions. I forgot which ones but the older ones have more of a sound. Any DBX 160 makes vocals really smack since it expands for about 20ms when crossing threshold and then has a 15 ms attack (way too slow) for the first 10 db of gain reduction before speeding up. Release is 80 ms for 10 db of gr and faster or slower. You can even use the hard knee for hip hop and metal to really make the compression obvious.
The more transparent way to do it is overeasy, dig in a lot, and follow that by smashing down the overshoots with a limiter like an 1176 or whatever you feel like or you can do the other way around with a limiter into the overeasy.
The 160a is discontinued and the 560 is not as cool but is okay. None, NONE, of the dbx plugins are in anyway good or capture the tone or behavior or any version!
|
|
hoot
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by hoot on Aug 14, 2022 20:18:09 GMT -6
Original post:
Hi all!
As many of you might have seen Audioscape is coming out with a 160 VU!! I'm a relatively younger mixer but was always enamored with the various shades of these units having owned a few 160x units and using the UAD VU version as a staple. I'm definitely interested because it seems like my last chance to get one of these units without unloading 3k for vintage.
I know most of the revisions are completely different circuits and not to expect the VU to remind me of the 160x's, but I never really thought of any as being "hi-fi" compressors. I had always seen them preferred for electric guitar, bass, snare drum (things that can take a little attitude).
THEN, Dr. Dre/Eminem's main engineer from way back told me he (still) uses a 160VU as his staple for vocal tracking, despite everyone in LA's CL1B obsession, because "it's so transparent! This is what I used to watch Allen Sides record vocals with when I was coming up at Ocean Way."
I'm lost now... what the hell do these things sound like!?! Are we calling these hi-fi or do these have some grain?! I've never gotten to experience really manipulating the hardware and kinda wonder if I should save up for some Tweakers instead if a flexible VCA is my goal.
Edit: Sorry brother!^ something told me "ehh ill just ask him instead of run to the forum" and must have deleted as you posted hahaha
|
|
hoot
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by hoot on Aug 14, 2022 20:20:03 GMT -6
It occured to me that he might have been saying the "action" of the compression is transparent and perhaps not as much the tone
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,021 
|
Post by ericn on Aug 14, 2022 20:30:33 GMT -6
The single space 160’s as a whole are probably the best value for a utility compressor. Since they were introduced they have been in the racks of mid level and world class studios because they just work. Up until the advent of the digital console they were the standard for live. I remember in about 89 going to see Rat with a friend and at FOH there was a rack about 5 feet tall with nothing but 160’s. They also have what is probably the most intuitive level / gain reduction meters ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Aug 14, 2022 20:33:31 GMT -6
Action of a *real* (as in, VU meter...not the other versions Dan referred to) 160 is anything BUT 'transparent'. Adds a certain and very not-subtle 'pop' to transients on the attack; release is relatively benign. Box tone is pretty neutral. You could probably run thru one with no compression and not know it was there.
The latter models (X, XT, A, etc) are a bit more plastic-y sounding to my ears, but still very transparent in terms of box tone. Gain reduction is similarly obvious, but the front 'pop' on the transient isn't the same. Instead, you get a plastic-y (not in a bad way, per se) transient and some grunge on the release. Not unlike a Distressor. When those X and XT boxes were still like $100 - 150, they were an insanely good value, and a killer way to deck out a studio for kick, snare, and toms compression duties.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Aug 14, 2022 20:44:34 GMT -6
Action of a *real* (as in, VU meter...not the other versions Dan referred to) 160 is anything BUT 'transparent'. Adds a certain and very not-subtle 'pop' to transients on the attack; release is relatively benign. Box tone is pretty neutral. You could probably run thru one with no compression and not know it was there. The latter models (X, XT, A, etc) are a bit more plastic-y sounding to my ears, but still very transparent in terms of box tone. Gain reduction is similarly obvious, but the front 'pop' on the transient isn't the same. Instead, you get a plastic-y (not in a bad way, per se) transient and some grunge on the release. Not unlike a Distressor. When those X and XT boxes were still like $100 - 150, they were an insanely good value, and a killer way to deck out a studio for kick, snare, and toms compression duties. Yes! ^^^^. I call it a "point" on the attack and not a "pop", but we're both calling the same thing. They can be useful. Not my favorite compressor by any means. I wouldn't mind having a pair to put the "point" on kind of wishy washy parts that should have some edge to them, but right now, I use a DynaMite for that purpose, so I'm pretty good. For me, in my world, I would never use a dynamite or 160VU for vocals if I had pretty much anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 14, 2022 21:07:48 GMT -6
My main memory of the VU is treble diminishing with any amount of compression, kinda breathing in and out with changes in gain reduction. Cool effect IF you want it. Garbage if you don’t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2022 21:30:36 GMT -6
Action of a *real* (as in, VU meter...not the other versions Dan referred to) 160 is anything BUT 'transparent'. Adds a certain and very not-subtle 'pop' to transients on the attack; release is relatively benign. Box tone is pretty neutral. You could probably run thru one with no compression and not know it was there. The latter models (X, XT, A, etc) are a bit more plastic-y sounding to my ears, but still very transparent in terms of box tone. Gain reduction is similarly obvious, but the front 'pop' on the transient isn't the same. Instead, you get a plastic-y (not in a bad way, per se) transient and some grunge on the release. Not unlike a Distressor. When those X and XT boxes were still like $100 - 150, they were an insanely good value, and a killer way to deck out a studio for kick, snare, and toms compression duties. The action straight up sucks except as a special effect on drums. The expansion followed by slow attack makes it ridiculously poor as a compressor. Every single Drawmer and Aphex, the MXR 136, the FMR RNC, and most ART compressors are better but were more expensive until the DBX units spiked in price recently. Distressor's problem is the attack curve is more sigmoid than an 1176 on most ratios and the distortion is plastic too. Plastic on plastic. The Arousor has the useful attack modifier and got rid of the nasty upper harmonics for better box tone but the action is standard crappy dysfunctional digital compressor. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 14, 2022 22:03:28 GMT -6
Action of a *real* (as in, VU meter...not the other versions Dan referred to) 160 is anything BUT 'transparent'. Adds a certain and very not-subtle 'pop' to transients on the attack; release is relatively benign. Box tone is pretty neutral. You could probably run thru one with no compression and not know it was there. The latter models (X, XT, A, etc) are a bit more plastic-y sounding to my ears, but still very transparent in terms of box tone. Gain reduction is similarly obvious, but the front 'pop' on the transient isn't the same. Instead, you get a plastic-y (not in a bad way, per se) transient and some grunge on the release. Not unlike a Distressor. When those X and XT boxes were still like $100 - 150, they were an insanely good value, and a killer way to deck out a studio for kick, snare, and toms compression duties. You mention pop. I like the 160 (even and mostly) the plug on bass because I feel like I hear this accentuation of the attack on bass. Not sure if it’s like letting the initial transient through and then kinda clamping with a fast attack. Whatever, I’ve always liked it. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 14, 2022 22:06:16 GMT -6
Oh. I’ve never considered it on vocals…and wouldn’t consider it…but if someone uses it successfully and has fantastic results to show for it - it’s very possible you should listen to them and not me. And I mean that with all seriousness - not being snarky.
|
|
|
|
Post by recordingengineer on Aug 14, 2022 22:31:28 GMT -6
I must admit, an Audioscape version of the 160 sounds awesome. On anything percussive, they can be very cool! However, I must admit, with an SSL console sitting in front of me for many years now for such an application, I don’t think I really need one. First-world problems I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 14, 2022 22:34:34 GMT -6
Confused and confusing in all this are the timing variations. The VU isn’t ‘over easy’ (soft knee) I don’t think, it’s hard knee. It’s RMS timing, supposedly at least one model is non-linear timing (sort of dual timing, faster attack and release, more smashed effecty sounding). The rest have ‘over easy’. The 903 is only ‘over easy’. None are meant to be peak limiters. The idea with RMS over easy is general level control and thickening that doesn’t affect peaks much. All the RMS models are slower than an original RS124 and faster than a Stalevel…..2 other things I’d never compress a vocal with!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2022 23:14:09 GMT -6
Confused and confusing in all this are the timing variations. The VU isn’t ‘over easy’ (soft knee) I don’t think, it’s hard knee. It’s RMS timing, supposedly at least one model is non-linear timing (sort of dual timing, faster attack and release, more smashed effecty sounding). The rest have ‘over easy’. The 903 is only ‘over easy’. None are meant to be peak limiters. The idea with RMS over easy is general level control and thickening that doesn’t affect peaks much. All the RMS models are slower than an original RS124 and faster than a Stalevel…..2 other things I’d never compress a vocal with! I believe the 160 "X" added the overeasy soft knee button but all of the "160" have the program dependent attack and release and all are RMS with logarithmic filters. The release doesn't slow down enough unless you really dig in too hard and the attack is too slow. Whatever limiter you use afterwards on a vocal is doing a lot of work smashing down the overshoots from the 160 and not just the peaks of the vocal so it ends up much more modulated than just a limiter into a leveler. |
|
hoot
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by hoot on Aug 14, 2022 23:27:22 GMT -6
Really glad in hindsight I posted this (although I still outta ask the source). The variety of opinions is incredible from the extremes of "I'd never", to "I could see it," to "a standard choice at Ocean Way."
Again, I knew about the punchy nature of it so "Eminem/Dre" almost made perfect sense. It was when he said "it came from Allen Sides" that I actually got tripped up.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Aug 15, 2022 3:27:37 GMT -6
They remind me of Drawmer gear, really great staples in an old school PA rack. Nothing fancy, just get the job done.
Odd one for Audioscape to cover, other than jumping on the fashion parade as stated …. “Dr Dre” uses one rhubarb rhurbarb ….
Not my cup of tea even remotely for a studio vocal but hey if it works for someone then it works.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Aug 15, 2022 3:37:26 GMT -6
All the RMS models are slower than an original RS124 and faster than a Stalevel…..2 other things I’d never compress a vocal with! See, my vocals sound truly fantastic compressed with a STA Level, so all these observations are not only subjective but also entirely source contextual. This is the exact reason I got into recording and producing myself, I get to fail using my own taste not someone else’s  |
|
|
|
Post by yewtreemagic on Aug 15, 2022 7:15:33 GMT -6
You mention pop. I like the 160 (even and mostly) the plug on bass because I feel like I hear this accentuation of the attack on bass. Not sure if it’s like letting the initial transient through and then kinda clamping with a fast attack. Whatever, I’ve always liked it. Same here - the 160 is my favourite for bass guitar as it really 'enhances' the attack while smoothing out the remainder of the envelope. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Aug 15, 2022 9:16:40 GMT -6
Action of a *real* (as in, VU meter...not the other versions Dan referred to) 160 is anything BUT 'transparent'. Adds a certain and very not-subtle 'pop' to transients on the attack; release is relatively benign. Box tone is pretty neutral. You could probably run thru one with no compression and not know it was there. The latter models (X, XT, A, etc) are a bit more plastic-y sounding to my ears, but still very transparent in terms of box tone. Gain reduction is similarly obvious, but the front 'pop' on the transient isn't the same. Instead, you get a plastic-y (not in a bad way, per se) transient and some grunge on the release. Not unlike a Distressor. When those X and XT boxes were still like $100 - 150, they were an insanely good value, and a killer way to deck out a studio for kick, snare, and toms compression duties. You mention pop. I like the 160 (even and mostly) the plug on bass because I feel like I hear this accentuation of the attack on bass. Not sure if it’s like letting the initial transient through and then kinda clamping with a fast attack. Whatever, I’ve always liked it. Yeah, it adds a kinda 'smack' or 'point' or 'insert meaningless word here' to the attack/transient of a sound. RMS detectors always kinda do this to my ears to varying extents (eg - the SSL 9k channel comp). I like it too. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Aug 15, 2022 9:18:19 GMT -6
Confused and confusing in all this are the timing variations. The VU isn’t ‘over easy’ (soft knee) I don’t think, it’s hard knee. It’s RMS timing, supposedly at least one model is non-linear timing (sort of dual timing, faster attack and release, more smashed effecty sounding). The rest have ‘over easy’. The 903 is only ‘over easy’. None are meant to be peak limiters. The idea with RMS over easy is general level control and thickening that doesn’t affect peaks much. All the RMS models are slower than an original RS124 and faster than a Stalevel…..2 other things I’d never compress a vocal with! "Over easy" (ie - soft knee) first appeared in the 165. Which is another great dbx classic, IMO. But much different in its action than the 160 |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Aug 15, 2022 9:33:09 GMT -6
Action of a *real* (as in, VU meter...not the other versions Dan referred to) 160 is anything BUT 'transparent'. Adds a certain and very not-subtle 'pop' to transients on the attack; release is relatively benign. Box tone is pretty neutral. You could probably run thru one with no compression and not know it was there. The latter models (X, XT, A, etc) are a bit more plastic-y sounding to my ears, but still very transparent in terms of box tone. Gain reduction is similarly obvious, but the front 'pop' on the transient isn't the same. Instead, you get a plastic-y (not in a bad way, per se) transient and some grunge on the release. Not unlike a Distressor. When those X and XT boxes were still like $100 - 150, they were an insanely good value, and a killer way to deck out a studio for kick, snare, and toms compression duties. You mention pop. I like the 160 (even and mostly) the plug on bass because I feel like I hear this accentuation of the attack on bass. Not sure if it’s like letting the initial transient through and then kinda clamping with a fast attack. Whatever, I’ve always liked it. Same here - the 160 is my favourite for bass guitar as it really 'enhances' the attack while smoothing out the remainder of the envelope. Yeah, even the lesser DBX models kind of do that on bass. At the first room I ran, there was a DBX166 and I used it on bass A LOT for that very reason. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 15, 2022 11:12:15 GMT -6
Suppose I should add, outside of using a 162 a good bit and a 160VU occasionally, all my other dbx usage has been in over easy mode, same with descendents/refinements like the FCS stuff which is only soft knee.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,021
|
Post by ericn on Aug 15, 2022 11:16:28 GMT -6
Oh. I’ve never considered it on vocals…and wouldn’t consider it…but if someone uses it successfully and has fantastic results to show for it - it’s very possible you should listen to them and not me. And I mean that with all seriousness - not being snarky. Yeah it’s not a Sta- level or 175, in most cases if you have one of those your not going to grab a 160 for vocals unless it is the sound your looking for, but if you just need something for vocal control/ House keeping it will do the job. |
|
|
|
Post by ab101 on Aug 15, 2022 11:16:41 GMT -6
Aphex 651 has that nice pop. I now use the Elysia Envelope for this. And the plugin version of the Elysia is very good too!
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Aug 15, 2022 11:39:03 GMT -6
www.mixonline.com/technology/birth-of-a-classic-the-dbx-160-compressorQuote from Jim Williams that may or may not be accurate: I don’t recall offhand about the 903, but it may be the nonlinear timing also. Nonlinear grabs faster with a fast initial release that evolves into a slower release, combines well with over easy. Conceptually chasing the same sort of thing the Aphex stuff does, their approach differed. Very different from the single cap RMS timing which allows a good bit of overshoot with a longer release time, the release time chosen for lowest frequency of interest as related to distortion byproducts, by nature has to be capable of passing full bandwidth program material. You can choose smaller/faster timing caps when there’s no low freq, in DIY-land. Or if low freq distortion is acceptable.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,021
|
Post by ericn on Aug 15, 2022 11:54:45 GMT -6
www.mixonline.com/technology/birth-of-a-classic-the-dbx-160-compressorQuote from Jim Williams that may or may not be accurate: I don’t recall offhand about the 903, but it may be the nonlinear timing also. Nonlinear grabs faster with a fast initial release that evolves into a slower release, combines well with over easy. Conceptually chasing the same sort of thing the Aphex stuff does, their approach differed. Very different from the single cap RMS timing which allows a good bit of overshoot with a longer release time, the release time chosen for lowest frequency of interest as related to distortion byproducts, by nature has to be capable of passing full bandwidth program material. You can choose smaller/faster timing caps when there’s no low freq, in DIY-land. Or if low freq distortion is acceptable. I think your right the 903 was based on the first single space. |
|
