ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,011
|
Post by ericn on Jul 7, 2015 10:26:53 GMT -6
What Jim has always done he takes it from cleanish to clean, adds headroom! The VCAs in the VUs acted different and gave you some mojo, the later versions were just affordable simple great compressors!
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Jul 7, 2015 11:39:06 GMT -6
I've got a pair on the U.P.S. delivery truck. Should get them this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 7, 2015 12:12:51 GMT -6
I have a pair of JW modded DBX 166's, u can get 2 channels used for the same $199, they are limited in their control(same as 560a), but spectacularly good in their sweet spot, Jim pumps up the psu, changes and stabilizes some pinched off sounding op amps, changes the old vca's to THAT2180A's, and then i changed out the rest of the E caps everywhere else, including the side chain. They kickass at low threshold/light ratio, mass inducing medicine ball creation, not very good for creating movement(no attack and release controls 8(
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 7, 2015 12:25:09 GMT -6
The grimy sort of sound is what makes the early DBX160 devices (A and X included) classics. They add lower harmonics to the tracks from their non-linear operations, which is part of that low end bump they give, and why they work wonders on bass and snare. Improved decoupling and such would clean that up, but that's part of the charm of the device, much like distortion is the charm of tubes and transformers, and I wouldn't change a thing on the 160 series products.
DBX 166 doesn't share more than the "DBX16" portion of the name with the 160 series. Apples and oranges in design aspects.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 7, 2015 12:31:25 GMT -6
The grimy sort of sound is what makes the early DBX160 devices (A and X included) classics. They add lower harmonics to the tracks from their non-linear operations, which is part of that low end bump they give, and why they work wonders on bass and snare. Improved decoupling and such would clean that up, but that's part of the charm of the device, much like distortion is the charm of tubes and transformers, and I wouldn't change a thing on the 160 series products. DBX 166 doesn't share more than the "DBX16" portion of the name with the 160 series. Apples and oranges in design aspects. agreed, is this 500 series true to the original? Anyone got a pic of the guts on that thing?
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 7, 2015 12:52:08 GMT -6
The grimy sort of sound is what makes the early DBX160 devices (A and X included) classics. They add lower harmonics to the tracks from their non-linear operations, which is part of that low end bump they give, and why they work wonders on bass and snare. Improved decoupling and such would clean that up, but that's part of the charm of the device, much like distortion is the charm of tubes and transformers, and I wouldn't change a thing on the 160 series products. DBX 166 doesn't share more than the "DBX16" portion of the name with the 160 series. Apples and oranges in design aspects. agreed, is this 500 series true to the original? Haven't found a schematic but I've read on a few forums that the 560A is a direct copy of the 160A. The 160VU used a discrete detector/VCA/amp, while the 160X went to chips, and was refined a bit more by the 160A. Some folks say the A version isn't as cool, but the X, XT and A are probably within 10% sound of each other from my own messing with them.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 7, 2015 13:44:50 GMT -6
I'd like to see the guts on one of these.... anyone got a pic?
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 7, 2015 13:52:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jul 7, 2015 14:54:58 GMT -6
Damn Martin John Butler - I thought I was crazy for liking the Logic X soft comps so much. Since I've switched from PT to Logic I haven't even thought about buying a plugin and don't want to. The 160 is my fav as well although I haven't tried it on vocals yet.... As far as the HW 160A, I love it for tracking bass and also on snare at mix down. Just a tremendous value. The 500 series is a steal if they sound like the rack versions. tonycamphd - I had a Revive Audio fully modded 166 as well. I wonder what the difference between theirs and JW's is? Mine had the Burr Brown and PSU mods and I also had them do their VCA mod. It actually sounded good on bus material. Never closed or collapsed the audio but actually opened it up a bit. Maybe I should pick that up again, they're really inexpensive.....
|
|
|
Post by baquin on Jul 7, 2015 16:31:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 7, 2015 16:37:30 GMT -6
Maybe Jim will chime in. I'm curious if the new 560A could be improved, or would it just become different.
Great shots baquin !
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Jul 7, 2015 16:45:09 GMT -6
Took a break from tiling the studio bathroom and opened one up. All SMT. Looks like Baquin beat me to it with the pix. Thanks Full metal case and a DBX V2B VCA. Lots of LEDs, input, output, gain reduction and I don't have to built it.
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jul 7, 2015 16:48:27 GMT -6
Took a break from tiling the studio bathroom and opened one up. All SMT. Looks like Baquin beat me to it with the pix. Thanks Full metal case and a DBX V2B VCA. Lots of LEDs, input, output, gain reduction and I don't have to built it. For the idiots - what's SMT? Is this a good or bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 7, 2015 16:51:06 GMT -6
Surface Mount Technology...
as to whether its good or bad, well there are arguments on both sides of the fence.
I won't get into that.
In some ways, .. I said "Some" ways, you can consider SMT to be more "consumable" than thru hole.
It requires different equipment to de solder and re solder for things like recapping.
The reason SMT exists, is space constraints and cost.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 7, 2015 18:47:49 GMT -6
Sounds great like it is to me.... Very clean, doesn't impose anything on the signal and it's compression is very transparent. This is one box I'm not sure I'd want to mod actually, it does it's thing, if you start messing around in there with even simple component quality upgrades it may mess up it's "thing"
Can't believe I'd ever say that, but honestly this is one box I'd never mod.
Now, they have an eq that I'm betting will go on sale for the same price as soon as this one goes off, I'd lay some money down on that baby being a perfect candidate to modify. Probably a lot of SMD caps that could be swapped, some opamps that could be swapped etc. When that comes down in price I'll grab a couple and get my iron out.
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jul 7, 2015 18:56:13 GMT -6
Surface Mount Technology... as to whether its good or bad, well there are arguments on both sides of the fence. I won't get into that. In some ways, .. I said "Some" ways, you can consider SMT to be more "consumable" than thru hole. It requires different equipment to de solder and re solder for things like recapping. The reason SMT exists, is space constraints and cost. cheers Wiz Thanks Wiz - One of these days I'll learn about the innards....
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 7, 2015 19:04:28 GMT -6
SMT is OK for simple task's that don't involve the direct signal path, but that's about where they end. SMT allows machines to "stuff" the boards, and then at one time the pre tinned/fluxed board and components are baked on. A lot of higher end companies will do this, but will leave vital components to be done by hand, even the DBX, you can see some film box caps that have been hand soldered and stuffed, probably when the trimmers were installed. I'm ok with SMT's as long as it's for things like removing oscillation on opamps and some decoupling, but that's really as far as I'd design something with it. It can save a ton of time and cost though, and it can also provide a designer with a fully built and ready to go. A lot of the PCB companies offer this, so it can come in very handy. I think Svart did this for his converter.
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jul 7, 2015 19:31:12 GMT -6
Cool - thanks jeromemason. I figured it had something to do with cost as these things all do. I would always judge by how it sounds but more comforting knowing that it'll hold up for a few years.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 7, 2015 19:40:57 GMT -6
that thing can be improved pretty easily, you could put way better caps in it(smd capacitors sound bad... always), and the vca could be swapped for the 2180A, my guess is it would probably be REALLY good at that point if you have a great 500 series PSU. I've heard with my own ears massive improvements in the quality of pieces with side chain electronics upgrades and PSU upgrades that are OUT of the signal path, it matters everywhere, and it all makes a difference in small amounts IME.
|
|
|
Post by winetree on Jul 7, 2015 21:23:07 GMT -6
Maybe Jim will chime in. I'm curious if the new 560A could be improved, or would it just become different. Great shots baquin ! Jim could probably make it fast and clean, but sometimes I like it slow and dirty.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 7, 2015 22:14:46 GMT -6
hmm.. winetree, I wouldn't mind being able to choose between all four.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jul 7, 2015 22:23:28 GMT -6
apparently the new art vla500 will do all 4 :-)
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Jul 8, 2015 8:16:04 GMT -6
SMT is OK for simple task's that don't involve the direct signal path, but that's about where they end. SMT allows machines to "stuff" the boards, and then at one time the pre tinned/fluxed board and components are baked on. A lot of higher end companies will do this, but will leave vital components to be done by hand, even the DBX, you can see some film box caps that have been hand soldered and stuffed, probably when the trimmers were installed. I'm ok with SMT's as long as it's for things like removing oscillation on opamps and some decoupling, but that's really as far as I'd design something with it. It can save a ton of time and cost though, and it can also provide a designer with a fully built and ready to go. A lot of the PCB companies offer this, so it can come in very handy. I think Svart did this for his converter. Hi Jerome, I am by no means the expert, by I do have to respectfully take exception with some of your statements. There are a lot of misconceptions and myths regarding SMT for audio. I believed many of them for a long time myself until I actually make a concerted effort to incorporate SMT into my designs. As someone that designs and manufacturers pro audio gear, I've actually found there are more pros than cons to using SMT. Here's some of the things I've learned: - It's a misconception that one needs specialized gear to solder or de-solder SMT parts. I use my normal soldering iron, solder wick, and flux...the same tools I use for through hole. It does require new techniques, however. I watched a bunch of videos on YouTube demonstrating these techniques (EEVBlog has some great ones. I now solder SMT parts by hand for my prototypes. With practice I'm almost as fast as doing through hole. I actually find it easier to desoldering SMT parts than through hole. - Because of the small size of SMT you can achieve performance closer to ideal with your layouts due to less parasitics. This means circuits behave the way you expect them. This is a good thing. - In general, thin film SMT resistors are equivalent in noise performance to metal film through hole counterparts, but with tighter tolerance (0.5% vs. 1%). Thick film SMT are no bueno for the audio path, however. Dave Hill wrote an excellent white paper about this a few years ago. I use Susumu and Panasonic thin film resistors in my designs exclusively. - Many TH electrolytic parts have equivalent SMT versions with identical specs. This is definitely the case with many of the Panasonic and Nichicon caps I like to use. - For electrolytic and film caps in the audio path I still prefer to use through hole parts. I have my favorite electrolytics which are not available or more expensive in SMT (I'm using TH to actually save cost and not the other way around). I think audio grade film caps is an area where the SMT offerings still have some catching up to do, but I'm confident we will get there in a few years. - PCB assembly is definitely cheaper when most of the board is SMT, and run quantities are high. This is precisely why companies why Rupert Neve manufacture their gear with contract manufacturers that work almost exclusively in SMT. All the RND stuff I've seen pics of is chock full of SMT. And it's rumored that their gear doesn't sound too bad. - Companies that insist on manufacturing exclusively with through hole will eventually find their part choices are dwindling. Even Jim Williams will tell you that all the newest and best sounding op amps are only available in SMT packages. There's no stopping progress. SMT is not something to fear. To create good sounding audio circuits with these parts one merely needs to educate oneself and learn new building techniques. Brad
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 8, 2015 13:48:13 GMT -6
SMT is OK for simple task's that don't involve the direct signal path, but that's about where they end. SMT allows machines to "stuff" the boards, and then at one time the pre tinned/fluxed board and components are baked on. A lot of higher end companies will do this, but will leave vital components to be done by hand, even the DBX, you can see some film box caps that have been hand soldered and stuffed, probably when the trimmers were installed. I'm ok with SMT's as long as it's for things like removing oscillation on opamps and some decoupling, but that's really as far as I'd design something with it. It can save a ton of time and cost though, and it can also provide a designer with a fully built and ready to go. A lot of the PCB companies offer this, so it can come in very handy. I think Svart did this for his converter. Hi Jerome, I am by no means the expert, by I do have to respectfully take exception with some of your statements. There are a lot of misconceptions and myths regarding SMT for audio. I believed many of them for a long time myself until I actually make a concerted effort to incorporate SMT into my designs. As someone that designs and manufacturers pro audio gear, I've actually found there are more pros than cons to using SMT. Here's some of the things I've learned: - It's a misconception that one needs specialized gear to solder or de-solder SMT parts. I use my normal soldering iron, solder wick, and flux...the same tools I use for through hole. It does require new techniques, however. I watched a bunch of videos on YouTube demonstrating these techniques (EEVBlog has some great ones. I now solder SMT parts by hand for my prototypes. With practice I'm almost as fast as doing through hole. I actually find it easier to desoldering SMT parts than through hole. - Because of the small size of SMT you can achieve performance closer to ideal with your layouts due to less parasitics. This means circuits behave the way you expect them. This is a good thing. - In general, thin film SMT resistors are equivalent in noise performance to metal film through hole counterparts, but with tighter tolerance (0.5% vs. 1%). Thick film SMT are no bueno for the audio path, however. Dave Hill wrote an excellent white paper about this a few years ago. I use Susumu and Panasonic thin film resistors in my designs exclusively. - Many TH electrolytic parts have equivalent SMT versions with identical specs. This is definitely the case with many of the Panasonic and Nichicon caps I like to use. - For electrolytic and film caps in the audio path I still prefer to use through hole parts. I have my favorite electrolytics which are not available or more expensive in SMT (I'm using TH to actually save cost and not the other way around). I think audio grade film caps is an area where the SMT offerings still have some catching up to do, but I'm confident we will get there in a few years. - PCB assembly is definitely cheaper when most of the board is SMT, and run quantities are high. This is precisely why companies why Rupert Neve manufacture their gear with contract manufacturers that work almost exclusively in SMT. All the RND stuff I've seen pics of is chock full of SMT. And it's rumored that their gear doesn't sound too bad. - Companies that insist on manufacturing exclusively with through hole will eventually find their part choices are dwindling. Even Jim Williams will tell you that all the newest and best sounding op amps are only available in SMT packages. There's no stopping progress. SMT is not something to fear. To create good sounding audio circuits with these parts one merely needs to educate oneself and learn new building techniques. Brad I don't disagree Brad, I was trying to support SMT. Some don't want it anywhere near their boards and think it's the devil, I don't. I think it's a great technology that has allowed folks to design something great and be able to deliver it without a ton of manpower involved. I think you got the wrong cat by the tail here brother!
|
|
|
Post by BradM on Jul 8, 2015 19:57:45 GMT -6
You did say you thought SMT was only okay for things that didn't involve the direct signal path, no? . That's what I was responding to. I was also addressing a comment that Wiz made as well about needing specialized tools....and its reason for existing being for cost savings. My apologies if I misread your statements. But I thought I would just share my general impressions of SMT as far as it relates to pro audio circuit design. Didn't mean to single you out. . By the way, thanks again for the awesome chat the other night! Brad
|
|