|
|
Post by bossanova on Feb 16, 2024 18:46:11 GMT -6
The UAD DBX 160 is on sale and I don’t see it talked about much anymore. I also noted that way back when the Waves version came out there were hardware owners who said close enough to retire their hardware units. Anyone here have a 2024 preference on either? I know that Dan, welcome back!, has maintained that no VST gets it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 16, 2024 19:41:59 GMT -6
I like the DBX 160 a lot and none of the plugs come close to what the hardware can do in terms of transients, leveling, program dependency from impedance of the circuitry in the RMS detector (attack speeds up and release slows down unlike an optical detector where attack and release both speed up with greater gain reduction), the circuitry reducing clarity. The Waves leaves transients all over the place and seems to pump. The VCAs are way off in trackcomp2. Oxford Dynamics Classic Mode followed by the limiter is closer but not there at all and works differently and adds top end. MDWDRC2 kind of can do it and has the slight dulling effect (from aliasing though) but pumps more and isn't fully logarithmic. The Faraday Limiter can sort of do it the consistently overshooting hard knee sound too with warmth cranked up but again works totally different and sounds different.
The 560a is well under 200 dollars used so why not just buy the hardware if you really want what it can do with a couple of knobs? You could wait years (the scream is still in beta!) for someone as meticulous as Cytomic to model a Blackmer RMS detector and it might take a huge percentage of your cpu to run or you can just buy the hardware or use a more consistent plug with similar behavior? It's not like the DBX 160 makes a lot of distortion besides the slight loss of clarity from the circuitry.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Feb 16, 2024 19:56:49 GMT -6
I use the UAD version for drum parallel compression and on various other chains where I could use whatever to control the peaks but it just has a nice weight. It's not the only parallel compression bus I have set up, but it's one I use often.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 16, 2024 20:28:37 GMT -6
I use the UAD one on bass occasionally. It will do the snappy bass thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Feb 16, 2024 20:54:42 GMT -6
I've used the UAD a bunch and while its not in my library its more then close enough.
Absolutely reminds me of my old 160VU pair that were the first "good" compressors I ever bought, for $600 back in 1997..? Somewhere around there.
Truthfully never loved 'em. Mostly drums... kick & snare! Bass was usually ok. Backing vocals in a mix? They would do a thing to clean guitars, make 'em snap & pop. But otherwise I never loved 'em and happily moved on. Back in the day they were just utility boxes for times you ran out of the good stuff.
Kinda agree w/ dan though that the hardware versions are so inexpensive that if you really want that "thing" they do?
|
|
|
|
Post by RealNoob on Feb 16, 2024 21:20:29 GMT -6
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098 
|
Post by ericn on Feb 16, 2024 22:30:28 GMT -6
I like the DBX 160 a lot and none of the plugs come close to what the hardware can do in terms of transients, leveling, program dependency from impedance of the circuitry in the RMS detector (attack speeds up and release slows down unlike an optical detector where attack and release both speed up with greater gain reduction), the circuitry reducing clarity. The Waves leaves transients all over the place and seems to pump. The VCAs are way off in trackcomp2. Oxford Dynamics Classic Mode followed by the limiter is closer but not there at all and works differently and adds top end. MDWDRC2 kind of can do it and has the slight dulling effect (from aliasing though) but pumps more and isn't fully logarithmic. The Faraday Limiter can sort of do it the consistently overshooting hard knee sound too with warmth cranked up but again works totally different and sounds different. The 560a is well under 200 dollars used so why not just buy the hardware if you really want what it can do with a couple of knobs? You could wait years (the scream is still in beta!) for someone as meticulous as Cytomic to model a Blackmer RMS detector and it might take a huge percentage of your cpu to run or you can just buy the hardware or use a more consistent plug with similar behavior? It's not like the DBX 160 makes a lot of distortion besides the slight loss of clarity from the circuitry. Agreed, let’s add though pre pandemic 160a,x/t’s could be had for $75. When they go that low again I’m buying 4 or maybe 6. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 16, 2024 23:02:05 GMT -6
I like the DBX 160 a lot and none of the plugs come close to what the hardware can do in terms of transients, leveling, program dependency from impedance of the circuitry in the RMS detector (attack speeds up and release slows down unlike an optical detector where attack and release both speed up with greater gain reduction), the circuitry reducing clarity. The Waves leaves transients all over the place and seems to pump. The VCAs are way off in trackcomp2. Oxford Dynamics Classic Mode followed by the limiter is closer but not there at all and works differently and adds top end. MDWDRC2 kind of can do it and has the slight dulling effect (from aliasing though) but pumps more and isn't fully logarithmic. The Faraday Limiter can sort of do it the consistently overshooting hard knee sound too with warmth cranked up but again works totally different and sounds different. The 560a is well under 200 dollars used so why not just buy the hardware if you really want what it can do with a couple of knobs? You could wait years (the scream is still in beta!) for someone as meticulous as Cytomic to model a Blackmer RMS detector and it might take a huge percentage of your cpu to run or you can just buy the hardware or use a more consistent plug with similar behavior? It's not like the DBX 160 makes a lot of distortion besides the slight loss of clarity from the circuitry. Agreed, let’s add though pre pandemic 160a,x/t’s could be had for $75. When they go that low again I’m buying 4 or maybe 6. Yeah now the xt is a few hundred bucks and a is ridiculously overpriced. Also if you fry the rms detector, they’re dead. They’re discontinued outside of that analog engine all in one chips. When nos is gone, they’re gone! |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 16, 2024 23:06:18 GMT -6
I like the DBX 160 a lot and none of the plugs come close to what the hardware can do in terms of transients, leveling, program dependency from impedance of the circuitry in the RMS detector (attack speeds up and release slows down unlike an optical detector where attack and release both speed up with greater gain reduction), the circuitry reducing clarity. The Waves leaves transients all over the place and seems to pump. The VCAs are way off in trackcomp2. Oxford Dynamics Classic Mode followed by the limiter is closer but not there at all and works differently and adds top end. MDWDRC2 kind of can do it and has the slight dulling effect (from aliasing though) but pumps more and isn't fully logarithmic. The Faraday Limiter can sort of do it the consistently overshooting hard knee sound too with warmth cranked up but again works totally different and sounds different. The 560a is well under 200 dollars used so why not just buy the hardware if you really want what it can do with a couple of knobs? You could wait years (the scream is still in beta!) for someone as meticulous as Cytomic to model a Blackmer RMS detector and it might take a huge percentage of your cpu to run or you can just buy the hardware or use a more consistent plug with similar behavior? It's not like the DBX 160 makes a lot of distortion besides the slight loss of clarity from the circuitry. Do you like the 560a? I bought a pair and returned them. Did not dig. Transients were weird. I had an Over Easy whatever it was before that. Maybe like 163x? Didn’t really dig that either. |
|
|
|
Post by nicksteinborn on Feb 16, 2024 23:32:42 GMT -6
Analog Obsession makes a free one: www.patreon.com/posts/dbcomp-56933944Is it accurate? idk. People seem to like his plugins so maybe it's cool. Everything he has is free so maybe you'll stumble on something else useful on there. I know it's a Patreon, but all the downloads are freewhen you click into the posts. RE: 560a - I like my pair, but I don't have years of experience with a 160 or anything to know if they're "right". I have a 166xl lying around somewhere that was totally fine too. Maybe they don't have the same mojo as the Xs? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 17, 2024 0:09:55 GMT -6
I like the DBX 160 a lot and none of the plugs come close to what the hardware can do in terms of transients, leveling, program dependency from impedance of the circuitry in the RMS detector (attack speeds up and release slows down unlike an optical detector where attack and release both speed up with greater gain reduction), the circuitry reducing clarity. The Waves leaves transients all over the place and seems to pump. The VCAs are way off in trackcomp2. Oxford Dynamics Classic Mode followed by the limiter is closer but not there at all and works differently and adds top end. MDWDRC2 kind of can do it and has the slight dulling effect (from aliasing though) but pumps more and isn't fully logarithmic. The Faraday Limiter can sort of do it the consistently overshooting hard knee sound too with warmth cranked up but again works totally different and sounds different. The 560a is well under 200 dollars used so why not just buy the hardware if you really want what it can do with a couple of knobs? You could wait years (the scream is still in beta!) for someone as meticulous as Cytomic to model a Blackmer RMS detector and it might take a huge percentage of your cpu to run or you can just buy the hardware or use a more consistent plug with similar behavior? It's not like the DBX 160 makes a lot of distortion besides the slight loss of clarity from the circuitry. Do you like the 560a? I bought a pair and returned them. Did not dig. Transients were weird. I had an Over Easy whatever it was before that. Maybe like 163x? Didn’t really dig that either. I thought it was dirtier than the 160a but dbx is always dirty and robs detail which is good for digital sometimes. They all kinda do the same thing and need to be limited afterwards ime. Was that the more slider one? |
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Feb 17, 2024 0:32:46 GMT -6
Waves one is good, UAD is better.
160XT is still one of my favorite snare compressors for that exaggerated WHACKKKKKKK!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Feb 17, 2024 1:29:20 GMT -6
acustica has a new emu out: www.acustica-audio.com/shop/products/GREYPROhaven‘t tried it yet but they also had a free version of it some time ago and it had some kind of snap to it. i never used a real hw dbx 160 though, only have a dbx 118 hw which sounds kinda cool on some things. |
|
|
|
Post by vvvooojjj on Feb 17, 2024 3:32:41 GMT -6
I like the UA version more than the Waves.
A friend of mine gave me a 160A two or three years ago and I've used succesfully when tracking synths, bass and vocals. It's a cool sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Feb 17, 2024 8:35:58 GMT -6
I've also loved the 160's (have a 160x which still gets used for tracking and often in mixing).
I've mostly sworn off Waves but for some reason their version finds it's way onto a kick track every so often. It's usually not doing a whole lot, but I just kind of like it there sometimes. Not sure why but maybe that's one instance were I like the transient to poke, though the track is inevitably also hitting another comp on a drum buss or parallel.
Can't compare to UAD though.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubledog on Feb 17, 2024 8:57:46 GMT -6
I always liked the sound of the UAD better than Waves. But originally Waves had a "mix" knob and UAD did not. But back in '21 UAD finally added a mix control and a side-chain control (shift-click on the threshold knob). It's also both UAD-2 (DSP) and Native now so I pretty much never use the Waves version anymore. I don't care if it's exactly like the hardware unit. It sounds really good for that sound when you want what it does. (I have previously owned hardware 160A, 160X, 160XT and to me it gets "that" sound, or at least close enough.)
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Feb 17, 2024 9:33:55 GMT -6
I'm gonna throw in a recommendation for the McDSP 6030. The DBX unit reminds my of the 160VUs I had for a short time, PLUS you get 9 other compressors all within the plugin that you can click through. I believe Dan will come down on me for this, but I'm OK with that.  |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Feb 17, 2024 11:55:38 GMT -6
Funny to me that Dan hates distressors but likes the 160x/t. I always considered the latter to be the poor man’s version of the former. Like someone said, they do that plastic-y “thwack” thing on snare quite well. Dan, what’s the scoop?
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Feb 17, 2024 13:07:59 GMT -6
Truth or Derr!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Feb 17, 2024 14:58:04 GMT -6
Funny to me that Dan hates distressors but likes the 160x/t. I always considered the latter to be the poor man’s version of the former. Like someone said, they do that plastic-y “thwack” thing on snare quite well. Dan, what’s the scoop? distressor sounds fake and less grit and distortion in the 160. unclear, built cheap circuitry sound vs deliberate distortion that stands up and needs to be made to sit down. the dbx distortion takes things away where the distressor adds
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Feb 17, 2024 15:09:57 GMT -6
Funny to me that Dan hates distressors but likes the 160x/t. I always considered the latter to be the poor man’s version of the former. Like someone said, they do that plastic-y “thwack” thing on snare quite well. Dan, what’s the scoop? distressor sounds fake and less grit and distortion in the 160. unclear, built cheap circuitry sound vs deliberate distortion that stands up and needs to be made to sit down. the dbx distortion takes things away where the distressor adds
Dan likes distortion, he is just a very picky Connoisseur there of, a very high compliment indeed 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Feb 17, 2024 15:10:49 GMT -6
Funny to me that Dan hates distressors but likes the 160x/t. I always considered the latter to be the poor man’s version of the former. Like someone said, they do that plastic-y “thwack” thing on snare quite well. Dan, what’s the scoop? distressor sounds fake and less grit and distortion in the 160. unclear, built cheap circuitry sound vs deliberate distortion that stands up and needs to be made to sit down. the dbx distortion takes things away where the distressor adds
Appreciate the explanation! |
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Feb 17, 2024 15:26:36 GMT -6
Funny to me that Dan hates distressors but likes the 160x/t. I always considered the latter to be the poor man’s version of the former. Like someone said, they do that plastic-y “thwack” thing on snare quite well. Dan, what’s the scoop? Also, poor man's API 2500 (new mode). I was very bummed one day when I shot out them out on a snare and the $150 compressor sounded more or less like the $3K compressor. |
|
|
|
Post by jaba on Feb 17, 2024 15:34:15 GMT -6
Funny to me that Dan hates distressors but likes the 160x/t. I always considered the latter to be the poor man’s version of the former. Like someone said, they do that plastic-y “thwack” thing on snare quite well. Dan, what’s the scoop? Also, poor man's API 2500 (new mode). I was very bummed one day when I shot out them out on a snare and the $150 compressor sounded more or less like the $3K compressor. I normally don't track with compression on snare but the other day I had a 160x on it for the whole session. Sounded perfect and along with the LH95 (SO good on snare!) it just sounded finished and never felt like I was painting myself into a corner. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Feb 17, 2024 15:57:03 GMT -6
Also, poor man's API 2500 (new mode). I was very bummed one day when I shot out them out on a snare and the $150 compressor sounded more or less like the $3K compressor. I normally don't track with compression on snare but the other day I had a 160x on it for the whole session. Sounded perfect and along with the LH95 (SO good on snare!) it just sounded finished and never felt like I was painting myself into a corner. Oh man, I pretty much ALWAYS track with compression on the snare. No sense in delaying the inevitable! |
|
