|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Apr 15, 2024 12:58:30 GMT -6
File this one in "low end". I pulled at 166XS out of my live mix rack for a couple extra channels of tracking some spare parts tracks and was pretty surprised at how it sounded. Honestly, it behaved identically to the 160X that I use routinely on bass and for parallel duties.
It's not like the 160x is expensive, but 166XS is routinely sold for $50/channel which is like buying a couple decent beers around these parts. I pretty much never use anything other than Overeasy and Auto release for 160x... this feels like a rare hidden gem in this day and age of "so much information that nothing good is cheap for long."
Anyone disagree? This is an opinion based on an EXTREMELY limited sample size (one track in one session).
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Apr 15, 2024 13:00:06 GMT -6
Oh yeah, for my live rig I only used 166XS for peak limiter and gate. Always assumed the compressor on it sucked (cuz it was so cheap) so I had never even tried it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,089 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Apr 15, 2024 13:26:00 GMT -6
File this one in "low end". I pulled at 166XS out of my live mix rack for a couple extra channels of tracking some spare parts tracks and was pretty surprised at how it sounded. Honestly, it behaved identically to the 160X that I use routinely on bass and for parallel duties. It's not like the 160x is expensive, but 166XS is routinely sold for $50/channel which is like buying a couple decent beers around these parts. I pretty much never use anything other than Overeasy and Auto release for 160x... this feels like a rare hidden gem in this day and age of "so much information that nothing good is cheap for long." Anyone disagree? This is an opinion based on an EXTREMELY limited sample size (one track in one session). The 166 was the go to affordable live comp till digital consoles took over. Funny how it was loved up until the cheaper and crappier 266 came along. The one thing a 166 kills the Composer on is as a stereo comp. The 166 uses both ch detectors in stereo the composer only the left, so if you notice it’s not catching peaks it’s not if they are on the right or hotter on the right. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Apr 15, 2024 13:47:16 GMT -6
File this one in "low end". I pulled at 166XS out of my live mix rack for a couple extra channels of tracking some spare parts tracks and was pretty surprised at how it sounded. Honestly, it behaved identically to the 160X that I use routinely on bass and for parallel duties. It's not like the 160x is expensive, but 166XS is routinely sold for $50/channel which is like buying a couple decent beers around these parts. I pretty much never use anything other than Overeasy and Auto release for 160x... this feels like a rare hidden gem in this day and age of "so much information that nothing good is cheap for long." Anyone disagree? This is an opinion based on an EXTREMELY limited sample size (one track in one session). The 166 was the go to affordable live comp till digital consoles took over. Funny how it was loved up until the cheaper and crappier 266 came along. The one thing a 166 kills the Composer on is as a stereo comp. The 166 uses both ch detectors in stereo the composer only the left, so if you notice it’s not catching peaks it’s not if they are on the right or hotter on the right. Interesting. I think I'm gonna pick up a second one of these on Craigslist for $100 and put them both on my live rack. Starting to pick up some more live gigs and I was gonna throw some of my RNC's on it (I've got millions of those) for some vocal taming but 166 is even cheaper and can do dual mono. It sounds like what a DBX comp sound like to my ears. |
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Apr 15, 2024 13:53:20 GMT -6
File this one in "low end". I pulled at 166XS out of my live mix rack for a couple extra channels of tracking some spare parts tracks and was pretty surprised at how it sounded. Honestly, it behaved identically to the 160X that I use routinely on bass and for parallel duties. It's not like the 160x is expensive, but 166XS is routinely sold for $50/channel which is like buying a couple decent beers around these parts. I pretty much never use anything other than Overeasy and Auto release for 160x... this feels like a rare hidden gem in this day and age of "so much information that nothing good is cheap for long." Anyone disagree? This is an opinion based on an EXTREMELY limited sample size (one track in one session). The 166 was the go to affordable live comp till digital consoles took over. Funny how it was loved up until the cheaper and crappier 266 came along. The one thing a 166 kills the Composer on is as a stereo comp. The 166 uses both ch detectors in stereo the composer only the left, so if you notice it’s not catching peaks it’s not if they are on the right or hotter on the right. I have a 266 sitting in a box somewhere. It is kinda craptacular. Cheers, Geoff |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,089
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Apr 15, 2024 14:09:50 GMT -6
The 166 was the go to affordable live comp till digital consoles took over. Funny how it was loved up until the cheaper and crappier 266 came along. The one thing a 166 kills the Composer on is as a stereo comp. The 166 uses both ch detectors in stereo the composer only the left, so if you notice it’s not catching peaks it’s not if they are on the right or hotter on the right. Interesting. I think I'm gonna pick up a second one of these on Craigslist for $100 and put them both on my live rack. Starting to pick up some more live gigs and I was gonna throw some of my RNC's on it (I've got millions of those) for some vocal taming but 166 is even cheaper and can do dual mono. It sounds like what a DBX comp sound like to my ears. Send them to Jim Williams and you will wonder why the hate😁 |
|
