DBX 160VU Test (Outboard vs ITB compression)

Loving it, wow. I have an old URei LA-4 compressor that has a very similar rear panel, and it is wired up with short XLR cables on the back that basically create makeshift jacks (as Lasse described.) Works flawlessly.
 
The 160 sample definitely sounds like its hitting more on the snare and that definitely helps on the blasty bits. Not sure I would describe it as a vast improvement by any means but it adds a nicely different flavour.
 
I still wonder how to use an outboard compressor for drums. Are you guys setting it up, send the snare to it and bounce it? I mean like reamping... or is it possible to set it up like a plugin and have it in your chain on the inserts or send? Sorry for the stupidity.

In pro tools you set it up as a hardware insert by plugging the output of say channel 3 on the a-d into the input of the comp and then the output to channel 3's input on the a-d

Then you just choose it like a plugin.
 
Future plans have been set to acquire said device and use it for ultimate aural profit. These demonstration speaks strongly of it's sonic attributes.

Carry on.
 
Awesome. Well looks like whatever happens I'll have some more comps coming this way.

I did just learn that Jeff is creating an Overstayer VCA comp, so I may leave a space or two free in the rack for this. Knowing him it will be cheap, amazingly effective, and not a relic from the 70s that is nearly impossible to repair, haha.
 
In pro tools you set it up as a hardware insert by plugging the output of say channel 3 on the a-d into the input of the comp and then the output to channel 3's input on the a-d

Then you just choose it like a plugin.

do you know if that's possible with cubase 5? i'm not at the studio right now so I can't check.

edit: yup, it's possible. awesome.
 
Yeah they call it 'External FX'. Make sure the I/Os you use don't clash with any you've set in the Input and Output sections, because it will hamper your ability to use it as a plug-in (another of my many beefs with Cubase).

Also, don't rely on its delay compensation because it's outright wrong. I tried using my GSSL as a parallel comp once and the drums lost all their bottom end. It will literally put tracks out of phase if you're doing this in critical areas.
 
Well critical to me is when you need two tracks phase aligned, but you're only running one of them through outboard. The roundtrip through the converters will put it out of phase, and Cubase won't compensate correctly. So for parallel use you either print or don't do it at all.
 
does the 160a sound anything like the 160vu?

maybe missing a little of that vintage mojo, but from what im hearing here, the compression characteristics are nearly the same...

it's a very unique and instantly recognizable sound once you actually start running stuff through the dbx and get to learn its sound. i end up hearing it all over the place, now.

or at least, that's what i like to think im hearing. lol.
 
Anyone tried those DBX 166 ? We got a bunch at the studio I work on but never got anything outstanding outta them.
 
Well critical to me is when you need two tracks phase aligned, but you're only running one of them through outboard. The roundtrip through the converters will put it out of phase, and Cubase won't compensate correctly. So for parallel use you either print or don't do it at all.

ah, makes sense. thank you!
 
I don't really know what to think about your clip Erm but I just want to add a little about DBX comp history (in case you haven't done search:devil:):

So you have:
DBX 160 (or called 160VU)
DBX 161 (a 160 unbalanced and without transformer)
DBX 162 (a stereo 160VU)
DBX 165A (a 160 with more feature)
DBX 160SL ( kinda like a stereo 165, don't know if have same VCA)

And of course you have some history evolution with:

160VU>160X/T>160A

From what I hear all have same components (execpt 160VU with transformer). Difference come from building localisation (US, Japan...etc).
And some 160X have transformer stock:D

Hope that help;)
 
I don't really know what to think about your clip Erm but I just want to add a little about DBX comp history (in case you haven't done search:devil:):

So you have:
DBX 160 (or called 160VU)
DBX 161 (a 160 unbalanced and without transformer)
DBX 162 (a stereo 160VU)
DBX 165A (a 160 with more feature)
DBX 160SL ( kinda like a stereo 165, don't know if have same VCA)

And of course you have some history evolution with:

160VU>160X/T>160A

From what I hear all have same components (execpt 160VU with transformer). Difference come from building localisation (US, Japan...etc).
And some 160X have transformer stock:D

Hope that help;)


I'd love to hear a comparison between the 160VU and the 160A.
the A is pretty affordable, if it's as good I might actually buy one
 
Yeah, I've been asking for this on the local board where the poster ran these tracks through his 160VU.

The general idea is that they have a similar attitude, but the transformers apparently add a density to the transients that the 160A doesn't have. Can't validate for sure though, as I don't know anyone who has a 160A.

I'd rather the newer model that's easier to service TBH. If the 160A is a good drum compressor, I'll take two thanks.