DBX-106X or DBX-106A
- Thread starter signman
- Start date
You should try pulling your eyes off those units and looking at the posts a little closer... He's asking if you are talking about the 160 series not the 106...
pohaku
New member
The x has 1/4" and barrier strip connectors. The xt has 1/4" and xlr connectors. The a is manufactured using surface mount technology and is the current version.
Arguably not much difference in sound, but there are different opinions. Some people say they don't hear any difference. Where people say they do hear a difference, they say that they prefer the x or xt version to the a. Many say the difference in sound is subtle. I've never seen anyone say they preferred the a version to the x or xt. Everyone says the a version feels and looks more cheaply made. So, if I wanted to hedge my bets here, I'd track down an xt. I have a pair of xts and like them quite a bit.
From the GS board where this has been discussed extensively:
Per Tom Cram, [who work(ed/s) at DBX] and a couple others who know hardware, the 160A and 160X/T is the same thing - but of course, to most, it doesnt sound the same. I think this might be due to older units having less precise calibration, etc.
As he puts it in another thread "The differences are quite minimal. They use the same input circuit and same VCA . The 160a was redesigned from the 160x/xt to allow for auto insertion manufacture. Even though it is the same exact circuit, the law requires a new revision name. In fact excluding older "tin can" VCA's, this is why there are so many different 160 family members." The difference is that "the XT was a hand stuffed PCB and the 160a is machine stuffed surface mount"
Now, as far as the difference between the X and the XT - per Jim Williams "The older 160 X has a lf351 opamp with a couple of really slow output transistors which give the X a cloudy sound. The XT has the identical circuit for the unbalanced output. The XT's balanced output uses a couple of 5534 opamps without the slow transistors. This is the sonic difference between the two. Many folks have commented on the sonic difference on these outputs. With the XT you have options: a cleaner, faster output or a "vintage" cloudy unbalanced output."
Of course there are also the obvious differences apparent by looking at them that the XTs (as mentioned above) have the 1/4" and XLR connections vs. the X's barrier strip and 1/4".
As for the transformer option - Tom says that the 160X has that option and that the VU, XT and A do not. There was a posting however that someone (I believe it was "no ssl yet") had an XT manual which said he had the transformer option. Tom said there may have been a revision on the XT that he was not aware of or the manual could be erroneous.
Arguably not much difference in sound, but there are different opinions. Some people say they don't hear any difference. Where people say they do hear a difference, they say that they prefer the x or xt version to the a. Many say the difference in sound is subtle. I've never seen anyone say they preferred the a version to the x or xt. Everyone says the a version feels and looks more cheaply made. So, if I wanted to hedge my bets here, I'd track down an xt. I have a pair of xts and like them quite a bit.
From the GS board where this has been discussed extensively:
Per Tom Cram, [who work(ed/s) at DBX] and a couple others who know hardware, the 160A and 160X/T is the same thing - but of course, to most, it doesnt sound the same. I think this might be due to older units having less precise calibration, etc.
As he puts it in another thread "The differences are quite minimal. They use the same input circuit and same VCA . The 160a was redesigned from the 160x/xt to allow for auto insertion manufacture. Even though it is the same exact circuit, the law requires a new revision name. In fact excluding older "tin can" VCA's, this is why there are so many different 160 family members." The difference is that "the XT was a hand stuffed PCB and the 160a is machine stuffed surface mount"
Now, as far as the difference between the X and the XT - per Jim Williams "The older 160 X has a lf351 opamp with a couple of really slow output transistors which give the X a cloudy sound. The XT has the identical circuit for the unbalanced output. The XT's balanced output uses a couple of 5534 opamps without the slow transistors. This is the sonic difference between the two. Many folks have commented on the sonic difference on these outputs. With the XT you have options: a cleaner, faster output or a "vintage" cloudy unbalanced output."
Of course there are also the obvious differences apparent by looking at them that the XTs (as mentioned above) have the 1/4" and XLR connections vs. the X's barrier strip and 1/4".
As for the transformer option - Tom says that the 160X has that option and that the VU, XT and A do not. There was a posting however that someone (I believe it was "no ssl yet") had an XT manual which said he had the transformer option. Tom said there may have been a revision on the XT that he was not aware of or the manual could be erroneous.
nuemes
Be Here Now
Pohaku has it right. Go with the 160x if you just need 1/4 inch (guitar/bass) inputs/outputs, go with the 160xt if you're using XLR inputs/outputs + 1/4 inch.
I have a 160xt; it grabs the sound much more than most other compressors in its price range that I've heard and makes it its' own, if that makes sense. I've found for elec bass guitar that's exactly what I want 80% of the time for pop/rock. Not subtle - which is just right most of the time.
Knowing what I know now I wish I'd bought a 160 before an RNC because the 160 will really let you hear the sound of its' compression (and thus get to know the sound of heavy, grabbing, compression) before an RNC (which is not as grabby unless pushed to do so, and even then, it's not as grabby, or all-encompassing, as the 160). It's also a heck of a lot easier to use, having less options.
The 160 may be a one trick pony but it's good at what it does and you won't likely sell it until you move up to $1K+ compressors from what I've gathered, and maybe not even then. Hope this makes sense.
In the words of Primus: it's just a matter of opinion
I have a 160xt; it grabs the sound much more than most other compressors in its price range that I've heard and makes it its' own, if that makes sense. I've found for elec bass guitar that's exactly what I want 80% of the time for pop/rock. Not subtle - which is just right most of the time.
Knowing what I know now I wish I'd bought a 160 before an RNC because the 160 will really let you hear the sound of its' compression (and thus get to know the sound of heavy, grabbing, compression) before an RNC (which is not as grabby unless pushed to do so, and even then, it's not as grabby, or all-encompassing, as the 160). It's also a heck of a lot easier to use, having less options.
The 160 may be a one trick pony but it's good at what it does and you won't likely sell it until you move up to $1K+ compressors from what I've gathered, and maybe not even then. Hope this makes sense.
In the words of Primus: it's just a matter of opinion
DBX-1066 v 160 a,x,xt
Won't my DBX 1066 just do the same job ?
I require compressor/s for vocal's, guitar (both Acoustic and electric ) and bass, drum machine and harp...
My thought was the 1066 was a good all rounder.
Paul
Won't my DBX 1066 just do the same job ?
I require compressor/s for vocal's, guitar (both Acoustic and electric ) and bass, drum machine and harp...
My thought was the 1066 was a good all rounder.
Paul
Weasel9992
New member
Won't my DBX 1066 just do the same job ?
I require compressor/s for vocal's, guitar (both Acoustic and electric ) and bass, drum machine and harp...
My thought was the 1066 was a good all rounder.
Paul
No...the 1066 doesn't sound anything like a 160. The 160 is a colorful compressor, but can be pushed very hard and still stay pretty transparent.
Frank
OK..thanks Frank.
I have my eye on a 160a and also the 160x.
Which should I buy ? Both the same price.
Heck I'm gassing for a darn Art Pro VLA 2 after reading up on compressor's most of the day..when will it end
Paul
I have my eye on a 160a and also the 160x.
Which should I buy ? Both the same price.
Heck I'm gassing for a darn Art Pro VLA 2 after reading up on compressor's most of the day..when will it end
Paul
Weasel9992
New member
OK..thanks Frank.
I have my eye on a 160a and also the 160x.
Which should I buy ? Both the same price.
Heck I'm gassing for a darn Art Pro VLA 2 after reading up on compressor's most of the day..when will it end
Paul
I have a 160A, and I love it. I've used an X but I couldn't tell you the difference between the two of them sonically.
Frank
Fishmed
Well-known member
I have "heard" that the X/XT have transformers where the "A" model does not. IMPO, transoformers gives the signal more of a three diminsional sound. Over on GearSlutz there are several JBL/Urei 7110 compressors for sell. The 7110 is like the the UREI LA-10 / LA-12. I use the the LA-12 and it is a great all around compressor.
I have a DBX 166 black faced comp which has a very simular sound, but lacks the transoformer. The DBX 160 VU model is a totally differnt animal, closer to the UREI LA-4.
I have a DBX 166 black faced comp which has a very simular sound, but lacks the transoformer. The DBX 160 VU model is a totally differnt animal, closer to the UREI LA-4.
pohaku
New member
From what I understand, a transformer was an option with the x and at least some of the xts. No way to tell for sure whether an individual unit has one unless you pop the hood. Many posters on GS stated that their units did not have a transformer, but that there was a spot for one on the board. So I wouldn't count on there being a transformer unless the Seller can attest to there being one or you can see for yourself.