Idiot question: dbx 160A vs. dbx 166xl

  • Thread starter Thread starter lo.fi.love
  • Start date Start date
lo.fi.love

lo.fi.love

Functionally obsessed.
I've grown quite accustomed to the 166xl and its behavior. I want someone to give me a sales pitch for the 160A based on my experience with the 166xl.

I want to know: Why is the 160A better? What can the 160A do that the 166xl can't? Where does the 160A excel where the 166xl doesn't? For which applications is the 160A better?

Any takers? Sell me! :)
 
lo.fi.love said:
I've grown quite accustomed to the 166xl and its behavior. I want someone to give me a sales pitch for the 160A based on my experience with the 166xl.

I want to know: Why is the 160A better? What can the 160A do that the 166xl can't? Where does the 160A excel where the 166xl doesn't? For which applications is the 160A better?

Any takers? Sell me! :)
Click to expand...

Easy. The 160 is smooth and thick even at high levels of gain reduction. It's definitely a colorful compressor, but it adds it in a *very* flattering way in most cases. Great for just about everything...very, very hard to screw it up.

Frank
 
From the GS Board - current (I think) DBX comps, apparently in descending order of quality. I've usually seen the 166 in live rigs. I have a pair of 160xts and a 266. I wouldn't recommend the 266 for recording - it lives in my guitar rack. The 160xts are great on instruments and especially drums. In the 160(A, X, XT) price bracket, there are better choices (like the RNC) for vocals.

160SL; is top of the line. dual mono, very clean, very transparent,
very fast, very nice, very expensive.

Quantum; also top of the line, digital. dual mono, multiband, digital
in/out, multitude of mastering features (too many to list).

DDP; pro level, digital. Dual mono, great features, modelled after
the 160VU, optional digital in/out.

160A; pro level, mono, successor to venerable 160 family. If you like
the 160x/xt/etc., you'll like the 160a.

166xl; pro level, dual mono, designed more for live applications
(PeakStop brickwall protection limiter) has next generation V2 VCA,
built-in gate.

1066; pro level, dual mono, has a PeakStop+ limiter which is smoother
than the PeakStop, also has gate.

566; mid/pro, dual mono, hybrid tube compressor, very smooth PeakPlus
limiter, optional digital out card.

266xl; entry level, dual mono, great bang for the buck, includes gate.

Tom Cram
dbx Senior Technical Support
 
The only potential issue I see with the 160A is that it's not +4/-10dB switchable like the 166XL. I have a 1980s TASCAM mixer which runs -10dB.

Should I be able to drop this in place and use it without much trouble, or will there be any issues in doing so?
 
lo.fi.love said:
The only potential issue I see with the 160A is that it's not +4/-10dB switchable like the 166XL. I have a 1980s TASCAM mixer which runs -10dB.

Should I be able to drop this in place and use it without much trouble, or will there be any issues in doing so?
Click to expand...

Not if you're using the insert points.

Frank
 
Weasel9992 said:
Not if you're using the insert points.

Frank
Click to expand...

My mixer doesn't have insert points. Rather, it has accessory send/receive jacks. The entire mixer is built with RCA jacks, except for XLR ins on the channel strips. So, the signal going out on the accessory sends is at a -10dB level.

It's the TASCAM M-30, if that helps.
 
pohaku said:
From the GS Board - current (I think) DBX comps, apparently in descending order of quality. I've usually seen the 166 in live rigs. I have a pair of 160xts and a 266. I wouldn't recommend the 266 for recording - it lives in my guitar rack. The 160xts are great on instruments and especially drums. In the 160(A, X, XT) price bracket, there are better choices (like the RNC) for vocals.

[/I]
Click to expand...

Ive never heard the RNC ...I do have a 1970s dbx160 in my rack...I like to keep alot of stuff between my DPS24 and the computer that were used on the recordings I liked best...I even have a spring reverb amoung that collection.
 
darrin_h2000 said:
Ive never heard the RNC ...I do have a 1970s dbx160 in my rack...I like to keep alot of stuff between my DPS24 and the computer that were used on the recordings I liked best...I even have a spring reverb amoung that collection.
Click to expand...

The RNC is designed to be as transparent as humanly possible, and it really is...especially in "Super Nice" mode, which is kinda similar to DBX's "overeasy" mode. In my opinion the 160 kills it on most things...it's just a much nicer sounding compressor. The RNC is certainly useful though.

Frank
 
I own a Quantum... I love it, great tool... but I wouldn't include it in this last.

It's digital, mulitband, and designed more towards mastering duties... though it shines at just about everything... but differently then the other analog pieces in the list
 
I found out in the Analog Only forum that the 160A can be calibrated for use in a -10dB setup.

The 160A is going on my "someday" shopping list :)
 
lo.fi.love said:
I found out in the Analog Only forum that the 160A can be calibrated for use in a -10dB setup.

The 160A is going on my "someday" shopping list :)
Click to expand...

I'm crushing a vocal with it as we speak...with a big smile on my face. :D

Frank
 
My hope is to someday own two for compression in mixdown :)
 
I have to say though that the 266 is very easy to use, and very cheap. It gets a good uncolored sound for very little money. However, the 160 is a totally different beast. As previously stated, it does color the sound but in a good way. You can also really hit those things with a hot signal and it sounds great. I love it when it's in the red!
 
Hi there

I can't compare the 166XL to a 160A as I have neither. However, I do have a 160X, a 166 (not XL) and a pair of RNCs. Therefore, I can offer a synopsis of what these units are like.

I have to agree that the 160A/X/XT comps kick some severe butt on most things. My 166 is pretty sweet too but not to be confused with the newer 166XLs. I think my 166 (also discontinued along with the 160X/XTs) is pretty much supposed to be a dual mono/stereo version of a 160X/XT. However, it contains a different VCA from the 160A/X/XT units, so bang goes that theory.

My 160X is great on bass and drums (especially kick) whereas the RNC is harder to dial in good sounds for bass. The RNC is superb for vocals and is very transparent. You should get both. :D

You won't be disappointed with a 160A/X/XT. Either will do the business as they each have the same input circuit and same VCA. They are very similar and aren't replacements in succession. As I understand, there were several slight modifications done over time which the law required a new model number for. Therefore, don't be too worried about one being better/worse than another. They may have minimal sonic differences but according to dbx, this should be virtually indistinguishable.

On researching and regarding differences between the X and XT, the older 160X has an LF351 op-amp with slow output transistors which many say inpart a cloudy sound. The XT has an identical circuit to that of the X for the unbalanced output.

The XT's balanced output uses two 5534 op-amps without the slow transistors. This is said to create the sonic difference between the two units. Many folks have commented on the sonic difference on these outputs saying that the options with XT are that you can have a cleaner, faster output, or a vintage cloudy unbalanced output.

Another difference is that the 160XT had a hand stuffed PCB whereas the newer 160A is a machine stuffed surface mount.

Apparently, the 160X has the option of adding a transformer whereas the others do not.

I think you really need someone who owns a 160A/X/XT and a 166XL to chime in and give an opinion to inform you better.


Regards

LiD
 
I'm assuming that when people mention the RNC that they mean FMR Audio's "Really Nice Compressor".

What about that compressor versus the 160A? Anyone have an opinion?
 
lo.fi.love said:
I'm assuming that when people mention the RNC that they mean FMR Audio's "Really Nice Compressor".

What about that compressor versus the 160A? Anyone have an opinion?
Click to expand...

Yes all mentions of the RNC are of the FMR RNC 1773.

Basically what I wrote above really. You'll find this a fairly wide spread opinion. 160 for bass and kick drums with vocals on an RNC. Just be aware though that the RNC is a stereo comp and can only be used in stereo or one channel mono.

Also, the RNC is unbalanced which means that you would need a balanced to unbalanced cable (from preamp output to RNC input) otherwise it won't work. From my preamp, I use an XLR Female to TS unbalanced. I'll explain why.

If pluging into a patchbay with an RNC, you can use just one TRS to TR Y-Split cable from the RNC's input to the input and output on the rear of your patchbay and that's it! The RNC's input recieves its input signal via the tip and sends its output out via the ring (as in tip, ring, shield). This is pretty neat and can save on cables. Hmm...this is probably why a TRS didn't work in the input from my preamp. My RNC was probably trying to send its output back to my preamp. Are you confused yet??? :eek:

The cost in relation to the RNC's manufacturing went into its guts and not its cosmetics etc. It easily competes with comps 4-5 times its price and is built by good people who know what they're doing. You couldn't go wrong here and because of the price get the dbx too. :D


LiD
 
lostindundee said:
Yes all mentions of the RNC are of the FMR RNC 1773.

Basically what I wrote above really. You'll find this a fairly wide spread opinion. 160 for bass and kick drums with vocals on an RNC. Just be aware though that the RNC is a stereo comp and can only be used in stereo or one channel mono.

Also, the RNC is unbalanced which means that you would need a balanced to unbalanced cable (from preamp output to RNC input) otherwise it won't work. From my preamp, I use an XLR Female to TS unbalanced.
Click to expand...

That's fine for me - I have an unbalanced mixer.

And it's interesting that it's either mono OR stereo, and not just dual mono with stereo "linking". It makes me wonder whether I should consider an RNC for analog mixdown/mastering. Without knowing too much about the higher-end compressors, I assumed that two 160A's would be the sure bet.

So I want to know - do you, or does anyone, have an opinion on the RNC for use in mixdown or mastering?
 
lo.fi.love said:
That's fine for me - I have an unbalanced mixer.

And it's interesting that it's either mono OR stereo, and not just dual mono with stereo "linking". It makes me wonder whether I should consider an RNC for analog mixdown/mastering. Without knowing too much about the higher-end compressors, I assumed that two 160A's would be the sure bet.

So I want to know - do you, or does anyone, have an opinion on the RNC for use in mixdown or mastering?
Click to expand...

The dbx 160As will be rock solid and are legendary and can be found in many high end studios. You can't go wrong there.

I talk to an experienced producer on another forum who swears by the RNC on just about everything including analog mixdown/mastering, drum buss compression and stereo acoustic guitars and dual miced cabinets.

I think you'd be happy with either. However, cost is a factor here as you can get 2 RNCs for around the price of 1 dbx 160A, unless you scour eBay. Cosmetically speaking, the 160 is better.

The RNC is tiny and is 1/3 rack width which means you would have to put it in a rack tray along with other stuff (possibly two other 2 FMR prodocts). I use a Funk Logic 1701 Rack Tray with my 2.

Not to throw a curve ball at this point but FMR do two other compression units which are more expensive. One a limiter (RNLA) and a slightly more tone laden comp, the (PBC-6a). Note that the latter of the two is not stereo. The RNC is by far the most transparent of the 3 though and cheaper.

Regarding Analogue, the RNC is not as you would think. FMR say this:

The RNC achieves such high performance at a low cost by using evolutionary advances in digital technology, coupled with the best analog has to offer. Using digital controls and an all-analog signal path, the RNC offers accurate, precise controls and a clean tonal character.

Hope this helps and that other chip in here. Take your time and don't committ until you've also gotten views on other boards. It's wise to research extensively. Personally, I would get both the RNC and 160As over time. Very handy to have around and having one and constantly wondering what the other is like will annoy you anyway. I would annoy me...hee hee


LiD
 
lo.fi.love said:
So I want to know - do you, or does anyone, have an opinion on the RNC for use in mixdown or mastering?
Click to expand...

I use it as a channel compressor all the time on vocals and acoustic guitar and once in a great while on the drum buss, but never as my mix buss compressor or for finalizing. I typically use the RNLA on the mix buss and stay ITB for finalizing.

Frank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top