x
anonymous 18 January 2002

I love the ease of use of the dbx 160, and I love its sound on lots of things like drums, bass and guitars. Can I use them lightly on vocals as well?

Tags

Comments

Jon Atack Sat, 01/19/2002 - 08:37

I've got four dbx 160 comps (and two 160x's as well) and use them all the time. They are in my personal comp A-list along with 1176/1178s, LA2A/LA3As, CL1Bs, 33609s, EL8s, 660/670s, etc.

I find the 160 to be somewhat harsh on lead vocals, but if that's what you're after, then go for it. It might be worth a try on BVs, though I often use a Tubetech SMC2B or an 1178 for that.

But what we write here matters little. If you like the way it sounds, just do it.

Jon

Hack Mon, 01/21/2002 - 01:06

Is it common to use two comps on a lead vocal? Could you fill me in on ratios and reduction ideas for this. The sound company I work for has 12 160X's. So thats what I use.

I usually end up with 3 - 8 lead vocal tracks. You know...
Scream
Sing
Wisper
Spoken
Stack

All the layering shit. Anyway should I be treating these individualy and then busing them to one or two more group comps?

Understanding that preformance has got to be the trick, what are some of your methods for getting all these to sound like one bigger than life track?

anonymous Mon, 01/21/2002 - 05:58

I can say that alot of pro's have said that they would not use it on vocals. You have to like it's colored sound for yourself because at the same token there are a few who use and swear by it:
Humberto Gatica-Celine Dion's only vocal engineer
Ray Bardani-Luther Vandross (Mix Mag 2001)
Tony Maserati-Everybody (R&B, hip-hop)(mix mag 2001_
Glen Ballard as previously stated
Dr.Dre-Emenim (Mix Mag June 2001)

You get the point. This list suggest to me that it is worth trying out.

Jon Atack Mon, 01/21/2002 - 12:15

Hi Kev,

It's been a few years since I last used a Neve 33609, but I recall putting drum subgroups, bass guitar, and room mics through it with good results. It wasn't bad on the 2-bus, as well.
I believe AMS Neve are making 33609 reissues now. We'll have a vintage one in great condition coming into our new room starting in March, and I'm looking forward to it.

Coldsnow,

The 160 is the old 2U-high, half-space dbx compressor with the VU-meter. They are normally racked up as two comps side-by-side in a 2U rack space.

Jon

anonymous Mon, 01/21/2002 - 19:09

To be fair, I'm actually talking about the DBX 162, which is just the stereo version of the 160. Even cooler!

The "color" it adds is kind of yellow/orange. This to me equals "hot" and "harsh" but obviously not too much so, or the above mentioned engineers would not touch it.

Thanks for all the responses. Though as always, ears matter most.

RecorderMan Tue, 01/22/2002 - 14:09

Originally posted by groundcontrol:
I've worked with Humberto on several mixes some years ago, and he never used 160 VU's on vocals. He was always using an original 33609 as far as I can remember. He might have put a snare or kick thru them once in a while though.

Eric ;)

...oh yeah (rolling up his sleaves)...well I worked with "Hum" on Streisand and (I think), some of the earliest stuff he did of Celine. And he always used a 160 in his vocal chain. I've got a few of his chains written down somewhere...like i care anymore...not my cup of tea as an engineer. But i won't take much away from him...when he nails a ballad...no one can do it better...only different.

...so...if he wasn't using a 160 in canada...maybe he was bored or there wasn't a good sounding unit in the house.

anonymous Wed, 01/23/2002 - 10:24

It was not in Canada, (although he was in Montreal working on the new Celine Dion album some months ago). It was down in LA at Westlake and at the plant when had just got their first 9k.

What I appreciated most on those session was the rest days when I would go climbing at J-Tree NM and around town.

Eastern Canada can't compete with SoCal for the climbing weather that's for sure!

Eric

Dave McNair Sat, 01/26/2002 - 17:08

JoeQ,
The 160,(sometimes refered to as a 160VU cause of the VU meter), is a very different beast to a 160x or 160a. To my ears the 160VU has more color and gives a lot more punch to things like drums and basses. The 160x and 160a might be a little more transparent but for me pretty unthrilling. To weigh in on the vocal comp question, my first choice these days is a Distressor or one of my trusty LA3a's. I'll use a 160 on vocals if I have to, but not my first choice. Jon, I used a 33609 on 2-bus for years, but these days a Smart seems to float my boat.

mixfactory Sat, 01/26/2002 - 17:33

I have to disagree with MCsnare on the 160X. I think the two things the 160X works great on are Drums and bass. Sometimes on a vocal. It does emphasize the high mids though, but for this application nothing beats it. I think the closest would be a Distressor, but you have to mess around with it. There are different versions of the 160x(XT and A), the 160X is the best of the bunch though. The 160Vu is a total different animal all together. It has its own sound that you can't get anywhere. I think it works on vocals and acoustic guitars. Drums is a toss up. I think if you want that "70's" drum sound, the 160Vu is perfect. The other one people use is the 165. It is ok, sometimes great, sometimes not, but I guess that goes for everything.

anonymous Sun, 01/27/2002 - 14:09

It's just a name that evolved from doing my first sucessful recordings from a friend's basement with some pulled together equipment. The record company wanted a flashy studio name to put on the jacket so I just came up with that.

Since then I've mostly been carting my gear to any odd location that's practical for the project at hand and the name has stuck. So almost all of the records I've done were done at "groundcontrol studio" although none have been recorded in the same place... :w:

realdynamix Thu, 01/31/2002 - 22:53

I have one, (162) in the closet, with a bad card (OP amp out). The tantalum caps short and the whole baby goes down, power supply loads up, and are easily replaced. It is a rough and tough compressor, and are still being serviced by a small company in LA. There was one field modification by dbx shortly after introducing the 162, it involved the removal and by-pass of one of the OP amps in the gain reduction circuit. That made it a bit smoother by slowing down the release, however, I liked the original sound better, way more transparent. The 162 has all parts of a 160, except, it only has one RMS detector that controls the compression of both channels, of which are discrete cards in the box. The 162 is a stereo comp, where the 160 allows independent control for each single channel unit, and both the 160, and 162 can control other 160, or 162 units as slaves via the multi-pin connector and master/slave switch on the back. This also allows the RMS detector of one 160 to control another channel when used for stereo, in effect, becoming a 162. The 162 has an ouput "sum" switch at the meter.

--Rick

MadMoose Sun, 02/03/2002 - 20:35

Originally posted by Rick Hammang:
The 162 is a stereo comp, where the 160 allows independent control for each single channel unit, and both the 160, and 162 can control other 160, or 162 units as slaves via the multi-pin connector and master/slave switch on the back. This also allows the RMS detector of one 160 to control another channel when used for stereo, in effect, becoming a 162. The 162 has an ouput "sum" switch at the meter.

Are you sure that the 160's have a link on them? I have a pair of 160VU's and there's no obvious way to link them.

realdynamix Sun, 02/03/2002 - 22:22

Originally posted by Jay Kahrs:

Originally posted by Rick Hammang:
on This also allows the RMS detector of one 160 to control another channel when used for stereo, in effect, becoming a 162.

Are you sure that the 160's have a link on them? I have a pair of 160VU's and there's no obvious way to link them.MMM???? My 162VU is circa 74-76, is this about the same time period for yours? Perhaps a different designation?, the catalog from which I ordered, showed the 2 units and their options. Mine was MFG at Waltham, MA, the connector is rather large and has 12 pins. Maybe mine is older than I think. ???
I am looking for that old catalog. It's around here somewhere. BTW when I was searching for more info, I found your site..Cool, and I saw your 160's. I did see a photo at one site, showing the master/slave buttons on the front panel, but could not see what unit that was. Still looking.
--Rick

anonymous Sat, 02/16/2002 - 08:38

I have been using 160VU's and 160x's forever with great results. When I did music and post mixing for TV, I used to use a 166 across the mix bus. The day I started doing that, I started getting real busy. Every mix on I did that I happened to actually see while watching TV sounded basically as I intended.
Since I've been working on records full time, I weaned off the 166 and stuck with 160VU's and 160x's(I have 3 in my rack).
A regular client of mine turned me on to the 163x. I think this is a great sounding-punchy compressor when mixed in with un-compressed signals. Try it on Bkgd vox and drum sub-groups. I've actually auditioned it as a 2-bus, and it sounded sort of like a SSL 2 mix compressor. The main problems with it being a 2 mix compressor is the self noise, and it doesn't seem to sound right in stereo link mode. I would be curious if anyone else has had better sucsess with the stereo link option on 163x's.

anonymous Sat, 02/16/2002 - 17:19

Originally posted by Julian Standen:
It goes well after an 1176 it the singer is too dynamic or loud... mess with bothe to catch just the bits you want... they interact well and form 'one compressor' if tweaked well..

mic
pre
eq
1176
160

Also try the 160 THEN the 1176. I find this set-up doesn't emphasize the sibilance as much.

:)

x

User login