VK Shootout: Vintage dbx 160 vs. dbx 560a and Plug-ins
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2019
- In our latest VK Shootout, we're comparing a vintage dbx 160 from the Vintage King Tech Shop with the dbx 560a 500 Series module and Universal Audio and Waves Audio plug-ins. Click here to learn more: bit.ly/dbx160VK
#dbx #dbx160 #dbx560 #compressor #shootout #gearshootout
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/VintageKingRUclips
Connect with Vintage King: bit.ly/vintageking
Facebook: bit.ly/VintageKingFacebook
Twitter: bit.ly/VintageKingTweets
Instagram: bit.ly/VintageKingInstagram
About Vintage King:
For over 20 years, Vintage King has done things differently. We've never played follow the leader or settled for just "good enough." With a relentless drive to provide the best experience, products, knowledge, and service, our first concern is always for you and your gear needs. From your first quality microphone to the console you dream about owning and everything in between, Vintage King is about creating quality sound. We're here for you - No matter where your audio travels take you.
VK Shootout: Vintage dbx 160 vs. dbx 560a and Plug-ins
• VK Shootout: Vintage d... 
Видеоклипы
Wow, to me the most obvious difference in a good way was the 560a! Surprising to me. But I was debating whether I should get some, now I know!
I don’t think you can go wrong with any of those options. Considering the insane sales they run, the waves version is a no brainer. For the 3D snap of hardware, the 560 seems like the best choice.
I think the singer sounded best with NO compression, she's great! Don't think the DBX 160 suits this style of vocal, but loved it on all of the instruments. One of my favourite compressors!
Love the Analog Obsession version, as well (make sure to click the logo to initiate over sampling). My favorite snare compressor. Great video! Thanks!
Thank you for the comparison. I preferred the original and the 560 in almost all examples.
Always wanted to see this comparison, thanks!
The Mic is a Sony C-100 for those wondering
Vintage 160 and Waves
Hardware brings more punch N fullness to the sound in a pleasant way
The hardware units sound three dimensional compared to the plugins.
I think that the fair comparison for a 560a would be a 160a, not a 160VU
Look how beautiful those units look physically too!
The one example I really think the vintage shines is the bass, way more exciting to listen to
Wow, Waves did really well on this one. That Hardware 560a was completely different. Also the Compression settings seem to be different on each?
good shootout bois !
Umbelievable when you get a chance to hear this quick comparison. I'm sorry but the hardware units sound so open and wide..Plug ins are what most of us can afford but I will be buying a couple of hardware units and build my hardware collection.. Thank you for the demonstration.
Great voice. Thanks!
cool demo.The 160 is hard knee right? The 560a is set to overeasy.
Waves sounded like a toy on the vocal but convincing on transient sources. The 500 series gave me distressor vibes. Attack seemed faster than the vintage.
it's kind of difficult. as you know - especially with the 160 - no 2 units sounded the same. I bet the 2 units you have there sound a bit different to each other.
I think all the emulations presented do a good job of simulating a nice sounding 160. I go with Waves due to the extra features (dry/wet, SC with HP and M/S in the Stereo mode) and the fact that I can run them natively rather than have a dedicated dsp.
560A comes off a bit flimsy, UAD kind of dull and the release seems wonky. Waves surprisingly close. Vintage, very nice indeed.
Vintage 160 sounded the best to me. So glad I own a pair of them.
I felt the UAD came the closest to the sound of the vintage 160, capturing its warmth and presence. The Waves 160 sounded good, but a little grainy in comparison. The 560A sounded a little pinched and dull, more like a 160xt than a vintage 160.
Great video! The Vintage one certainly sounded the best. I regret to say, as a UAD fanboy, the Waves version sounded better than the UAD one. The UAD seem to be lacking top end, and almost sounded muddy. Likely the reason, I've never been able to find a use for it, even though I own it.
Here's what my ears are hearing (in a very small nutshell). The 560a is different from the vintage unit in an undesirable way (too bright, for one thing). The plugins are very close to the vintage unit but have a more modern sound to them, while the vintage DBX 160 has a warmer, more vintage character, as one would expect. I think the plugins are extremely usable for currently recorded music, unless you just have to have that vintage character in your song, in which case you would probably need the hardware unit. I honestly like the plugins.
vintage 70 for sure !
The plugins sound like weak sauce to me.
Hardware sounds warm and PHAT!
I do believe that in a double blind test, the only 2 family it will be barely possible to distinguish, are: physical ones vs plugins. Differences are however not so huge. Just flavors.
Overall, after the original 160, the 560 sounds very good.
Dbx Comps are really good on drums. I have 3 plugin emulations and all three are really good, though my favourite is the Arturia one. Honestly it is the most common comp I reach for these days for drums, though I am also a fan of the Kramer PIE and DPR 402 both by Waves. In fact the 402 is my favourite compressor of all, though I think the Dbx has the more recognizable sonic imprint. I personally don't use 1176's or FET comps that often, and think the Distressor is the most overrated compressor ever. it's just so muddy and modern sounding, really not my cup of tea. The omnipressor from Eventide is a little better in my opinion for a aggressive, blatantly compressed sound, or a good old 3a. On occasion a Var-mu tube or glue comp works, often in tandem, but thr Dbx is doing way more.
I feel the 560 has more attack than the vintage. The vintage is smother and warmer. But i would run drums on the 560 and vocals on the vintage... those were my two cents
Both plugins collapse the headroom and image of the sound, but UAD does a bit better.
What was the full vocal chain?? The vocals sound real nice here, esp with the hardware comps!!
the vintage one is much more open and rich in high mid harmonics
I've got my eyes on a Seventh Circle Audio B16 unit modeled after the classic dbx160
The vintage one was best for sure but the UAD and the waves sounded better depending on the source which I found to be strange. Neither one was better than the other and all the sources in my opinion. That said all three of those options I thought sounded actually really excellent and would work well in any mix unless it was a very sparse mix which in that case you might really notice the sound of the vintage coming through.. The 560 to me was the most disappointing
160 VU wins on the drums hand down. Honestly though these examples are some of the least dynamic performances you could have picked. The first singer didn’t need any compression... lol.
Can you do the next one in series with 1176, using Slate's FG 116, hardware and UAD's 1176 ?
Or with Distressor hardware, Slate's FG-Stress and UAD's emulation.
Nice singing !!
The 560 absolutely delivers the goods compared to the original hardware! The plugins are also good, but they're clearly not the same as the hardware.
They all sound sonically different but the different flavors are interesting...
1. 160
2. plugin
3. 560a
dbx 560a is not even close, UAD got closer to the tone but waves got closer to the GR action
560A is beautiful
Liked waves better. Real thing always wins.
What mic is this? (0:37)
Is the compression applied before conversion or after? Thx
Before the conversion.
@@vintagekingproaudio Thank you, of course I was asking for the analog models^^
hello, may i ask what mic they are using?😅 Thank you
Sony C-100 on vocals and acoustic guitar. Shure SM57 on snare.
wow! Waves for the win! Amazing
UAD on acoustic just ruined the sound
The plugins on the snare took away all the sparkle....The drum kit probably none of them. But the waves I think sounded best on the kit.. Just my humble two cents. Aprreciate all of the content.. The 560 A is a beast with attack...in a very pleasing way
Prefer the sound of the 560a on all of them
Derek Rushe Funny, I thought the 560a was the worst of them all, to each his own I guess.
The hardware 160 for me is head and shoulders above the rest. Super tight with a smooth tone. On the vocal you can hear the sibalances are nicely controlled along with the vocal. the UAD is way more sibilant in the top end on the vocal. The 560 is ok on the vocal but i don't like the overall tonality of this compressor. suprisingly for me the waves plug comes closest to the hardware overall. Both the UAD and the Waves plugin feel ever so slightly thinner in tone than the Original unit but I really like the waves plugin, and that's coming from a bought up and paid for UAD man. I think the UAD version is due an upgrade. I actually rarely use it and generally go for the waves version or the new Arturia 165 which is also great. For me the order goes.
1.160 Hardware,
2.Waves,
3.UAD
4.560 which I really don't like
Waves Nails it
3:52 Snare DBX160
3:59 Snare DBX560A
4:06 Snare UAD160
4:13 Snare Waves160
more
1:00 and 2:08
Plugins don't carry voltage so they will never sound as open and 3d as hardware. That's why Rupert built everything at 48v rails and a true mastering desk runs at 120v rails. 500 series units are 24v and your cheap behringer comp doesn't even cut the mustard at 9v. DBX did the right thing with their consumer gear, running it at 18v instead of 9v.
The 560 sounds 98% like the original. The UAD sounds different, but still sounds good. The waves I really didnt like it sounded dead and distorted compared to the others.
I'm taking the DBX 160 on principle -- everyone knows that the newer a piece of gear is, the worse it sounds. This is the universal law of audio.
God that vintage DBX is still the best. But the 500 series is better than plugins.
560 a
The vintage unit is the clear winner. The newer DBX sounds like it has a slower release. The Waves plugin was the least successful in every case
Vintage equipment is always tha best, why do you think more records sold back then. Listeners can feel it more, they probably just don't know it
Plugin doesn’t even come close 😭
My chart:
1) Vintage 160
2) Waves 160
3) 560 A
4) UAD 160
I wasn't expecting 560a to suck so much life out of the low-mids. Disappointing
Waves
it's hard to tell but..waves win
the 560 sounds terrible IMO. has no warmth. the plugs are both very near to the real thing.
560A on voice, 160 on drums, don't care for the plugins.