HARDWARE DBX 160XT vs 160VU PLUGIN | Plugin vs Hardware

[@TheSermonOnTheMount]

Me having to listen this hard speaks volumes

[@JedBayes]

I personally preferred the hardware for bass, but I could see both being useful for drums and vocals. The plug-in sounds like it adds more distortion in the upper mids and doesn’t compress quite as evenly as the hardware. I have a pair of 560a that get used all the time… drums, bass, acoustic, vocals, and my personal favorite… piano. Thanks for the shootout!

[@westeggrecords810]

I preferred A on all of them..

[@Jason75913]

It sounded cleaner and a little less warm.

[@amazeus1980]

Explain why…

[@CarstenGoeke]

Both sounding very good ✌🏼

[@someoneontheweb4303]

Great video dude.

[@nghtfall]

I feel like the attack times were different somehow. The hardware had a smoother sound whereas the plugin’s attack added more snap and punch to the transients which also sounded quite good, depending on the sound you want.

[@RoomAtTheTopStudio]

This test has helped me now know that I want the plugin and a 160 clone. I still would like two 160xt units as the sound is still useful but the 160xt doesn't have the same dynamics as the 160, even compared to the plugin.

[@rtdrec]

Hello Thomas, I also tested the DBX 160 VU on vocals. In my experience, the DBX 160 Vu makes the transients in the vocals kind of sharp. They stand out. Something you certainly didn't hear on the Dr.Dre recordings from the late 90s to mid 2000s, when he used the DBX 160 VU as his Main Comp on Vocals. However, many people complain that his latest work "Compton" sounds too sharp and bright, including the vocals. Do you think this could be because in the early 2000s they were still using tape like a Studer A800 to make the transients sound smoother, and that solved the problem? I think there are other transparent-sounding compressors such as the Cl1B, which presents the transients in a nice, rounded and musical way. Maybe this works better with “digital recording” than a DBX 160 VU.

[@XNBeatsMusic]

You can hear the A is a bit more inconsistent when pushed, B is super consistent and not too bouncy. The plugin works great with a little bit of GR, if you want to push it harder then B always. I have the 3 versions, the 500, Rack and Plugin, the plugin is nice if you want an extra DBX. But the hardware does a better job almost always, if it doesn't you might want a different compressor. DBX and Fredenstein are a good example of, good and affordable.

[@asdfasdf917]

I preferred the saturation of A, but the compression of B. I'm comfortable doing most stuff ITB, but it's the release behavior of HW compressors that always gives it away to me and that I can't replace with plugins.

[@aakarshandutta8511]

I liked actually both, but I really figured out that B was the hardware.

[@MaraldBes]

The B sounded more modern and clearer and is preferred but the saturation of A felt better on the kicks. Maybe it's differences are because its modelled after on an older VU model. Need an actual 160VU in the blind test as well to compare.. can somebody loan one to Thomas?

[@AftertuneMusic]

Spotted correctly B was the hardware but remember that DBX use VCA compression so you can replicate the result with another VCA.. i personally use the SSL 4K VCA comp to parallel the lows, hope it helps!

[@APaclin]

So all VCA compressors are the same? Got it.

[@AftertuneMusic]

@@APaclin the compressor type is the same yes, VCA state for Voltage Control Amplifier and its a very fast type of compression, similar to the 1176 which is faster, so in the end if you want something more transparent and clean go to VCA if you want something more aggressive and dirty use the FET compression

[@APaclin]

@@AftertuneMusic VCA compressor can sound just as aggressive as FET 🙂

[@mrmorpheus9707]

Dr dre..uses dbx for vocals, i worked with him b4 & saw that...

[@bontempo1271]

I think i understand why, it gives that bite and snap. You wouldn't want that on singing, but on rapping which is more percussive and punctuated, it probably works !

[@bontempo1271]

Hmm ! I can hear the hardware is stronger on the drums. Bit thicker, level, teeny bit richer in harmonics. For bass, i can hear a clear difference, hardware is levelled, more low end (albeit a bit muddy), but i could see myself using the software depending on the mix, because it had more low mid to mid info and had a faster envelope. I'd maybe use both in parallel lol. On vocal it's close, just a tad more levelled and thick with the hardware. But in the case of the DBX, i don't think you'd be doing too bad by using the software. It's probably one of the easier compressors to emulate, and happens to be the one where i have heard the closest emulations.

[@vcheri432]

B was brighter but A felt better. I’d use B for the mid highs & A for the lows & mids

[@simmermusic3894]

Interesting, I liked to plugin better on the bass, but on the punch of the drums I prefer the hardware

[@Miltersen]

Damn. I liked A.

[@compucorder64]

I very much preferred B on the drums. But, I remember that sound, from when I used to have one always across my Jomox XBase 09 bass drum. Bass suprised me, (A) preserved more of the full frequency range, and I preferred that. But, on vocals, back to preferring B again, where it almost brought some enhancement / exciter type effects. But no suprise since those vocals were percussive and rhythmic anyway. If it was smooth singing if A faired better on that. But so would an FMR RNC, and UAD LA-2A might also be better. For me, DBX excels on the percussive.

[@CLdwyer]

A nice on the vocal. B for the rest.

[@realiam1am]

hardware on vocals and drums and plugin on bass imo were best

[@mattwinegar527]

Hardware seemed better on drums. On the bass and vocal the plugin may have been the winner.

[@Funkybassuk]

Noob-type question but I noticed a lot of your files looked like they were clipping - was that before or after the DBX? And do you think a bit of clipping doesn’t really matter - or can sound better depending on the context?

[@thomasvopstal]

You’re probably looking at the waveform on which i zoomed in. If you look at the meter to the left of it, you can see there is a bit if headroom

[@teddym2808]

Wow I got it wrong I thought the hardware was A, for sure. Go UAD.

[@franklingenao7418]

I was listening on my iPhone and B had a bit more low mids (more round I guess) and I that’s how I knew it was the hardware. But the average listener won’t tell the subtle difference. However, if you’re mixing multiple tracks with hardware, those subtle differences do add up in the final mix and this is where things make a bigger difference.

[@Don_nell]

I knew in advance the hardware would be 'B' because it was full and warmer and louder and most compression software plugins always sound crappy compared to their hardware counterparts. Companies make it that way on purpose.

[@chrisrios802]

different models and sounds, someone already did the dbx160 vs the one you own and the uad and waves plugins, waves is the closest to original vu

[@seekingtruthonly.4299]

160 and 160xt are completely different.

[@RoomAtTheTopStudio]

That's why I prefered the software on the majority of things in this test. They aren't the same and have a different dynamics.

[@聂宇讲真的]

A is best

[@monovladd4392]

Hardware for drums BUT!!, with REAL DRUMS, for every electronic music or source, every plugin is just fine 🤷🏻‍♂

[@antonweisheit126]

I liked version A. It seemed that it was hardware

[@joeyf808]

A for me.

[@audiosounddoctor5834]

A all the time .......and that is the plugin ?????

[@josuastangl7140]

Certainly very close

[@nickafflitto7519]

A

[@goodmusic7459]

Dont Focus on Tools Focus on the goal

[@zechs5079]

If you're a mixing or mastering engineer, the tools are sometimes required for the goal

[@TheSermonOnTheMount]

Secretly liked the plugin better? Why secretly?? lol really?

[@directed6924]

LMFAO the 15 years old plug-in wins.

[@MasterMusicR]

A