Old dbx Compressors vs. Expanders

[AstroDan]

Regarding the wooden-cheeked, 2U rack high, 70's comps; the 117, 118, 119, 128 and the 160 v.u., 162, 165...

Do these really all share the same circuit?

I have a 161 and had a 118. Beyond the attack and release being totally different, I didn't think the compression sounded identical.

Quench this thirst for understanding. I thank you.

[Mark Alan Miller]

I think they're like siblings, or more likely, cousins.
I have a 117 and 119, and I don't think they sound exactly like a 160...
but I recently wired them up with a balanced/unbalanced (and +4/-10) converter and they sound even better than before.

[runrunrun]

I think they're like siblings, or more likely, cousins.
I have a 117 and 119, and I don't think they sound exactly like a 160...
but I recently wired them up with a balanced/unbalanced (and +4/-10) converter and they sound even better than before.

would you care to explain how you did this? im really interested in knowing. did you make it switchable?

also, do you notice any difference in sound between the 117 and 119. id love to hear your thoughts on them. have you ever a/b'd them with a 160?

[E.Bennett]

If I'm not mistaken, the 119 does heavier ratios that approach limiting. The 117 can't squash as heavily. I like my 119, the 117 sits on a shelf. If I didn't have the 119, I would use the 117. These boxes really seem to help out with vocals recorded with harsh sounding mics.

[r0ck1r0ck2]

and the 128 is a wild honking bastard on the drum buss..

[DaViDB112]

...so is the dbx 160 .....

[Mark Alan Miller]

I think they're like siblings, or more likely, cousins.
I have a 117 and 119, and I don't think they sound exactly like a 160...
but I recently wired them up with a balanced/unbalanced (and +4/-10) converter and they sound even better than before.

would you care to explain how you did this? im really interested in knowing. did you make it switchable?

also, do you notice any difference in sound between the 117 and 119. id love to hear your thoughts on them. have you ever a/b'd them with a 160?

I use a balanced-to unbalanced (and back again) converter box. Ebtech, I think, makes one, for example...

I've not had the chance to compare them to a 160 or 161, although I've used all of those. I think they sound similar - like they're siblings, like I said. The 119 sounds more like a 160 to me than, say, a 166 sounds like either of them. They sound even more like a 160/161 (to my ear's memory, for what that's worth) when being fed signals from my console at +4, then thru the converter box, and back again - most likely because of the optimal gain staging...
The 117 to me is, depsite its lower ratio capability, gushier than the 119. That's because the 199 has the option so set a threshold, where the 117 only can act linearly on the signal (like setting a threshold to maximum sensitivity, in a way...)

And yeah, they are great on things that need a little de-harshing. Often get used on basses that sound too nasty... also good on backing vocal subgroups...