Softube VCA Compressor is based on what?

[David MacNeill]

Anybody know? I don’t recognize it. It’s a free download right now so I grabbed it because duh but I would like to know what they are emulating here and what its best use case is.

I pretty much rely on the UAD Distressor for vocals and guitars and the UAD dBx 160 for bass, as well as the compressors in the UAD Avalon and Kazrog Avalon 747 which I find of limited utility for vocals but not bad on drums and some guitar tracks but not all.

 

[Matt Hepworth]

Either the 160 or 165. I haven't given it a close look yet.

 

[Alexxon]

DBX160 VU, according to some Internet forum discussions. But it’s definitely one of the DBX160 sub models or DBX 160 itself.

A bit off topic. I kind of like what Softube do things. They are different from Universal Audio(no better or worse). While Universal Audio is doing all the best stuff to faithfully and perfectly recreate original gears into digital form, Softube is modifying them based on their aesthetic and vision, which is also good. I owned UA’s LA-2A but when Softube released OPTO Compressor I was still impressed by how nice it sounds and the additional flexibility it has(they put a drive on tons of plugins they produced lmao).

Their stuff is really pricy if you don’t catch a chance. I got the OPTO in $35 so it’s pretty good for me. I was pretty shocked to see they give away VCA compressors but either way, it’s good for customers.

 

[chrisharbin]

A: It's really good. B. I'm p/o'ed because even though it's excellent, I was trying to sell mine....can't do that now. Sigh......

 

[phoier]

I tried it. It sounds very different from the UAD. Not worse or better. Just different. Slower release somehow, even with release set to minimum. Different color too. Maybe smoother. Wonder if it's based on the DBX 160? Anyway, this earns it a place in the collection. Thanks Softube.

 

[David MacNeill]

Tried it on a bass track today and it worked nicely. Couldn't tell a dramatic difference from the UA 160 which we have been using for over a year now. It's a keeper.

 

[UA_User]

I snagged this freebie, and I happen to have an original vintage 160 (I found it at a junk shop 15+ years ago. Good luck getting one now... the prices went nuts on these and I'm going to sell mine soon, before it stops working!). My thoughts after a few days:

This freebie is a good plugin, but I don't think it's a strict emulation of the 160. Perhaps inspired by? Or based on another DBX unit I'm not familiar with? I don't know.

It's more flexible and harder to dial in than the hardware. You can get it to do more or less what the hardware does, if you set it up right.

Sound quality is very good. However, _none_ of the plugins sound exactly like the hardware 160 to me in character. The tone (frequency response) is off, and the compression behavior isn't quite the same. Apparently it's one of the more difficult compressors to emulate? On the other hand my unit looks like it's never been serviced, and is pretty beat up, so who knows what it sounded like new?

Best way to describe the hardware is extremely even and stable compression. Every one of your snare or kick hits going through it are robotically evened out, and craploads of smack and punch are added, with an entirely predictable, stable, release and attack timing.

All of the 160 plugins bounce around a tiny bit on the attack, sometimes getting clicky on some of them (the hardware is impossible to make clicky... it magically turns the transients into solid smacks, not clicks). The release also bounces around a touch on all the plugins.

Another thing the hardware can do is graciously handle complex program material such as drum bus or even mixes. The Waves perhaps comes closest to doing that, which is funny because generally speaking Waves compressor emulations are always amongst the worst on the market to my ears. Their dbx really ain't too bad though-it behaves pretty well. Reality check: all hardware comps handle complex material better than plugin compressors, so picking on the dbx plugins isn't very fair, it's just that it's further off to my ears than the typical SLL bus compressor plugin or whatever (most of which do a good job)

Tone-wise the Softube has the Waves beat though. It's not like the hardware, but it's a very good sound.

Quite hard to pick a winner between UAD, Waves and Softube on the DBX comp front. They are all noticeably different with pros and cons.

 

[Matt Hepworth]

I sold my original 160VU for way too little a few years back. Before I sold it I did an audio and video comparison, but then kind of forgot about it. I compared to the UAD and the Waves 160s. Each was closer to the hardware in certain ways. I'll have to see if I can find that. It was my first real shootout intended for video and I even patched out and in for the plugins, so all would have AD and DA taken into consideration.

 

[chrisharbin]

This freebie is a good plugin, but I don't think it's an emulation of the 160. Perhaps inspired by? Or based on another DBX unit I'm not familiar with? I don't know.

I personally think it's it's own animal. Maybe based on to some degree, but mo' options. In particular, I like the wet/dry. TTBOMK, the UAD ones don't have that. Handy in some situations for me because I don't really like "compression" per say. I have a tendency to fix things or just redo them as opposed to just slapping a compressor on it. I like parallel comp though, and then on buses for "glue" if needed.

There is also some nifty things you can do with the "sidechain" where that isn't possible with other flavors.

Hey man, it's free, I paid for mine!

 

[UA_User]

I sold my original 160VU for way too little a few years back.

Oof. Bad timing! I did that with a certain video game system and 4 games for it about 10 years ago. I try to block out how much it goes for now...

 

[UA_User]

I personally think it's it's own animal. Maybe based on to some degree, but mo' options. In particular, I like the wet/dry. TTBOMK, the UAD ones don't have that. Handy in some situations for me because I don't really like "compression" per say. I have a tendency to fix things or just redo them as opposed to just slapping a compressor on it. I like parallel comp though, and then on buses for "glue" if needed.

There is also some nifty things you can do with the "sidechain" where that isn't possible with other flavors.

Hey man, it's free, I paid for mine!

I'm inclined to agree. It's a more general take on the compression style made famous by DBX.

Parallel works particularly well with this plugin.

It's one of the better freebies I've heard in VST land, and anyone here who stumbles on this thread, I urge you to grab it even if you have the UAD or Waves DBX.

 

[alamere]

I'm inclined to agree. It's a more general take on the compression style made famous by DBX.

Parallel works particularly well with this plugin.

It's one of the better freebies I've heard in VST land, and anyone here who stumbles on this thread, I urge you to grab it even if you have the UAD or Waves DBX.

Snagged it, and excited to give it a try.

As a lover of the 160 style.. I'm open to having several different versions.
Also, Softube really does make some great stuff.

 

[Kev]

I bought it when it was like $19 a while ago. I guess it's gone down in price? Ha...next time I'll wait it out until they pay ME to have it.
I like that it has a lot of options to dig into, and I like the quickness of the UA 160 when I know that all I want is that particular sound and I know what it's going to give me. Almost always tend to use these 160s in parallel when I go for them.
Not exactly sure what it's based on but I just use it for what it is.

 

[UA_User]

I bought it when it was like $19 a while ago. I guess it's gone down in price? Ha...next time I'll wait it out until they pay ME to have it.
I like that it has a lot of options to dig into, and I like the quickness of the UA 160 when I know that all I want is that particular sound and I know what it's going to give me. Almost always tend to use these 160s in parallel when I go for them.
Not exactly sure what it's based on but I just use it for what it is.

$19 is still a good buy on this.

 

[sirthought]

It would be good to know which one. A 160 and 165 are really different sounding models. One is way cleaner and doesn't grab as much. The dirtier one is nicer for blowing up drums on a parallel bus.

 

[Eric Dahlberg]

I tried it. It sounds very different from the UAD. Not worse or better. Just different. Slower release somehow, even with release set to minimum. Different color too. Maybe smoother. Wonder if it's based on the DBX 160? Anyway, this earns it a place in the collection. Thanks Softube.

Maybe a 165 then. That had a pretty slow attack, too, even at its fastest setting. I owned a 165 and a 160VU, and always preferred the 165 on most things. Pretty much only used 160VU for vocals.

 

[UA_User]

It would be good to know which one. A 160 and 165 are really different sounding models. One is way cleaner and doesn't grab as much. The dirtier one is nicer for blowing up drums on a parallel bus.

Maybe a 165 then. That had a pretty slow attack, too, even at its fastest setting. I owned a 165 and a 160VU, and always preferred the 165 on most things. Pretty much only used 160VU for vocals.

Interesting.

Never used a 165. I tried the sknote plugin some years ago, and from what I recall it was clicky and not getting me the smack I wanted. It's possibly good for other things, but I only tested it to try and get the 160 smack on drums. No idea how the sknote compares to hardware.

 

[Nyoak34]

I bought it when it was like $19 a while ago. I guess it's gone down in price? Ha...next time I'll wait it out until they pay ME to have it.
I like that it has a lot of options to dig into, and I like the quickness of the UA 160 when I know that all I want is that particular sound and I know what it's going to give me. Almost always tend to use these 160s in parallel when I go for them.
Not exactly sure what it's based on but I just use it for what it is.

$19 ??? Perhaps there's a Softube forum where you can start a 132 page thread about how they are exploiting their old loyal customers with nefarious marketing practices?

 

[UA_User]

Since we're on the topic, I feel the need to demystify these old DBX's. They are nothing very special. The inflated prices make zero sense, and the current, very cheap DBX 560a (500 series) compressor is is just as good .

 

[Kev]

$19 ??? Perhaps there's a Softube forum where you can start a 132 page thread about how they are exploiting their old loyal customers with nefarious marketing practices?

The one here is enough to cook anyone's brain....haha