Hello!
Behringer 369 is available now and I was wondering how it compares to DBX 16x VCA compressors ?
Of course there is a huge line if dbx, so lets be flexible in the comparison.

In my case I want to get those gritty sounds that appear in the red-zone, but without adding undesirable artifacts that are not musical, and also the distortion have to be likable. (I know this last issue is super subjective, so opinions are welcomed).

Also, I'd like to use it as 2 mono channels as much as 1 stereo for tracking. Fr example on Snare and kick, but also I could be using it on stere OHs.

Thanks!

You mean 160x? That's a VCA, not a diode bridge, nor does it have many of the specific functions of the 369.
The 360 is a diode bridge. It would be tough to draw any comparisons that have meaning, since they function very differently.
Also, 369 is a linked stereo comp, and 160 is mono. Different applications.

In a shootout, my guess at the outcome would be, "Yeah, I like what that DBX does. And I also like what that Behringer does. I want both!"

I mean all the dbx 16x`s on avarage, 160, 166, 266, xls, etc.

The fact that they function very different is what im asking for. Apples vs oranges , I know. I want to know if for GRITTY drums Id be better with apples or with oranges.
And also if at those red extremes the unit behaves gritty for not-noisy.

The 160, 166 and 266 are also very different animals.
160 is usable. 166 is somewhat usable. 266 is a doorstop.
You won't get anything I describe as "grit" from a 166 or 266. All you'll get from a 266 is crap. 160... if you push it hard, it'll distort. Not sure if you'll describe it as desirable or not.

The Behringer is a copy of the Neve. There's also the Heritage that does the job well. Those will add a certain sense of weight and heft to a drum track, on stereo overhead. Or a whole mix on the buss. I've used the Neve and the clones, but not the Behringer clone yet. From what I hear on the street and heard on internet shootouts for what they are worth, it does a really nice job off aping the Neve. Behringer used to be junk. It isn't junk anymore.

the behringer is a clone. Don't forget it's modern so if you think it will bring you the mojo of an original 33609 it won't. There's no weight or grit with it. It's just super clean, super hifi, even a bit bright.

Then, diode vs vca, apples and oranges...? Don't get confused by superlative like that. A diode is not that different from a vca, it's in fact kind of vca before vca and is quite closed. It's also very punchy and praised for drum or mixbus applications; it can have a large range of settings from fast to slow (but rarely have), and is not much colored; supposedly a bit more than a vca but less than a vari-mu; it was maybe true 60 years ago but it's irrelevant in 2025.
So the difference between a diode and a vca is not significant.

Differences could eventually come from:
-the attack, which is hugely responsible of the shape of the compression and enveloppe
-the ratio and it's knee, which will define the hardness or smoothness of the compression.


-369 has two medium fast attacks (3 or 6ms), which are fast enough in many applications but still retaining a bit of punch.
-dbx are hugely divided in two categories: program dependent time constants, which react to the signal; or variable settings which allow a larger range of choice.

-369 has a huge soft knee
-dbx falls into two category, the hard knee and the over easy which is the soft knee.


Apart from that, not so much to say. So globally the biggest difference will come from the attack, which is almost fixed on a 369, only two settings very closed (3 or 6ms), when on dbx it is program dependent or variable and in both cases offer a larger range of attacks. This is the main differences but we are in the same kind of range, just a bit larger with dbx.
Globally dbx tend to be used on instruments; 33609 tend to be used as a mastering compressor, now busses/mixbus but are also as good as a mixing compressor on individuals sources. Both are very appreciated on drums, wich tells you a lot: it is not that different; they could be used as punchy enveloppe shaper


Gears are not that different as people like to say, it's not apples and oranges. I can compare gasoline or diesel cars, they are still cars providing the same thing, yet the engine and fuel are different.
A compressor is a compressor. It's even more true in that modern era where all gears sounds the same, because electronic has evolved, everything is super clean, and everyone gets components from the same place. So what was a bit more true 60 years ago, like the difference between a varimu and a diode or a vca, is not relevant today. Then people always assumed the difference came from the topology when actually it is more about certain settings that were different and are really responsible of the sound, which is the attack and eventually the ratio and its knee on a compressor. Once you can have pretty closed settings, differences are unsignificant; if settings are matched you won't hear much of a difference, if not at all. A compressor is a compressor, a dynamic leveller and enveloppe shaper, end of story. It's like an eq is an eq, raving hours on differences between one eq and another is foolish. They both do the same job, and if you can match them they will sound almost similar. which is normal; cause EVERY GEARS ARE DESIGNED TO HAVE FIDELITY, those urban legends about tonal thing, colour stuff, mojo blabla are at the best subtleties amplified by fanatics, marketing BS, fantasy.


So the main question here is, what would be the final intend of a 369 against a dbx? A can do it all comp from mix to mastering? (and a good machine to learn compression on all sort of applications?) Then i would choose 369.
A can do it all comp on individual instrument with super ease of use and not much settings (program dependent), then i would choose a dbx 160.
So your question is not that stupid, as the difference is not that huge; mostly they will be choosed about context and the way you can dial them more or less. For a bit more mojo and larger range of settings, an old dbx 165 would suit better, but they are totally overpriced considering what they bring today.
In a more modern fashion and even more complete, with the possibility to make it a good outsider on mastering as well as mixing, would be the dbx 160SL (or 162SL), which was the flagship of dbx and regroup 160 and 165 features in amore modern and complete version.


So for the mojo, the grit i would choose an old 160VU or 165, but is it worth the price for a bit old fashion colour?
About distortion, a compressor is not supposed to distort; if it happens it means the compressor is not that good or you set it waaaay too extreme on fast settings, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about distortion, grit. A compressor is supposed to be transparent and just reduce the dynamic. It is not supposed to be a special FX box,nor a disto box. So i'm not sure what you think about what a compressor really does, or how you learned to use them as plugins eventually.

Thanks everyone for the replys.
I got 1 160A and several 166, 266. The issue with the 160A is that has limited controls, though I will try to push it to its limits to make it distort and then reconsider if maybe I like it best even being simple.