Just wondering if anyone might be able to tell me any of the key differences between these two units? I'm looking at getting one of them to use an an upwards expander, but the 124 seems fairly rare in the UK and there's a few 118s I've seen. They both seem to have an option to use them for dedicated upwards expansion according to the manual at least. Not as interested in the flavour of compression either of them have, although I imagine they're similar, but if it's for the sake of a little extra for a better comp then I'm willing to pay it. Thanks!

Key differences is dbx 124 is a worthless tape noise reduction unit.
Dime a dozen. No compression, no expansion.

Maybe you meant 117,118,119 for the features you're describing.

Noise-y, rca jacks, similar to those dbx bx1,2,3 "expander" units..

I still prefer the half rack 163.

I meant the 128 sorry!

I'm pretty much solely after it for the upward expansion, does the 163 have that? I've seen people that have modded the 128 like units to have jacks, are RCAs inherently noisy for this kind of application? I can't find whether either of the 128s input sections is for unbalanced signal either, as I imagine these units are set up for balanced line level.

The only other hardware upward, or upward only, expander I've heard of is on some pretty rare seeming Sony compressor unit.

Ta for the reply.

All I can add is that I love my 118 and yes, it does a nice, bumpy accent expansion.

Awesome, wanting to use it for a Pianet T, lovely sounding EP with different pads & the right amp and a bit (a lot) of low end compression and nice subtle 'transparent' drive. Just while the dynamic range is much improved with new pads it could be better!

What sort of stuff have you used your 118 with? Does it take instrument level well at all? I was going to feed mine a hotter signal out of the dual band compressor I'm using (with the high end bypassed). But worried it might add too much noise. Don't mind it adding some just not loads!

I have a minty fresh 118 with no mods or recapping, all original, when compressing for me it is not that noisy, its when under high compression when there is no source noise that is gets loud. I generally just cut out the spaces where instruments are not playing with it, like on an acoustic guitar. Drum smashing it is low enough in the mix I don't bother.

If you want to send me something I can run it through mine to give you an idea what it sounds like.

I can echo that, when signaI is pIaying I don't mind the 'dither' IoI

I have mine on a +4 baIanced patchbay with a one Iegged input cabIe, so down 6dB and he Iikes it fine. ObviousIy comes out a bit quiet though. Sometimes tempted to add a baIanced output stage to him.

To me this thing is not a probIem soIver at aII but a vibe box with a specific vibe, regardIess of setting, which either works in the music or not at aII. For me mostIy aII the time. Great paraIIeI bus comp.

Agreed, I always wanted a level-loc, but thanks to it being revealed as a secret weapon they are disgustingly priced, and I got this dbx 118 for $70 on an auction site and use it much like a level-loc. I am doing a bowie cover with my girlfriend so I may give it a shot on vocals. It can also be used to get very vintage vibey acoustic guitar.

Yup, I use it on acoustics, but in paraIIeI. Had some awesome vintage fare from it together with some cheap and great 70s hifi inductor graphic eq's.

Yeah I don't have it anymore but used to have a realistic graphic inductor eq that was quite good from about that era.

Yup. StiII have the 1987 here, but for acoustic 70s styIe the JVC SEA-10 is better. AIso discrete inductor. Sings. The 5k on that makes vocaIs insta-70s.

I will have to see if I can find one of those!

did you ever try this on vocals?