Aux in/out

[kathy]

Hi, I use outboard effects and need advice on how to link it up to my mixing desk, ie- pr/post mix, via send & return, or any other ways of doing it? thanks guys.

[dbuckley]

pr/post mix, via send & return, or any other ways of doing it

Yes, all of the above :)

 

The actual answer is, "it depends", the answer is whatever works right for what you are doing.

 

Genenerally, additive effects such as reverb or delay will be post fade aux send, so the ratio of effect to dry signal will be constant over the throw of the fader, assuming you dont overload the effects unit. Replacement effects (eg put the voice up an octave to make it sound like Micky Mouse) are best done pre-fade, as you want independent control of level rather than ratio. Or if there is no requirement for dry signal you can still use pre-fade, but dont assign the channel to a group or output, which puts the control on the fader which is more convenient.

 

In terms of returns, choice are stereo channels, pairs of mono channels, or effect return channel, in that order. Effects like reverb and EQ can often be made less mix-muddying and to sit better in the mix by EQing them just like you would any other signal, so having EQ is damned handy. Pairs of mono channels are the same thing but with two controls to adjust and faders to move instad of one, but the "spread" of a reverb across the "stereo" image is worth the effort. Most returns have at best basic EQ, so if you have chnnels available, forget the retrun EQ. Most big desks are really stingy on sereo channels, I think thats a shame, 'cos they're good for effects, and good for many keyboard instruments.

 

In-line effects (such as compression) should use channel or group insets, but I dont think thats what you were asking about. If so, theres more tricks there.

[mackerr]

Or if there is no requirement for dry signal you can still use pre-fade, but dont assign the channel to a group or output, which puts the control on the fader which is more convenient.

If you are pre fade, the fader will do nothing. In this example you need to be post fade.

 

Mac

[Bobbsy]

I take that as meaning the control is on the fader being used for the AUX RETURN, which is how I'd do it for the special effects type stuff being referred to here.

 

Bob

[mackerr]

I take that as meaning the control is on the fader being used for the AUX RETURN, which is how I'd do it for the special effects type stuff being referred to here.

I took it (and still do) to mean the send was on the input fader, which is a pretty clever idea. I try not to use FX returns for anything but setting level in the mix. If you use the return to turn off the reverb, with long decays you hear the decay stop. I would rather kill the send.

 

Mac

[dbuckley]

I took it (and still do) to mean the send was on the input fader, which is a pretty clever idea.

Sorry all, thats exactly what I meant, it was a typo, if you have a post fade aux used with no outputs assigned you get an effect send fader. So for an example of say the radio mic on the giant, which is entirely routed through an effect unit to drop him a few semitones (no dry signal at all) then from the op's perspective the channel is nothing special, its just the giant's fader. No knob twiddling required. And I'm humbled you've called it clever, as I've actually never seen anyone else do it, but I'm sure I cant be the only one who has twigged the possibility.

 

If you use the return to turn off the reverb, with long decays you hear the decay stop. I would rather kill the send.

Absolutely.

 

But killing the returns also can work. Years ago I used to mix a heavy caberet (maybe light rock?) band who did "clock strikes ten" for their first encore. I did this track heavily effected, ADT, echo and reverb on vocals (two great vocalists, brothers), big kit (complete with flanged snare in the middle), the whole nine yards. A very wet mix indeed. This track ends on a guitar rundown to a stop, and on the stop I muted the entire effects stuff, so this soggy room just dropped dead. It was such an unusual thing to do it distrurbed people. Really effective, worked every time <_<

 

"If it sounds right, it is right".

 

Unlike the mix I heard suffered yesterday, should you tell an engineer he's made the wrong career choice?

[J Pearce]

OT but hey,

 

Unlike the mix I heard suffered yesterday, should you tell an engineer he's made the wrong career choice?

We all have off days.

 

I have and I'm sure you have walked away from a gig thinking 'that sounded poor'.

[dbuckley]

Point taken, of course, I've done lousy jobs, same as everyone whose ever touched a mixer. So heres a quiz. The band strikes up, you notice that the mix is actually (being polite) "not your best work". Do you (a) try and do something about it by listening critically and making adjustments to improve the mix, or (b) add yet more reverb and lean back in your chair whilst thinking "tomorrow is another day".

[mackerr]

Sorry all, thats exactly what I meant, it was a typo, if you have a post fade aux used with no outputs assigned you get an effect send fader. So for an example of say the radio mic on the giant, which is entirely routed through an effect unit to drop him a few semitones (no dry signal at all) then from the op's perspective the channel is nothing special, its just the giant's fader. No knob twiddling required. And I'm humbled you've called it clever, as I've actually never seen anyone else do it, but I'm sure I cant be the only one who has twigged the possibility.

In fact I like the idea so much I can envision splitting a lead vocalist who talks between songs into 2 inputs so one can be used as the efx sends. This makes it easy to kill the efx send on desks that have no aux output mute button. Thanks.

 

Mac

[dbuckley]

... I can envision splitting a lead vocalist who talks between songs into 2 inputs so one can be used as the efx sends...

The funk deepens, thats a cool idea, and frankly one that will find a lot more use than my use, which is a once a year special. So now we're splitting the vocalist into a money channel, and and effects channel, and at least one foldback channel... now I understand why big frame mixers were invented <_<

 

Oh yeah, that trick hasn't been mentioned here yet, an oldie but goodie, if you're running monitors from the FOH desk then the compression and EQ applied to the vocalists will almost certainly be inappropriate for monitors. What you can do is to split the vocalist into two channels, one for FOH, and the other for monitors, with differering EQs. This removes the problem of compromise EQ.

 

Depending on your desk it can be easier said than done, the nicest is if your desk has a direct outs that are pre-EQ and Pre-Insert and line inputs, 'cos then all you need is a short cable to link from direct out of one channel to the line in of the other, and the only control in common is the mic gain, so thats the one you need to get right at soundcheck. Every other way is uglier, but next most popular is probably the insert point if pre-EQ, as you will probably be using the insert on the vocalist(s) channel(s) you'll need a insert split cable. Y cable on mic can work as well, phantom is a theoretical problem but in practice tends not to be.

 

There is some cruel irony in that these tricks are most useful on the gigs where you dont have a monitor desk and engineer, so generally smaller gigs, which usually implies smaller mixer, which are usually the least flexible in regard of provisioning of this kind of trick. Its easy to do on a 48/8/2 desk with a double figure number of auxes, as mixers at that price point are pretty comprehensively specified in the socket department, but you'll probably not have one of those in the Dog and Duck on a monday night...

[lonfire]

Effects like reverb and EQ can often be made less mix-muddying and to sit better in the mix by EQing them just like you would any other signal, so having EQ is damned handy

 

yeah indeed.. I tend to run reverb for singers post fade aux into FX then into a pair of mono channels so I can EQ the output from the FX.. seems to work quite well.. it also means you can hit the mute buttons on the return channels when the artist speaks inbetween songs.. just make sure you don't then route the return channels back into the same aux again ;-)

 

rgds

chris

[Bobbsy]

Sorry all, thats exactly what I meant, it was a typo, if you have a post fade aux used with no outputs assigned you get an effect send fader.

 

Yup a cool idea. The only proviso I'd have is that I have encountered some boards (older Soundcraft Spirits I believe) where the channel routing switches double as on/off switches and the send to the auxes is muted when nothing is selected.

 

Bob

[dbuckley]

... some boards (older Soundcraft Spirits I believe) where the channel routing switches double as on/off switches and the send to the auxes is muted when nothing is selected.

Some desks are just too damned clever for their own good <_<

 

I wonder what digital desks would make of this trick.....?

 

 

 

 

... into a pair of mono channels so I can EQ the output from the FX..

Yeah, many Fx units have onboard EQ, but its often just top and bottom shelving, and usually what you want to lose is low-mid boom. And editing EQ on a 16x2 LCD isnt the best fun...

[Rob_Beech]

I wonder what digital desks would make of this trick.....?

 

 

Most have the effects built in so a different kind of routing is required. The digital desks I have worked on have not had any problem of this kind.

Also, IIRC you can configure were e post fade sends come in the chain. Pre or Post on/mute switch etc etc

 

 

Rob

[Bobbsy]

I wonder what digital desks would make of this trick.....?

 

Well, on the DM1000/DM2000 desks I know best I can configure to internal routing to make any fader I want into an Aux send, so the problem doesn't arise.

 

...and, as Rob_Beech says, the decision as to whether an aux is pre or post fade can be done channel by channel...and this can be changed scene by scene if you need it to be.

 

Bob