a question about fx sends

[gspointer]

From the many posts I have read I assume I am using my fx sends incorrectly.

Everyone seems to use a post fade aux for fx sends. I use a pre fade, set the input gain on the fx unit, return to extra channels and route the channel straight to the main outs, skipping the group I have the effected channel routed to. I like this method as it gives a level input to the fx unit and the fx level is easily adjusted via its channel slider. What is "wrong" with this method, and what do I gain by using the more conventional post fade send?

[6Imzadi]

Pre fade would be okay if you never turned the sending channel down, at all. If you do, then the effect would always get the same amount of send, and then you would have too much effect on the vocal, for example.

[Craig Vecchione]

Yes, that's it...the effected wet/dry proportion changes whenever you adjust the channel fader in either direction. Generally not something you want.

[joel77]

FX = post-fade: monitors = pre-fade

[prosigna]

 

FX = post-fade: monitors = pre-fade

 

 

When I am running monitors on a separate dedicated monitor board I run the post-fade. When doing monitors from FOH I use the equations listed above.

[boomerweps]

 

From the many posts I have read I assume I am using my fx sends incorrectly. Everyone seems to use a post fade aux for fx sends. I use a pre fade, set the input gain on the fx unit, return to extra channels and route the channel straight to the main outs, skipping the group I have the effected channel routed to. I like this method as it gives a level input to the fx unit and the fx level is easily adjusted via its channel slider. What is "wrong" with this method, and what do I gain by using the more conventional post fade send?

 

 

Using prefade Aux outs is great for certain FX that you want to be altered when you change that input level, like lowering the channel fader at the end of a song so a reverb jumps up comparatively. POST fader Auxes track with the channel fader so if you need a little more vocal channel, the FX (like a reverb) comes up the same amount keeping the relative FX to dry sound ratio the same. One fader change. Using the pre fader aux out, you have to increase BOTH the vocal channel fader and the FX return fader to do this. And usually the chosen channel for FX return AFFECTS more than one input, skewing your carefully blended FX on those other channels.

 

As was simply put by Joel77, it's best to use Prefader Aux Outs for monitors and Postfader Aux Outs for FX in LIVE sound when using ONE mixer. So, yes, in the minds of 95% or more of live sound mixers, you are doing it wrong unless it's for an extra special effect.

 

Boomerweps

[alcohol]

Anyone into feeding the effects back into channel strips instead of aux return?

[JIM683]

I run the fx from a pre-fader aux send, return to a channel (using this to control the amount of fx) and send to the same sub-group as the original channel. This method has worked fine for year.... but other methods work just as well. it is more a matter of personal preference and/or number of channels and auxes available on the mixing console

[JIM683]

I run the fx from a pre-fader aux send, return to a channel (using this to control the amount of fx) and send to the same sub-group as the original channel. This method has worked fine for year.... but other methods work just as well. it is more a matter of personal preference and/or number of channels and auxes available on the mixing console

[boomerweps]

 

Anyone into feeding the effects back into channel strips instead of aux return?

 

 

 

Most appear to do so if they have extra channels for it, especially on those mixers with extra stereo line input only channels.

 

Boomerweps

[Jess]

Anyone into feeding the effects back into channel strips instead of aux return?

 

Yep, but i do send the signal from a post-fade Aux, and returning it into a channel strip gives you the added benefit of being able to add eq your fx .

Jess..