School me on pre and post fader auxs?

[Telecruiser]

I have a MixWix 16.2. I has 6 auxs with 2 being post fader and 4 being pre. I want to use 4 for monitor mixes and 2 for effects. Which ones do I use for what and why?

 

Thanks

[agedhorse]

Pre for monitor, pre means the signal comes PRE-fader. When you change the fader position, the monitor signals don't change.

 

post for effects, post fader so when you change the fader the signal changes also... that way the ratio of dry to wet signal remains constant. For example, if you fade out a channel, the effects fade out at the same time.

[Telecruiser]

Thanks AH!

[jkm]

post for effects....

 

i agree to a point but i like pre for my vocal effects many diff reasons for this

if you can try both ways and decide for yourself pro and cons for pre effects

but pre for mon is the safe way for foh mon mixing

 

Jim

[agedhorse]

What reason(s) would you want vocal effects to be pre? You say many but I can'tt hink of even one...

[twostone]

 

post for effects.... i agree to a point but i like pre for my vocal effects many diff reasons for this if you can try both ways and decide for yourself pro and cons for pre effects but pre for mon is the safe way for foh mon mixing Jim

 

 

Why on earth would you want pre-fade effects? seems like a waste of a pre-fade aux send for a another monitor.

Dunno about you, but I like to send my post fade aux send for FX and use the returns on a stereo channel.

that way you have a wet/dry option and EQ option on the stereo return channel.

[jkm]

one reason is personal choice

i ride the fader for taste and effect, delay effect

i run full wet and blend with the fader

i run verb post only cause i need one mon mix

as i said many or a few reasons depending on

what your deffinition of many vers few may be

 

really andy not even one reason to do it this way???

[jkm]

that way you have a wet/dry option and EQ option on the stereo return channel.

 

i have the eq option by way of the ch return or the unit itself

and if i choose to change the wet dry the unit offers that also

as i said personal choice.

[SteinbergerHack]

 

that way you have a wet/dry option and EQ option on the stereo return channel. i have the eq option by way of the ch return or the unit itself and if i choose to change the wet dry the unit offers that also as i said personal choice.

 

 

The main problem with that approach is that balance adjustments between mics using the same FX unit have to be made in two places simultaneously - far too much work.

 

Using post-fader still gives you the wet/dry mix control and the EQ on the return channel, so there's no real benefit there.

 

Still having trouble seeing any sort of benefit for using a pre-fader FX send....

[agedhorse]

 

one reason is personal choice i ride the fader for taste and effect, delay effect i run full wet and blend with the fader i run verb post only cause i need one mon mix as i said many or a few reasons depending on what your deffinition of many vers few may be really andy not even one reason to do it this way???

 

 

Full wet? When wouyld you ever want to send full wet to the mains? Ever???

 

You can still blend, mix, ride faders etc post, and if you ride the dry channel fader the effects will track, if you ride the return fader you have control over the effects return, if you ride the post send, you have control over the effects level.

 

Unless you are doing something very goofy, you are going against pretty much everybody I have ever worked with and I can't see any benefit but plenty of drawbacks.

[twostone]

that way you have a wet/dry option and EQ option on the stereo return channel. i have the eq option by way of the ch return or the unit itself and if i choose to change the wet dry the unit offers that also as i said personal choice.

 

Gotcha you only have 1 monitor mix so you can afford to eat up a pre-fade aux. send. I don't have that luxury, because I'm using 3 monitor mixes.

Hey if it works for ya that's all that matters. It just struck me odd using a pre-fade for FX. Carry on

[jkm]

did i say i send full wet to the mains??

no

it is full wet blended with the vox chan

[agedhorse]

You said you run full wet.

 

Post fader or pre-fader, the output from the effects unit is full wet (or should be) so i don't see the logic.

 

This would then of course be blended with the dry audio path.

[jkm]

goofy Andy really not goofy at all

different.

never had a complaint nor problem doing it my way

 

i ran a different gear at a race track and won every time

when we left the club i passed on my goofy ways as to how we did it

DIFFERENT

[jkm]

thats what i said full dry lol

blende with the full wet is this that hard to see

got to be carfull you dont float the vox in a big ocean

but dude it works fine this way

[agedhorse]

What do you do when you bring a vocal down in the mix? Do you also have to change the effects send to keep the balance the same?

 

Different and more difficult are 2 diffenet things, that's why the industry have settled on specific ways to do things.

 

Of course you are always welcome to reinvent the wheel, but if you have other engineers come in to mix on your system, you will get the same comments from them too and for the same reasons.

[Dogoth]

Put me in for post effects as well. The only reason I can think of (and I've never come across this as an actual scenario) is if you were using the FX unit as a harmonizer (sometimes) and wanted to be able to change the ratio of the two notes on the fly. Thinking about this though, I'd probably still run the FX post and ride the return channel to taste hmmmm.... Nope, can't think of any reason to run FX pre unless you're already using all of your assigned post busses.

[jkm]

DAMN you Johnny the couch goes over there not over here:cop:

 

im going fishing

i wonder if i should use a medium of heavy rod for crappie

[agedhorse]

And, with a harmonizer (a real pro unit anyway), you can always insert it and vary the ratios in software and access what you need in the fly via the remote.

[soul-x]

I've definitely done it for a few very specific purposes in a studio environment, but usually it was automated, and I got a few listen-throughs to get the effect I wanted right, so that's a bit different.

[Dogoth]

 

I've definitely done it for a few very specific purposes in a studio environment, but usually it was automated, and I got a few listen-throughs to get the effect I wanted right, so that's a bit different.

 

 

I could see using it in a DAW situation with automation. You could keep the gain staging better (for a lower noise floor (or keep the processing bit depth at it's optimum)). Even then it would have to be a special situation (where it would matter at all) but yes I can see that as a possibility.

[agedhorse]

This IS a live audio fourm of course