Channel direct outs vs. sub group outs

[Joemamma]

Weird title I know...

Here's the thing. I have a Mackie Onyx 1620, which I use the preamps on. The problem with the Onyx mixers is that the channel lo cut, insert point, and EQ is after the channel direct out. How convenient!

So if I want to use an Onyx preamp, insert a comp, and then use the EQ, I have to send this channel to the Alt Out 3-4 and connect this output to my soundcard.

Will I lose any quality having to use the sub outs instead of the direct out?

[dropblacksky]

Generally, the less circuitry you run the signal through, the cleaner it is...but then again, we often run the signal through specific extra circuitry in order to obtain "color"...On large format consoles it's common to use the busses instead of the direct outs so signals can be routed creatively...Mackie is no SSL, but I imagine that in your particular case the differences will be negligible...I'd be surprised if you heard any difference at all. In fact, if you do, it's probably all in your head.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by dropblacksky

Generally, the less circuitry you run the signal through, the cleaner it is...but then again, we often run the signal through specific extra circuitry in order to obtain "color"...

what he said

[Joemamma]

Originally Posted by dropblacksky

Mackie is no SSL, but I imagine that in your particular case the differences will be negligible...I'd be surprised if you heard any difference at all. In fact, if you do, it's probably all in your head.

That's what I thought!

Sucks about the Onyx routing though. They should have put an insert/eq pre/post direct out switch.

[Legacy Audio]

This is what happens when the designer doesn't record music himself.

I see so much gear, and even consoles still being made that you've got to question if there was any thought from the users perspective even considered.

Plenty of gear with redundant features, poor ergonomics, over-crowded switches/pots, hard to read text/labeling of controls, offensive color schemes (sometimes even reflective) and a mess of circuity that looks like a load of washing dropped on the floor.

Oh well, sometimes I see dead people...

[shanabit]

Direct outs have always been this way. This allows you to come out of the console without any EQ or effects. Its not a design flaw as some would suppose That stated, it would be cool to allow the insert of EQ on the Direct Out, I agree with ya. Why not use an aux send in post fade?

Inserts are usually used for what your trying to do BTW

Main thing to remember on the sub outs is that you have an EXTRA amp on the sub out in addition to the master out so gain staging is important

[Joemamma]

Originally Posted by shanabit

Direct outs have always been this way. This allows you to come out of the console without any EQ or effects. Its not a design flaw as some would suppose That stated, it would be cool to allow the insert of EQ on the Direct Out, I agree with ya. Why not use an aux send in post fade?

Inserts are usually used for what your trying to do BTW

Main thing to remember on the sub outs is that you have an EXTRA amp on the sub out in addition to the master out so gain staging is important

I considered using an aux send, but then I would be passing two gain stages: the channels aux send and the master aux send.
Does this not cause any extra noise?

I tried it, and I had to turn the channel aux send to 12 o'clock and the master aux send to max to get the same amount of signal as when using the direct out.

What do you think is better noise/quality wise? The sub out or the aux send?

[thenoiseflower]

often times the buss/group whatever has more headroom in the fader than the direct out. IME If I'm using a makeup gain device on an insert and/ or recording/mixing something very dynamic, i'll buss it just for the extra headroom. to me it seems most decent boards have tons of clean headroom from the channel insert return to the buss/group.

[Legacy Audio]

Originally Posted by shanabit

Direct outs have always been this way. This allows you to come out of the console without any EQ or effects. Its not a design flaw as some would suppose

This is not always the case.

I'm working on a console right now that has the insert, compressor, and EQ prior to the direct out. This is advantageous as it has switches to disengage the insert, comp and EQ independently. This is a far better design with greater flexibility.

The best thing is to study the signal flow chart before you buy any console to see if it meets your requirements. The real fact is that not all requirements will always be met, but there are work-arounds.

[Joemamma]

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

often times the buss/group whatever has more headroom in the fader than the direct out. IME If I'm using a makeup gain device on an insert and/ or recording/mixing something very dynamic, i'll buss it just for the extra headroom. to me it seems most decent boards have tons of clean headroom from the channel insert return to the buss/group.

So you think I should use the buss output, right?

Any votes for the aux send?

[patrox247]

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

often times the buss/group whatever has more headroom in the fader than the direct out. IME If I'm using a makeup gain device on an insert and/ or recording/mixing something very dynamic, i'll buss it just for the extra headroom. to me it seems most decent boards have tons of clean headroom from the channel insert return to the buss/group.

How can a buss provide more headroom than a chan/dir output?
I beleive you are reffering to gain structure not headroom.

[Barish]

Why don't you get your desk modified to have the convenience of switching between pre and post EQ/insert nodes? It's just two cables and a switch per channel. The cost would be mostly labour.

B.

[patrox247]

Originally Posted by Barish

Why don't you get your desk modified to have the convenience of switching between pre and post EQ/insert nodes? It's just two cables and a switch per channel. The cost would be mostly labour.

B.

He is asking about buss vs. dir. not pre or post eq.

[thenoiseflower]

Originally Posted by patrox247

How can a buss provide more headroom than a chan/dir output?
I beleive you are reffering to gain structure not headroom.

well, in a way, yeah its all gain structure the whole art is the gain structure. I guess headroom really wasnt right, technicaly , but perceptionwise, it is definetly "headroom" you are gaining.

I was just refering to using something on the insert, IME/O, most desks have less noise and a more open sounding patch from the insert return through the routing to the busses/groups, than from the insert return strait to the direct outs. and know I dont know why exactialy. But

in other words, if your inserting comps while tracking (especialy if your making up gain, I.E. 1176, fet II), try the busses in those instances, they may acctualy sound better.

[Barish]

Originally Posted by patrox247

He is asking about buss vs. dir. not pre or post eq.

My point was to modify the direct channel outs to be switchable between pre and post EQ so that he wouldn't have to send the signal to subgroups and all in order to apply EQ and all the other stuff on it when necessary.

Cheers.

B.