If a board claims to have 8 aux, but the first four are on two knobs, with a switch to route each knob to respective pairs, does this mean the board really only has 6 aux? Crest century gt.
Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
- Thread starter Daniel Postilnik
- Start date
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
Yes and no... there are actually 8 aux buses that receive feeds and you can send to, but you can only send to 6 of those 8 from a single channel.
In practice this gives you more bang for the buck since six pots and a switch cost less and take up less precious real estate than 8 pots. The question is really are the extra two sends usable, and worth the marginal cost increase vs only 6 auxes, or a more expensive, and even longer or tighter laid out control surface. Real estate and ease of accessing controls is generally the dominant consideration but cost matters too when multiplied by every input strip.
This falls under the general category I call "mixer math" where stereo inputs often get counted as two, etc... everybody does this to some degree so they don't get dismissed by a cursory comparison between competitors features. When serious about shopping any board, dig a little deeper than the bullets in the FAB.
JR
Yes and no... there are actually 8 aux buses that receive feeds and you can send to, but you can only send to 6 of those 8 from a single channel.
In practice this gives you more bang for the buck since six pots and a switch cost less and take up less precious real estate than 8 pots. The question is really are the extra two sends usable, and worth the marginal cost increase vs only 6 auxes, or a more expensive, and even longer or tighter laid out control surface. Real estate and ease of accessing controls is generally the dominant consideration but cost matters too when multiplied by every input strip.
This falls under the general category I call "mixer math" where stereo inputs often get counted as two, etc... everybody does this to some degree so they don't get dismissed by a cursory comparison between competitors features. When serious about shopping any board, dig a little deeper than the bullets in the FAB.
JR
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
I can imagine feeling very limited on this board. The first "4" auxes are really only two usable ones, and the remaining 4 are all pre / post switchable as a group. So, there's no way for me to get one channel sent to more than two pre-fade aux busses and still have post-fade aux busses available for effects. Either I get 2 monitor mixes and 4 FX sends, or 6 monitor mixes and no effects sends. Am I correct in this evaluation?
www.crestaudio.com/media/pdf/fohman11-3-97.pdf
Ok, I understand mixer math, and I always read the full manual, that's why I'm asking right now. Just to humor me, could you think of an application where two sends on the same knob (not at the same time) would actually be useful?
I can imagine feeling very limited on this board. The first "4" auxes are really only two usable ones, and the remaining 4 are all pre / post switchable as a group. So, there's no way for me to get one channel sent to more than two pre-fade aux busses and still have post-fade aux busses available for effects. Either I get 2 monitor mixes and 4 FX sends, or 6 monitor mixes and no effects sends. Am I correct in this evaluation?
www.crestaudio.com/media/pdf/fohman11-3-97.pdf
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
Actually, upon thinking for a few more minutes, I can have 4 monitor mixer and 2 FX sends, which I can accept. Also, there's two matrix sends on each subgroup, so I could make additional mixes that way as well.
Actually, upon thinking for a few more minutes, I can have 4 monitor mixer and 2 FX sends, which I can accept. Also, there's two matrix sends on each subgroup, so I could make additional mixes that way as well.
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
i think the answer is 'pretty much'. you could use those first 2 switchable auxes as effects sends. perhaps you'd be able to use 3/4 for drum verb and guitar effects, and use 1/2 for vocal processing. then you'd still have 4 monitor sends. or some such convolution.
but i think at the end of the day your thinking is correct. i've always thought this switchable aux trick as being a marginally useful feature at best. there are some instances where it can get you something extra. but it will require preplanning on your part.
i think the answer is 'pretty much'. you could use those first 2 switchable auxes as effects sends. perhaps you'd be able to use 3/4 for drum verb and guitar effects, and use 1/2 for vocal processing. then you'd still have 4 monitor sends. or some such convolution.
but i think at the end of the day your thinking is correct. i've always thought this switchable aux trick as being a marginally useful feature at best. there are some instances where it can get you something extra. but it will require preplanning on your part.
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
I am not familiar with the details of that board but calling them auxes generally means they can be used either/or. Sometimes a few will be dedicated pre/or post to be more useful as monitor sends or efx sends. This generally works because you don't often need every input in every send mix. While EFX are a good example of that.
I have used the similar principle of not needing every feature on every input in some low cost mixer designs to only provide pad and polarity switches on a handful of input channels, ASSuming you wouldn't need polarity on everything (they'd be back into the same polarity again if you did). Of course this comes down to trading some set up time and less ease of use, for lower product cost.
JR
I am not familiar with the details of that board but calling them auxes generally means they can be used either/or. Sometimes a few will be dedicated pre/or post to be more useful as monitor sends or efx sends. This generally works because you don't often need every input in every send mix. While EFX are a good example of that.
I have used the similar principle of not needing every feature on every input in some low cost mixer designs to only provide pad and polarity switches on a handful of input channels, ASSuming you wouldn't need polarity on everything (they'd be back into the same polarity again if you did). Of course this comes down to trading some set up time and less ease of use, for lower product cost.
JR
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
The concept of switchable aux sends has annoyed me more than once. A few years ago I played with the idea of modyfying an old Soundcraft 24ch series 600 desk
that has got 6 auxes, but only 4 pots per channel. The idea was using concentric pots (2 individual pots in the mounting space of one).
I actually did the mod on one channel and it worked great, but the cost prohibited me of realizing the plans for the whole desk.
At the time I could buy a brand new Soundcraft GB series console for the cost of the pots alone..
The concept of switchable aux sends has annoyed me more than once. A few years ago I played with the idea of modyfying an old Soundcraft 24ch series 600 desk
that has got 6 auxes, but only 4 pots per channel. The idea was using concentric pots (2 individual pots in the mounting space of one).
I actually did the mod on one channel and it worked great, but the cost prohibited me of realizing the plans for the whole desk.
At the time I could buy a brand new Soundcraft GB series console for the cost of the pots alone..
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
Yup, I've had some success using concentric controls, while the visual feedback of pot position is not as easy to read as separate pots. Concentric controls are also nice for "sweep" EQ to save panel space, but tooling up special parts can get expensive, and years later when the console goes out of production, how do you get repair parts? Not much of a concern in todays short term disposable product world, but long term, custom parts have hidden costs. For value product design mixing in a few concentric controls into a design means tooling or sourcing three knobs instead of just one, etc.
JR
Yup, I've had some success using concentric controls, while the visual feedback of pot position is not as easy to read as separate pots. Concentric controls are also nice for "sweep" EQ to save panel space, but tooling up special parts can get expensive, and years later when the console goes out of production, how do you get repair parts? Not much of a concern in todays short term disposable product world, but long term, custom parts have hidden costs. For value product design mixing in a few concentric controls into a design means tooling or sourcing three knobs instead of just one, etc.
JR
Tim Weaver
Senior
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
Let me preface this statement to state the obvious, I am an electronics buffoon, but here goes....
Are there not any "standardized" concentric pots on the open market? Seems to me like there would be enough need for such a thing that the parts manufacturers would just be producing them.
I'm asking this now, because someday I would like to buy a nice Soundcraft 8000 for nostalgia's sake, and that baby is FULL of concentric pots!
Let me preface this statement to state the obvious, I am an electronics buffoon, but here goes....
Are there not any "standardized" concentric pots on the open market? Seems to me like there would be enough need for such a thing that the parts manufacturers would just be producing them.
I'm asking this now, because someday I would like to buy a nice Soundcraft 8000 for nostalgia's sake, and that baby is FULL of concentric pots!
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
While this may be too much info, the mainstream console pot business is at best semi-custom where production lots of potentiometers are variations on different combinations of standard components assembled into custom final configurations. i.e. pick one of several standard shafts (D, round, screwdriver slot, etc), pick from standard resistances and tapers, pick dual stacked, dual independent, etc. Then mix in size, anywhere from 24mm down to who knows how small they make them nowadays?
Some aftermarket component sellers order actual production runs of popular parts, to resell individually, as long as there is enough interest and profit margin to justify buying thousands and selling them out onsey twosey, but manufacturers could never afford the cost premium to design in some expensive standard part into a console using hundreds of them. While we all would if practical, it just doesn't work out that way.
This doesn't even consider the use of unconventional tapers and obscure designs. At Peavey he had multiple custom tapers for good control laws for mic preamps, and I even recall one obscure swept EQ where we fashioned an exotic dual resistive element from a single pot wafer using a split wiper that shunted between two parallel screened resistive tracks on a single substrate. Of course now decades later, try getting those replacement parts. :-(
Using singles and a switch instead of a concentric, does improve the chances of getting parts for service, years later.
JR
While this may be too much info, the mainstream console pot business is at best semi-custom where production lots of potentiometers are variations on different combinations of standard components assembled into custom final configurations. i.e. pick one of several standard shafts (D, round, screwdriver slot, etc), pick from standard resistances and tapers, pick dual stacked, dual independent, etc. Then mix in size, anywhere from 24mm down to who knows how small they make them nowadays?
Some aftermarket component sellers order actual production runs of popular parts, to resell individually, as long as there is enough interest and profit margin to justify buying thousands and selling them out onsey twosey, but manufacturers could never afford the cost premium to design in some expensive standard part into a console using hundreds of them. While we all would if practical, it just doesn't work out that way.
This doesn't even consider the use of unconventional tapers and obscure designs. At Peavey he had multiple custom tapers for good control laws for mic preamps, and I even recall one obscure swept EQ where we fashioned an exotic dual resistive element from a single pot wafer using a split wiper that shunted between two parallel screened resistive tracks on a single substrate. Of course now decades later, try getting those replacement parts. :-(
Using singles and a switch instead of a concentric, does improve the chances of getting parts for service, years later.
JR
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
Beyond that-i can't think of any practical reason. Whatever instruments I want to send to effects, I also want to send to monitors etc.
Yes I have always questioned the reasoning for that myself.
I used to run a Mackie 32x8 and what I did was to run effects and sub sends on the same-switchable aux. My reasoning was that instruments I would send to the sub, I would nto be sending to effects-typically.
Beyond that-i can't think of any practical reason. Whatever instruments I want to send to effects, I also want to send to monitors etc.
Yes I have always questioned the reasoning for that myself.
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
aux 1 = snare verb
aux 2 = tom verb
aux 3 = vocal/inst verb
aux 4 = verb 2 or delay
auxes 5-8 = monitors
aux 1 = snare verb
aux 2 = tom verb
aux 3 = vocal/inst verb
aux 4 = verb 2 or delay
auxes 5-8 = monitors
Re: Aux 1/2 and 3/4 switchable?
Tim pretty much nailed it. I had one of these (the Crest GT) for years, and put the vocal FX (DDL and reverb) on AUX 1 and 2, and the other two reverbs (for the rest of the instruments) on 3 and 4. I can't ever think of a time I felt limited by that. Monitor sends were on AUXes 5 to 8. When Crest designed the console, I think perhaps they thought that 1-4 would be monitor sends, because the FX returns have sends for 1-4 (switchable, in pairs), but not 5-8, and on my console (a very early one) AUXes 1-4 were on XLR (typical for connecting to a snake), and 5-8 were TRS (typical for nearby FX). My solution was to modify the FX returns so that they routed to 5-8 instead, and even got some green caps for the knobs from Crest so they would match the other 5-8 sends. There wasn't much demand for FX in the monitors anyway though. They fixed this shortcoming by adding concentric pots for the orange sends (1-4) on the GTx, and also added a variable HPF, IIRC. GTD
Tim pretty much nailed it. I had one of these (the Crest GT) for years, and put the vocal FX (DDL and reverb) on AUX 1 and 2, and the other two reverbs (for the rest of the instruments) on 3 and 4. I can't ever think of a time I felt limited by that. Monitor sends were on AUXes 5 to 8. When Crest designed the console, I think perhaps they thought that 1-4 would be monitor sends, because the FX returns have sends for 1-4 (switchable, in pairs), but not 5-8, and on my console (a very early one) AUXes 1-4 were on XLR (typical for connecting to a snake), and 5-8 were TRS (typical for nearby FX). My solution was to modify the FX returns so that they routed to 5-8 instead, and even got some green caps for the knobs from Crest so they would match the other 5-8 sends. There wasn't much demand for FX in the monitors anyway though. They fixed this shortcoming by adding concentric pots for the orange sends (1-4) on the GTx, and also added a variable HPF, IIRC. GTD