Console groups vs aux. Which would you wish having more of?

To all you veteran recording engineers out there:  In mixing, what's more valuable to you: having sufficient groups or having enough auxs?

The reason I ask is because I'm at a crossroads on my input card where I can build in either
6 groups and 8 auxs, or  8 groups and 6 auxes.

Since I have little experience working on big desks and multiplayer live recording scenarios, I could use your advice on what you see as serving more in utility, over time.  Thank you!

Edit: I should mention this will be a 24 channel desk with options to add more later. DAW subgrouping would be used where applicable.

common to see 8 groups even in 2018.

A lot depends on what you intend to record and mix on it. What situations can you see when you need more than 4 of either?

Cheers

Ian

boji said:

To all you veteran recording engineers out there:  In mixing, what's more valuable to you: having sufficient groups or having enough auxs?

The reason I ask is because I'm at a crossroads on my input card where I can build in either
6 groups and 8 auxs, or  8 groups and 6 auxes.

Since I have little experience working on big desks and multiplayer live recording scenarios, I could use your advice on what you see as serving more in utility, over time.  Thank you!

Edit: I should mention this will be a 24 channel desk with options to add more later. DAW subgrouping would be used where applicable.

Click to expand...

On the one hand....
Everybody seems to do 8 groups and 6 auxes.  So you could be different and do 6 groups and 8 auxes.

On the other hand....you've got five more fingers.  ;D

But seriously, most scenarios I can think of would require more auxes for accommodating headphone mixes to talent and/or FX sends.  Even working in the box, I find myself never using groups, but using at least a few auxes.

Just spit-ballin' here....
How about 8 faders that could either be auxes or groups, depending on what you needed at the time.  Then again, the routing matrix for that would make a bowl of spaghetti look neat and orderly!

More aux for headphones are always good.  The kind of console you are building is used for ensemble or bands recording. 

On the mix side you're using it for that analog summing quality so the groups can act as an effects return to the main mix with an add on pan to L-R mix  switch and pre group patch point for injection . 

I vote for 8 aux and 6 groups. 

In the days of limited tracks you need them to group toms, over heads other,  but usually you  direct everything to DAW inputs.  So groups are not used as much for tracking (for me) So they are 3 stereo returns ; verb, delay, parallel compression slammer.  (note your channels also have this ability obviously)

Maybe I am just old fashioned but I cannot see a need for 8 AUX sends. An engineer has enough to do when tracking
without servicing artist's requests for "more of me in my headphones" times however many players there are. Surely in that situation you move to a system that lets artists do their own mix?

Similarly on mixdown I cannot see a need for 8 AUXes. You might have 4 global FX but most of the others will be for individual tracks in which case an insert is what you need.

OK, I can imagine in some very big and very complex situation you might need more than 4 but then 24 channels would probably not be enough either.

Cheers

Ian

Thank you everyone for your thoughts.

"A lot depends on what you intend to record and mix on it. What situations can you see when you need more than 4 of either?"

Well frankly that's part of my issue, I simply don't have the experience where these issues have yet to arise. =P

Edit: I mean I use bus and aux, but it's been mostly in the box.

It's food for thought though. For example itb I am quite explicit about using subgroups , whereas I rarely use aux fades to blend or add efx across different tracks. They mostly just sit there untouched while I strap individual track fx plugs. The general picture I'm getting is cues and custom mixes are good to have and auxs are essential to make this happen, but once you start getting large groups with greater demands, it's best to switch to a cue mix system. My creative instincts point to groups. My utility instinct says aux...

Hmm. Can you repurpose use of A1 within an API 528 input card circuit as an ACA?  With some relay magic, every channel could potentially be a group...

Time to look at ACA circuits...

boji said:

Hmm. Can you repurpose use of A1 within an API 528 input card circuit as an ACA?  With some relay magic, every channel could potentially be a group...

Time to look at ACA circuits...

Click to expand...

It is also worth distinguishing between the number of AUX buses and the number of AUX controls per channel. For example, the API 1608 has 8 AUX buses but each channel has only 4 AUX send pots.

Cheers

Ian

Ian brings up a rather good point.  Can you do 8 aux buses with 6 knobs? Would that fit?

I can easily see using 8 auxes in a mix,  for example stereo send to drum parallel compressor,  stereo send to a room verb,  mono send to vocal plate, mono send to long delay,  mono send to short delay,  mono send to special effect.  Do you have a lot of outboard hardware?

Although 8 group and 6 aux is probably what I pick if forced to choose,  6 group just seems weird to me.

john12ax7 said:

Ian brings up a rather good point.  Can you do 8 aux buses with 6 knobs? Would that fit?

I can easily see using 8 auxes in a mix,  for example stereo send to drum parallel compressor,  stereo send to a room verb,  mono send to vocal plate, mono send to long delay,  mono send to short delay,  mono send to special effect.  Do you have a lot of outboard hardware?

Click to expand...

I am curious about the stereo drum send. Is this a stereo sub group or a stereo miked part of a drum kit? Isn't parallel compressing of a stereo source something you would do on a channel or sub-group insert??

Another question is how many of those four mono AUX send would you ever use on a single channel? Two?

Cheers

Ian

Edit: The group idea wouldn't work as intended so I edited it out.

You could do the parallel compression as an insert if you have a wet / dry knob,  the downside is you lose some control.  I prefer to send more of kick snare toms and maybe room to the compressor,  and not too much cymbals. So you need a regular drum mix and a parallel drum mix.

For the mono auxes vocals is the one thing that usually needs more than 2 at once. But you could mult the auxes  so 1 aux could go to two different delays. As long as you have enough returns things should be fine.

Drum slammer group.  You patch a compressor on the Fx return .  You send from an aux to compressor whatever you want. So just snare just kick, whatever.  Compressor slams and folds back to mix via the fx return.    Point is the groups on a console just set there when your mixing so they can be fx returns with an assignment when mixing.  Other idea is just have channels and put the group Sum amp in each channel and you have the beginning of an in-line board.  The monitor mix is just an Aux with pan and input from tape or channel.  Lots of ways to do this .  How many groups do you need is the question.    My old 8036 had a level control paired with 2 assignment switches and pre post.  Cue 1 2 cue 3 4. Echo. 1 2 echo 3 4. So 8 total aux.  8 groups also and the great thing was it had those as modules 1943 module.  You remember that Ian, they had those on groups as well. .  It was a very useful matrix .  It’s a line in channel without the 1081 eq/pre.  All accessible with patchbay so .  You get to a point where you might as well just do an inline design and have everything vertical. Or go horizontal with a split.  I vote more aux.  I find them useful.  All this in an age where the daw says you already have everything. Everybody’s got a different opinion. 

Thanks again folks for your input. 
"Do you have a lot of outboard hardware?" Nope. A few pultec clones, 1176's. Slow diy process for sure.
All my scratch is going to the console build for now.

So..I slept on it and... I  reluctantly commit to groups.  Reasoning is, I suppose to be forward thinking, if ever I decided to add another 8-16 channels, I would start to wish I had more groups. In cases where I'm recording ensembles (isn't this becoming rarer and rarer these days?) if I needed more aux I would probably go with a headphone/cue mix system.

The lion's share of fx has, by necessity, been ITB for me, and I will add outboard over time, but I've put patch panel inserts practically everywhere on the 500 slots and input cards. Lasly and least important, from a symmetrical perspective the 8 groups would fit nicely in an 8 ch bucket like the channels do. To those who voted for auxs, I have been warned!  

So... may I switch gears for a second?  In a few pm's Fazer tried his best to get me to understand the value of a "Direct Out" button.

I wanted to let direct out always be on, irrespective of group assign, and if I don't need it or have feedback loop concerns, simply turn off monitoring those inputs on the DAW.

I don't think I did a good job selling this idea, and perhaps it's faulty reasoning born of my ignorance of real world mixing scenarios.

Anyone else (poor Fazer I took up so much of his time on this) care to explain why I will regret not putting a direct out buttons on channel inputs? =P  Thank you for your patience. I'd start a new thread, but hate cluttering the Drawing board with such basic questions...

You don’t have to have them. But groups can send to DAW inputs 1 to 8.  If you want a way to  get Chanel’s to go direct.you need a direct switch or patch point on your bay

If you only record a coupe of channels always. It’s not a big deal.  But if you record 16 + tracks/mic’s , it’s a fast way to configure a larger board.  You said you have  24 channels in your console build.  That’s a nice size board. 

boji said:

To all you veteran recording engineers out there:  In mixing, what's more valuable to you: having sufficient groups or having enough auxs?

Click to expand...

When tracking you need more auxes, when mixing you may want more groups.
However, auxes can be used as groups, when the contrary is not possible, so I would personally vote for more auxes.
With my current desk I have 32 groups and 12 auxes. In a typical tracking sessionI would use all the Auxes and just about 4 groups?
When mixing I would use a few soft groups and all the auxes.
DAW's and their automation capability make the use of groups much less necessary than before.

ruffrecords said:

Maybe I am just old fashioned but I cannot see a need for 8 AUX sends.

Click to expand...

Being slightly older than you, I'm probably more old-fashioned.  However, as you may see from the adjacent post, I became addict to having a large number of auxes at the ready. The reason: 3 stereo reverbs, two mono delays, and 4 channels of multi-FX. I agree that I could patch (insert) several of them since most would be used on a single channel. However, turning a knob is much easier than creating and assigning an insert point in my mixer (Tascam DM4800).

An engineer has enough to do when tracking without servicing artist's requests for "more of me in my headphones" times however many players there are. Surely in that situation you move to a system that lets artists do their own mix?

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I do. I have the Behringer P16 system. As the name implies, it has 16 inputs signals. Several of them are direct outs, but still a number of instruments require a group or Aux (drums, for sure, piano, organ. Since my auxiliaries are more or less monopolized by the FX, I use a few groups to feed the hungry studio FB system.

Similarly on mixdown I cannot see a need for 8 AUXes.

Click to expand...

Agreed, particularly when using a DAW.
EDIT: on mixdown I cannot see a need for 8 groups. But I would keep my 12 Auxes.
I must also admit that my opinion is pretty much fashioned by my use of a digital mixer. If I had an analog one, I would give up a number of Auxes (but not much, I would keep eight), since inserts are much more natural and easier, and maybe have some more groups. But as I wrote earlier, Auxes can be used as groups, though the contrary is not true.

Thanks Abby for your perspective.  You're  making me wish I had done auxs...

My early inserts are 'mini matrixed' in series/parallel around A1 and A2 via relays (you're the one who inspired  this!) with buttons on the input card, so no digging around lcd screens...