Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ian Stuart]

Hey guys,

I personally don't like Aux fed subs, am I the only one who doesn't like them?

They are so popular amongst a lot of engineers, and I always get strange looks
when I blurt out this fact.

When I mix, I really like having the ability to control the hi-pass filter frequency and I will always use that to remove low end rumble that I know I won't need. But that's just it, having an aux fed sub is effectively like placing one on every channel at a fixed frequency unless you decide to put it into sub via the aux. I much prefer raising or lowering that hipass on each channel to a desired point. It also chews up much needed auxiliaries, which you can't always spare.

Sometimes, on some systems, in an ideal environment, I know that my vocals are pushing a tiny bit into sub-land but every once in a while, that sounds good. You'll never get that with aux-fed.

So, what do you guys like, full range or aux-fed?

 

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

Sometimes, on some systems, in an ideal environment, I know that my vocals are pushing a tiny bit into sub-land but every once in a while, that sounds good. You'll never get that with aux-fed.

Unless you dial them into the subs..........

[Justin Bartlett]

Hey guys,

I personally don't like Aux fed subs, am I the only one who doesn't like them?

They are so popular amongst a lot of engineers, and I always get strange looks
when I blurt out this fact.

When I mix, I really like having the ability to control the hi-pass filter frequency and I will always use that to remove low end rumble that I know I won't need. But that's just it, having an aux fed sub is effectively like placing one on every channel at a fixed frequency unless you decide to put it into sub via the aux. I much prefer raising or lowering that hipass on each channel to a desired point. It also chews up much needed auxiliaries, which you can't always spare.

Sometimes, on some systems, in an ideal environment, I know that my vocals are pushing a tiny bit into sub-land but every once in a while, that sounds good. You'll never get that with aux-fed.

So, what do you guys like, full range or aux-fed?

Aux fed, hands down.  No disadvantages if you have the processing and available auxes.

[Mac Kerr]

When I mix, I really like having the ability to control the hi-pass filter frequency and I will always use that to remove low end rumble that I know I won't need. But that's just it, having an aux fed sub is effectively like placing one on every channel at a fixed frequency unless you decide to put it into sub via the aux. I much prefer raising or lowering that hipass on each channel to a desired point. It also chews up much needed auxiliaries, which you can't always spare.

You can still use the high pass filter with aux fed subs, it just won't do anything to the subs unless you have that channel dialed into the subs. I use the high pass filter on lots of channels with aux fed subs.

I have never heard vocals that sounded good in the subs. Out at the console you may think it gives richness or something, but up front, where people hear a lot of subs it sounds like crap. It was hearing vocals in the subs 25 or 30 years ago that lit up the light bulb above my head and inspired me to try feeding the subs off an aux so I could leave the vocals out of them.

Mac

[duane massey]

Aux-fed subs are just another tool in the bag. You don't have to use it if you want everything going everywhere, but the concept works both in theory and in practice. It is a compromise if you are short on aux sends, and I've had to give up the idea in at least one install where it would have been a great application because the console did not have enough aux sends.
I'm having a tough time making a decision on using the aux-fed approach at an install in progress. There's enough capabilities in the gear, but I have absolutely no faith in the extremely inexperienced engineer that will be running the system.

[David Sheldon]

I've got to go with the OP on this one. I never run MY rig this way, but find it is not uncommon if I walk on to other rigs. Heck I've even come across mono rigs where tops were panned hard one way and subs panned hard the other, kind of a different take on the aux fed sub theme. I prefer to have the system set in stereo, full range, properly processed, properly powered. A good variable HPF and well equipped channel strip eq makes this much nicer of course. I work systems that sound great both ways. For me, after I have my HPF and channel strip eq set I just think the processor is faster and more accurate at making decisions on what makes it to to the subs. I don't grumble if I'm on an aux fed setup, I just go with it and make it work. But my vote is full range.

[James Feenstra]

I just think the processor is faster and more accurate at making decisions on what makes it to to the subs.

the processor doesn't 'decide' what makes it to the subs...it sends EVERYTHING under the desired frequency there. there's no way it can distinguish 80hz from a high hat line from 80hz from the kick drum

even if your hpf is dialed up there's still lf information being sent through the stereo bus which will in turn hit the subs, even if it's at -20db coming from the channel

with 2 channels being sent, it's now -17
4 channels, -14
8 channels, -11
16 channels, -8
32 channels, -5

once you get into a decent sized mix, your hfp isn't cutting out nearly as much as you think it is, so has to be dialed up even farther to get the same results

with aux fed subs this never occurs, because it's a constant level of -infinity going to the subs from that channel so none of the lf signal goes where you don't want it to...

unless it's a beatboxer or you're mixing james earl jones, there's not much in the way of useful information under 100 on vocals, and even less useful information on things like cymbals

there's very few situations where aux fed subs aren't a good idea, the only one i can think of being an inexperienced engineer

[ThomasKielhofner]

I just think the processor is faster and more accurate at making decisions on what makes it to to the subs.

the processor doesn't 'decide' what makes it to the subs...it sends EVERYTHING under the desired frequency there. there's no way it can distinguish 80hz from a high hat line from 80hz from the kick drum

even if your hpf is dialed up there's still lf information being sent through the stereo bus which will in turn hit the subs, even if it's at -20db coming from the channel

with 2 channels being sent, it's now -17
4 channels, -14
8 channels, -11
16 channels, -8
32 channels, -5

once you get into a decent sized mix, your hfp isn't cutting out nearly as much as you think it is, so has to be dialed up even farther to get the same results

with aux fed subs this never occurs, because it's a constant level of -infinity going to the subs from that channel so none of the lf signal goes where you don't want it to...

unless it's a beatboxer or you're mixing james earl jones, there's not much in the way of useful information under 100 on vocals, and even less useful information on things like cymbals

there's very few situations where aux fed subs aren't a good idea, the only one i can think of being an inexperienced engineer

+1 ^^

Plus if you decide you don't like the sound of AUX fed subs for some reason it's easy to dial in that AUX to unity on every channel, and just control the overall level of the subs with the aux master. That way you at least have separate control of the level between mains and subs.

[Dave Neale]

I just think the processor is faster and more accurate at making decisions on what makes it to to the subs.

I'm pretty sure an aux set at zero is "faster"!

[Mark Gensman]

I love to see aux fed subs when I tour with a bluegrass band. One knob..."turn the subs off".. Issue solved.

[ProSoundWeb Community]