direct vs sub group outs

[rush1974]

if your mixer has direct outs and 8 sub outs and you're recording into a hard dish recorder . is it better to use direct outs of the 8 sub outs . i will be recording dry signals with maybe some eq on some channels on the mixer .

my question is why use the direct outs from the mixer when i can plug all the inputs directly into the hard disk recorder . becuase if i use the direct outs from the mixer the signal is straight an no effects pass thorugh the output .

i just don't understand why a mixer has direct outs when no effects can pass through it other than from the sub outs / aux / or main outs .

i will be recording about 12 tracks through a fostex vf160 and a ada8000 hooked to the fostex .

i read on this forum about some configurations have a combination of direct outs / sub outs and aux sends being used for certain instruments and routed into the hard disk recorders .

can someone please explain the differences and when direct outs should be used or what instruments should use direct outs from the mixer and why .

thanks all and have a great day guys .

 

[mixsit]

If you need to control or sub-mix more than one channel, or want the flexibility to assign different channels to different outs at different times vs repatching, use subs.
If you don't, direct outs is a slightly cleaner path, and in some cases gets you the total simultaneous outs you might need. (1604' for example has 16 directs vs only 4 subs.
Whichever makes sense the way you and your setup works.

...thanks all and have a great day guys .

O ta!

 

[mikeh]

As mixsit has indicated much depends on how much flexibiliy you need and to some degree how concerned you are about the "purity" of the signal going to your recording devise.

In your case, with 8 sub outs you can direct any channel on your mixer to any of the 8 subs - or mix more than one channel to a given sub (as an example: blend more than one guitar sound). Isfyou are recording to a devise that has assigned tracks (such as an actual tape based machine in which input 1 records only to track 1) then having more flexibility at the mixer may be helpful. However, the signal then goes through more electronics which can add more noise/coloration.

If the recording devise allows "in the box" track assignments (as an example D/A interface to software recording in which the software allows you to assign any input to any "track") then you have all the flexibility you need in the recording media and you don't need the flexibility at the mixer. If that is the case, then using direct outs may be the best way to go (a cleaner signal).

 

[Freudian Slip]

my question is why use the direct outs from the mixer when i can plug all the inputs directly into the hard disk recorder . becuase if i use the direct outs from the mixer the signal is straight an no effects pass thorugh the output .

Preamps is your answer. If your hard disk recorder has preamps on the input then you don't need to use your board at all, in fact I recommend against it.
You don't really want to be running your signal through two preamps.

On the other hand, if you have and interface with no preamps and only line level inputs you have to use the preamps on the mixing board. The cleanest way to do that is through the direct outs.

As far as subgrouping instruments and recording them to one track, avoid it if you can. There's no fixing the mix on that track later.


F.S.

 

[mikeh]

Freudian Slip is very correct - recording direct using pre-amps and only using the mixer to monitor signals is the ideal way to record.

The original question did not address pre-amps and i never even thought about that option. My A/D converters don't have pre-amps and I normally figure most people would not have up to 8 pre-amps