FX vs Auxes

[DavidParticipant]

Hey all,
First time dLive user here, building a show for an upcoming tour. My question is probably easy and maybe I missed it in the manual, but what is the difference between an Aux send and an FX send? I noticed that FX returns are always available (not part of the Mix Rack setup), that using them changes “Mixes Remaining” as well as “FX Remaining”, which Auxes don’t, and that the FX sends have no processing available. What, if any, is the advantage of using FX sends vs aux sends (like on other “pro” desks)?

[WolfgangParticipant]

an advantage is: if you press SEL in an FX send or FX return, the corresponding effect device appears on the screen immediately. you do not have to call it up via FX.

of course it is also possible to include effects in AUX buses. but then you lose this fast access

[JgriftParticipant]

Allen & Heath probably does it this way for setup speed. Because its all routed and done when you dial in all of your FX sends. Plus most people do the processing on the return side. Like with lots of features on the dLive…you can do it the old school way or the A&H way. But at least you have an option. I kind of like the speed. When working on a Yamaha (or other desks) I always have to think about how I setup my sends. Which can be annoying. Usually Aux 1 thru whatever are monitors. They I start from 16 down for effects. That way when I add an effect or a aux/group buss it makes sense. But on a dLive you just dial one more in the setup and boom…your done.

[ThatComplicatedMidiGuyParticipant]

Yeah, the only real advantage to using FX sends is that it’s quick and dirty. Auxes are really the way to go. If you use FX returns, as Wolfgang mentioned, you can still see the FX units quickly/simply by selecting the return channels.

I prefer to use aux paths on sends and input channels on returns. The drawback there is that you *have* to go to your FX rack to see/tweak your FX units. The big, big advantage there though is having all the processing options of both a full mix buss, and an input channel in the signal path. (Plus two inserts for each return!)

[DavidParticipant]

All that makes sense, as far as the differentiation. I guess I get that they can provide a bit of a shortcut for accessing the FX rack, but that isn’t a need for me at all, and I’d probably automate changes rather than go to the rack all the time if that were an issue. If the FX channels (sends/returns both) had full processing I’d maybe rethink, but at that point what’s the point, right?

The way I ended up setting my show up is with aux busses to FX, then to inputs, I doubt I’ll use inserts on them, but I do occasionally compress reverb returns and like at least having some options.

Thanks all!!

[WolfgangParticipant]

the nice thing is: everyone can do it the way they want 😉

[DavidParticipant]

Absolutely. No wrong way to do it.

[ThatComplicatedMidiGuyParticipant]

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!!

[Mfk0815Participant]

As Larry Wall (Inventor of the programming language Perl) said: TIMTOWTDI😉

[Author]

Posts