Direct outs vs. Subgroups

[Mangobob]

Can anyone give me a run down as to wether its better to use direct outputs, subgroups, or a combination of the two in order to send signal to an 8 track tape machine?

[jmoose]

Either is fine.

I use the subouts if I'm combining things, say five toms to a pair of tracks or two/three mics on a guitar amp to one track. Otherwise I use the direct outs 'cause there's less junk in the signal path, summing amps & whatever else.

If you can only default one in a patchbay setup I'd go with the subouts.

[AnalogElectric]

like jmoose said...

So yeah, the time I use sub/buss is when I need/want to combine several mics to one or two tracks. When I use direct outs it's each individual channel/mic going straight into a format machine.

Either way is all good just as long as the integrity of that signal (either a combo of mics into a sub/buss to format or one mic as a direct out to format) is what you want, you're good-to-go. You won't lose signal integrity if you go either way.

-- Adam Lazlo

[Mark Alan Miller]

Shorter signal paths through a console are always worth considering too.

One of my main goals in tracking is to put the fewest amplifier circuits and other components between the mic and the tape as possible for the particular task at hand. On many consoles, there is at least one more summing amp involved using a subgroup over a direct out, for example. Even direct outs sometimes have an additional buffer amp from the fader section of the channel when comapred, say, to the insert send of that channel.
What I usually do is take the insert send if all I need is the pre, or the pre and the eq. If I need to ride gain smoothly while the take is happening, I use the direct out.
And if I need to sum two or more channels to a track, then I go through a subgroup.

Your console topography may vary, making some of this irrelevant, but most consoles I've used seem to fall into this paradigm.