Hey Michael, I saw your update. But I didn't understand how we can apply the philosophy of Dave Rat (sub on separate send) without using an aux. Maybe using a group feeding a matrix dedicate to the sub. That seems very similar. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Thanks for this article. I have been constantly wondering about this since working in live sound and tend to be of the same opinion. I've done it each way, but it really does seem to me (coming from the studio, and thinking from a translation perspective - be it for streaming/broadcast or for a feed to another room) that it's better dealing with the PA as if it were a single full-range playback system. I can understand the business with the transfer function, but even working in a 1000 person capacity room where visiting engineers often use SMAART, I really haven't seen them monitoring it during the show. They're just using their ears then and working the mix, or EQ'ing the master GEQ a bit to compensate for what they're hearing.
It's like a lot of things in audio: it's one way of doing it. I've found over the years that it's better to stay away from holding an opinion that states someone should never do something. Some of the reasons I love using aux fed subs is that I don't have to HPF nearly everything. I don't want acoustic going to the subs and I don't want a HPF on it. I also love having the ability to give the subs more level at lower volume to compensate or giving them a bit of a boost to emphasize some moments. Yes, the acoustic crossover changes, but while system design is linear and analytical, running sound is not. There is room for some of the artistic opinions and if no one gets hurt, then go for it.
Thanks for weighing in here, Steve. You're totally right. It's one way of doing it and you're more than welcome to run your shows how you see fit. And you probably get great results for how you put together a mix.
@@steve01010 Thank you very much! I appreciate you being able to hold the tension of "sure, we don't agree on everything", but still appreciate what else I have to say. Glad it's been helpful to you.
@@__Nata_he’s saying he doesn’t want a HPF on the acoustic instrument (and many other inputs), which usually cuts off most content going to the subs (though the HPF on most digital consoles is adjustable).
I try to maintain an open mind. I do typically run my subs aux style. However, I do like the concept of this approach and the benefits that could come out of it with regard to tonality, TF translation and stream balance. I might have to try it out at my venue! Can't knock it till ya try it! If it doesn't seem to work, it's easy enough to switch back. Keeps ya fresh!
this makes perfect sense to me. never stop challenging norms . it's how we grow. there will always be people who say outside ideas are invalid. even f they eventually are, trying new ideas is how we grow. i love this channel. one of the most eloquent educators out there. i wish i had your savvy at your age but i'm a late bloomer. by the time you are my age you will be top notch, no doubt.
I still just use a crossover lol. I will explore this method for sure. I've tried aux fed subs and just went back to an external crossover because I was constantly "balancing" the system. This would eliminate that👍 Oh, and I always MUTE the walk-in music channels right after I fade them out now. I had the same thing happen lol Great video! Cheers
If you have a multi-speaker system, you will still need to use a crossover, whether it is passive or active. Now-a-days, it is mostly programmable amps that take care of crossover functions. If you are still running analog "dumb" amplifiers, you will need an active crossover to run your speakers correctly. You said "I've tried aux fed subs and just went back to an external crossover because I was constantly "balancing" the system." This is kinda confusing. Without the external crossover, subs on aux doesn't work in the first place. Unless you are saying that you do something like low-passing the buhjesus out of your sub bus, and then send that signal straight to your amps. That is the only other way that I can see this happening, and that is just silly talk, lol. Shout back if I confused you, that ability seems to come naturally to me, lol.
I’ve run subs in an aux for so long. I’m used to some of the “oddities” like walk in music and things that are hitting those subs differently. BUT. I have been watching your stuff and I am trying the LR to Matrix mixing for some clients to see how it works. I’ve got a room to test soon and I’m rebuilding their X32 for matrix feed and I will try the subs this way and A/B it to see how it works. I also see the benefit from a mixing standpoint. You just mix faders at the end of the day. All those tweaks should represent a whole system that sounds good. Plus it cleans up your LR mix for reference and review. When I think about training new people to mix, I can totally see this being a great choice. It’s more wholistic!
This is what I'm thingking too. If a reference music can go to a PA without mudding the vocals that means we can do it in live also, its only the matter on how to use your eq on your channel.
Michael, I have done this both ways. On very large shows I have done the Left/Right to 4 matrixes, Left/Right/Sub/Fill. We always do it in that order. We do get the request to set it up Left/Right/Sub/Fill for many of the artist we support where we are doing a Aux for sub and Matrix for fill. I myself prefer the way that you suggest and as you said if we need to do a live feed for recording, we can just simply pick another Matrix and send it to the live record feed. We did this at a corp show last week. As I said, I prefer to do my feeds as you suggest, however I have clients who prefer the aux method and when they are paying the bills we do as they wish. Nice video.
Thanks for sharing, Bill! Yes, totally agree that your system setup must be flexible enough to accommodate other engineers who run their mixes with an aux send as well as fills.
Thanks for your thoughts. I see one issue with sending a copy of your entire mix to the subs and that is that in the case of vocals you are right in that a recording doesn't have the big bottom on the vocals that many people seem to leave in them in live situations but I think we need to explore why that is a little more. Yes, some folks have not quite understood why we commonly don't use much bottom end in vocals on recordings. That is true but the thing that some people don't understand is that the best way to achieve any specific sound especially in a recording is at the source. In the best recordings the vocalists are a good distance from the mic thereby creating far less proximity effect than with mics on a stage. Heck more often than not even lectern mics are closer to the face of an orator than a common studio vocal set up. Also something to note is that lectern mics are commonly hyper or super cardioid designs because they need the off axis rejection but with that the trade off is that they suffer from excessive proximity effect. Some consoles offer a -24db/oct cut but with that if you look at the curve you will note that above the cut frequency they also ten to boost information which is most commonly not a desirable effect either. While using the crossover as a low cut is not going to fix your recording it can at least make the house mix more usable when using substandard quality mics (we commonly record with mics costing in excess of $5K. Stage vocal mics are commonly some of the cheapest mics in the box. While the cost of a given technology is not a direct correlation to sonic quality it does in fact factor in.) An alternate to correct for the record feed which I mostly do from stereo matrixes also is to run the vocal through a buss that is doing some of the global corrections for the vocals/ for example commonly engineers spec the same mic for all of the vocalists who are performing together. There are some good reasons for that for those who don't understand but that is another topic altogether. Suffice it to say that undoing the "58 curve" is something you can do as a global setting on a subgroup while using your channel eq to fix specific issues for the various singers as well as some consoles allow you to low cut in both sections or at least "low shelf" the bottom. Also inserted eq can be your friend there as well.
Great thoughts here! Thank you for sharing. That all makes a lot of sense and I totally agree that the proximity effect becomes much more of a bear in live sound. Yes, I a great "compromise" approach is to have a Band subgroup that passes through to the LR unaffected then a Vocals subgroup that has any needed low end shaping so you don't have too much rumble. I can see how that's especially effective if you're mixing monitors from FOH and the lead vocalist doesn't want to hear their voice too kneecapped on the low end if you don't want any excess rumble in the PA.
Great video! I would suggest to handle the proximity effect of the vocals in a more "elegant" way, to use a dynamic EQ or multiband compressor on your vocal group. This way you only trim down those muddy frequencies when proximity effect comes in play. (I do understand this tool is not always available in every mixer)
When I first heard of the subs on aux idea, I had the same thoughts as you are expressing here. Thanks for confirming what I've been thinking about this for some time. Good video.
Question here. I've been learning about aux subs and watched this to combat what I've been learning. Mixing at a smaller church. 50x80 room with overflow rooms open to main room (zone 2) I have a external PA processor with only 2 inputs. How do I control different zones levels and subs on the console but still use the EV DC-one processor. You use 1&2. Left/Right. 3. front fills (in my case overflow zone 2) 4. subs. with matrices, but i only have 2 inputs on my processor. Would I bypass the processor to do this and just go straight to amps? Or the processing on the matrices would output the stereo bus to the processor post fader with the sub fader affecting the stereo output? I have new gear on the way and i want to understand this stuff before i route the new console.
There are a lot of considerations when it comes to routing signal through your console. It not only depends on the capabilities of the console (some can't route groups to auxes and some can't route inputs direct to a matrix, or some don't have matrices), it also depends on what the PA is, how it is setup physically, and what system processing is in place. My first preference is to use group-fed subs so I don't have to worry about getting pre-post incorrect. The channel processing is still full range so my LR buss is still getting all the same low-end information which is getting recorded. It's up to my external system processor to handle the crossover between subs and mains. In some cases, if you have flown mains and ground subs, you may not wish to high-pass the mains anyway. In that case, the subs are definitely just icing on the cake and need to be treated more alike an LFE. If I really need the subs to carry the whole PA, then maybe the approach changes. I strongly agree that variable sends to subs is a straight up terrible idea. I'd still use an aux in a pinch but it would only ever be unity sends and let the system tech do his thing (I'm also primarily a system tech, so there's that). On an M7CL, you can't have groups, only "fixed auxes" which is the same thing anyway. I sort of don't care about the transfer function reasoning - I think you should mix with your ears, not your eyes. I've never mixed live with a constant TF and don't feel the need to. I still argue that with group-fed subs, the TF won't be completely wonky, it'll just appear to have a low-shelf boost because, again, your LR buss still has a copy of the same information as the subwoofer group. Lastly, I strongly believe that high-pass alone is insufficient for low-end management. The HPF frequency is the 3dB down-point and the roll off is still a curve. A 4th order LR filter at 100 Hz is only 6dB down at around 80Hz. For every non-high-passed mic on stage, you're gaining 3dB. If every mic on stage is only high-passed at 100Hz, you've now added enough low-end energy back into the system to fight your crossover or high-pass frequency set points. It's still totally possible to get an 80Hz or 100Hz ring in this setup. You got the point about a studio track through a PA incorrect. Once a 2-track is printed, the high-pass filters used on each channel become printed and there are no open mics. Microphones feed back, not speakers. Everything in the track will go to your subs, yes, but that's only if the information is in the track and that's why we use a system processor to low-pass the subs.
All great points here. Like you've mentioned, the routing and processing available to you on each gig will dictate how flexible the system can be. I've personally found the high pass filter alone on my live music gigs to be sufficient, but on this most recent corporate gig of mine when I ran my LR Bus as the source for all speaker destinations I had to do more LF ring out on my lav group than I usually do since the PA tilt had a significant LF tilt in the PA because there was also a live band. So there the HPF alone didn't work, which proves your point. All things considered, a variable aux alone I don't think is a good idea, but I'm starting to change my tune a bit about strictly sending the LR mix into the processor and having the processor ONLY manage the LF. I'm actually in the middle of rebuilding some of my corporate console file templates and will likely be sticking with LRSF and taking my lavs, handhelds, and podium groups out of the subs. I appreciate your feedback.
I hate aux fed subs. I learned on 4 way live mono. With a crossover. Club system I work on mostly we have two systems prosessers Yed into the amps. One for the DJ on for bands. I get sent out on many systems with aux fed subs and it is one more thing to think about. I prefer a system proscessor or X over. I am not that savvy on smmart. I would like to hear about your setup on the mono bus for smmart. These days you can’t burn an aux for subs when everyone wants stereo in ears or 10 separated mixes. I found what you said very interesting
I’ve seen some recordings missing kick drums because the mix engineer simply decided to run the kick only to the sub aux. Most churches and bands have volunteers, and probably someone from the band is doing the mix. Having less aux to worry about is great. A good and leveled PA is much better than mixing a separate aux.
Great thoughts. Related to #4 I would also add that when designing systems for permanent installs like churches, schools, community theater and similar venues where you will have a wide range of mix engineers, including volunteers, using the matrix approach and a single fader will be much more user friendly and keep them from getting lost. You set the system up properly and turn over the system with confidence.
08:30 Sure you can send group to an aux on x32: 1. take 2 free channels, link them to be stereo 2. choose the input of those channels - the buses of the group 3. send the channels to an aux as usual
people seem to miss the point of aux fed subs ..the point is you send only sound sources that has sub frequencies you want to the aux .so like plufs on vocals is not a problem .don't need subs for snares , rides ,crashes ,hi toms splash Banjos and ,Vocals ..there mics will only pick up wind and handling noises hi pass filter do not stop every thing
I might be wrong, but I don't think @MichaelCurtisAudio misunderstood the idea, he just said that modern consoles offer variable HPF and low shelf/peak cuts on every channel, and therefore this point is moot. IMO, if you are used to mixing in the studio on full-range speakers, the idea of mixing full-range on a PA just makes sense.
1A/3/4. I would best describe as make your life easy by not doubling the mental load of keeping track of where your decisions are. Similar to using a compressor - volume = volume out with the make up gain. 1B. I don't really buy the broadcast limitations. If you are using the FOH mix to feed broadcast you are already making a sub par compromise & most of the playback devices won't really produce the low end anyway. If you want to include the sub in broadcast then you can use a matrix to combine it with the LR. Ideally it should be a complete separate mix & if you have the budge a passive split (or like the Pro 2 with completely separate pres in the remote i/o). 1C. Yep shelf that low end away on everything that hasn't got bottom end you need.
What about Headroom . . . Sub Frequencies eat up a lot of Headroom on your Stereo Bus/MixL/R ? Also thought you would mention how Aux fed Subs change the X Over Frequency due to variable levels. Lastly there is the question of Low End Contour on your whole system. Aux fed sub seems to give you control of that easier than with L/R and EQ. When a gr8 Mix Engineer is Mixing A Good Band , L/R Stereo all good . . . . When the source is varied between different styles of music , especially playback / edm , how do you get around to control your Sub , considering different genres require different LFE contours ie. +3 , +6 , +9 dB. Thank You for sharing your knowledge and videos. They are amazing. Learning a lot.
Hey, Mandla. Great questions. A subwoofer will filter out unnecessary frequency content before trying to reproduce the waveform. So, the difference between a mix that only has kick and bass guitar in vs a full mix once bandlimited to the sub range is incredibly similar. I'm not too concerned with the crossover changing unless the mains and subs are coupled together. A mix engineer should just worry about the quality of their mix leaving the desk. The systems engineer can then give them the desired response of the system easily with a low shelf on the rig, no problem. Most large format mains speakers, like L-Acoustics K1 for example, go down to 31Hz themselves. So, if subs are on an aux and the engineer asks for less sub, you're taking out the subwoofer, but there's still PLENTY of low end coming from the mains. So, feeding the entire rig LR means you can apply a low shelf across the whole thing and shape the tonality in one simple place.
Two things: first is something I discovered recently, second is something you confirmed. 1. Adding low end shelf to the sub channel isn’t necessarily a good idea, due to affecting the crossover on the parametric eq (so far this is an observation) 2. Continuing 1, eq from input channels instead of thinking it’s a global issue. That changed the way tracks sound, as well as overall mix. I use the Center channel on M32, factoring in what I do or don’t need in the mains. This works 99.9% of the time, especially since there’s a dedicated rotary knob in on the penthouse section. Even the TF series suggests a center channel via Sub out, yet I do like having the option of stereo subs depending. I’ve since then summed both sides to mono at my Sunday setup, but hasn’t caused any issues so far.
Good points, well made. But how do you respond to those who would say that a typical mixer channel strip HPF doesn't have sufficient rejection to keep microphone handling noise and other unmusical LF content out of your subs? (I've heard it argued that you would need an ultra-steep HPF slope to properly eliminate the unwanted microphone LF, but even if you had such a sharp HPF available, you would risk excessive group delay distortion near the passband edge.)
I think it all comes down to approach, coming from a sound engineer background a LR mix makes more sense. It's how I've always mixed at venues and it's worked fine to date. If people prefer aux fed subs, all the power to them. I don't believe there's one better way over another, if you can make it work, you made it work. The crowd don't know, they're not sitting there like "can you hear this A1 isnt using aux fed subs!!".
For me, it boils down to several things: 1. What console am I working with? 2. How many outputs do I need and how many are left? 3. What type of event am I mixing for? 4. So I have any external processing control for the PA? All of that is going to influence whether I use aux-fed subs or not.
watch Dave Rats video on Aux and sub sends, you'll see why its a better method of mixing live audio and keeping unwanted frequencies that filters will not completely remove. I've done both depending on who's system Im using and will always use an aux send for subs if I have the choice. I politely disagre with what you are saying.
While the SQ series can send groups to aux, it doesn't make sense with regard to the arguments pro aux-fed subs. Because would not send the drum group to aux, but only the kick drum. However, especially on small venues, you might want to delay the drum group to align PA drum output with direct acoustic drum sound. Which would work with aux-fed subs, however at a much higher level of complexity. You'd have at least two places to visit in the console to change the delay.
I'm the engineer at a relatively well known venue and the only touring engineers who show up and fiddle with some alternative to aux fed subs are younger than 40 and haven't been doing it for very long. On the flip side, every single 40+ engineer uses aux fed subs. The only real difference at the end of the day is that the younger engineers are all stressed out and having a bad time because they've inevitably overcomplicated things in an attempt to... not do it the way that's worked for decades? All the routing tomfoolery in the world won't make up for a fundamentally bad mix, and typically these engineers end up wasting valuable time when I hand them Left + Right + Sub drive lines that just go straight to the amp rack and it doesn't jive with their Proprietary Mix Magic. Of course, to each their own and there are myriad ways to run sound, but the older guys aren't doing it because they're luddites, they're doing it because it's simple and effective.
I'm 1000% with you that this pervasively overcomplicated mix trend, especially with young engineers, is debilitating and unhelpful. I've seen too many talented young folks get so bogged down in miles long Waves channel strips on the hi hat that they forget to ride the lead guitar for the solo. Rant over : ) A good mix is a good mix, full stop. I'm not trying to stir the pot and say that these veteran engineers can't get great results out of an aux fed rig, I'm just saying with my workflow I prefer using matrices and here's why. That's all. If I'm system engineering for a FOH mixer who wants to send LR+Sub, they're more than welcome to.
@@jakestanbro959 I just ran sound for a band at a large festival and several of the other touring engineers kept complaining about how the sound system wasn't tuned properly and there was too much low end. Turns out, they were all using subs on a matrix. They were complaining about an L'Acoustics line array sounding bad while making an active choice to remove their ability to simply turn down the subs with one fader.
I like to run aux fed subs because, i use 2x dual 18 subs in the middle of the stage, then i have 2x single 15/18 subs on the side with my Array tops ontop for my LR mix. Then i send the outside mic (for low-end only) of the kickdrum to the dual subs(aux fed) and the inside of kickdrum mic with a low cut of 100hz so i get mostly attack to the LR system. then bass guitar and the rest of the mix also to the LR speakers. Is this an effective way to get separation of kick and bass guitar, low-end spread and a cleaner sound? what issues may occur?
Although I like your creativity, I think this overcomplicates things a little bit. Your technique borrows some elements from mixing on a front-field immersive rig. Although immersive mixing let's you physically separate out where audio sources are coming from, every major manufacturer I'm aware of with an immersive platform still recommends all low frequency heavy sources come from the same center sub cluster. You've probably heard of Dave Rat double micing sources and panning them out left/right to get separation. I know you're not double micing EVERY source, but it is common to have an In and Out mic on the kick like you're doing. What I think is worth investigating is how much actual correlation is occurring between those two mics. You can only mitigate comb filtering when two sources arriving at the same point are either decorrelated OR greater than 10dB in level from each other. Given that, I'd run some tests to see if the kick In and kick Out mic are actually all that "different". Hopefully that makes sense!
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thank you Michael. your content is epic. I still have some questions, Is it not preferable to separate the kick and bass guitar's with frequency like this, kick drum focus is 50hz to 100hz Bass guitar low cut till 90hz with focus on 90hz to 400hz. This way you don't need the bass guitar going to the centre subs because you have made space for it in the LR mix just above the kickdrum frequency, even better separation? Thank you for your feedback
That's definitely a school of thought when it comes to "carving out space" in your mix. Although this makes intuitive sense, I as a bass player wouldn't want the bottom octave of my instrument to be missing : ) I think there are other ways to make sure both the kick and bass can live in the same space without clouding the other. That largely comes down to the arrangement and players first, though.
At my regular gig, I use an m32 and the gain on my PA never changes, so I run everything to main L/R then use 3 matrix, one for L, one for R and a mono sub through out 14, 15 and 16, and 9 times out of 10, my sub matrix will be at -20 and rarely ever moves
Mono to sub fan here. I like your theory as it forces you to make good EQ decisions, however it does not account for most consoles having only one HP filter slope on individual channels that might be less steep than what you’d want going to your subs.
Great video. I don’t disagree, but do have a counterpoint. With live PAs, we generally have an exaggerated sub to main ratio. Some level of a haystack in the bass frequencies. With aux fed subs, the mix engineer is able to prevent vocal mics from going to the subs at all. Without aux fed subs, the only tool is the high pass filter. Do you find yourself high passing at a higher frequency to be more effective in the sub region, when the subs are boosted 6-10db above the mains? If more aggressive on the HPF, that would affect other mixes for streams, etc. Would love to hear your thoughts…
Hi Phillip that's a good point. I had a vocal with 85hz high pass filter. But I noticed it was still sending a bit of low frequency energy to the subs even though my xover freq was 80hz. I thought it had to do with a slope of the high pass filter. Anyway, that made me almost force me to use aux fed subs. Yes, I'd too like to hear your thoughts on this.
Great counterpoint here, Phillip! Glad you liked the video. As much as it feels like vocals in the subs is the issue, in my own systems (without floor wedges) I have trouble with vocal feedback in the 200-600Hz range, which sits squarely in the custody of the mains. The highest crossover frequency I use for subs for most rigs is 100Hz, which would be a low G for a bass singer (and the open G string on a bass guitar). There's of course a slope downwards in level or frequency for the subs after that, but they're usually more than 10dB down by 200Hz. I feel like the bigger issue is too big of a tilt in the LF on the MAINS. If I'm running a show that has both a big dialogue component AND a big a band component, I'll have the pink shift/LF shaping on the PA geared to sound great for the band, then use a low shelf to shape low end for my Lav/HH bus. My system target curve shoots for a flat PA from 1kHz to 10kHz, then some tapered HF dropoff after that as you move from front row to back row. For LF shaping, there's a +9dB rise from 1kHz down to 100Hz, then it's flat from 100Hz down to 31Hz. So, it's PA systems that have a much bigger LF lift down towards the subs that I think pose a bigger issue. Also, on BIG big PA systems the mains easily get to 60Hz. So, even if you did take your vocals out of the subs there, you've still got a significant amount of LF power coming from just your mains. If you still want to make sure vocals never hit the subs, I'd run a Band and Vox subgroup, then route accordingly to matrices. That just makes it harder to do any overall PA tonal shaping without duplicating processing. As far as vocal processing and EQ, these days I'm running HPF at 160Hz to start, then having a low shelf at 500Hz and a high shelf at 2kHz. These high and low shelves act as a "tilt EQ" together. If too much proximity effect, bring down the low shelf. If not enough top end to cut through, boost the high shelf. Then I have one parametric filter sitting at 400Hz to cut any mud. Hope this helps!
@@MichaelCurtisAudioAlso, think of the harmonic's the subs unavoidable are creating ... there is actually more distortion in a "punchy" sub, so even if you have a 4th order crossover at 90 hz vill 120 hz and 180 hz come creeping in as byproducts.
There is another point to be made about the cumulative effekt of having a wast number of inputs lowcutted at the same frequency, the ripple or bump just at cut off - is pronounced
i think this is a matter of "simple but limited" or "advanced but cumbersome". i run our subs aux-fed and i like to run our bass guitar exclusively to the subs. ive found that it gives a MUCH better spatial separation between the instruments, and it gives me _more_ room to mix the other instruments. i'd heard from Dave Rat's philosophy that sound comes from different places, so thats what im doing. (i let tops handle sub frequencies with an EQ. theres not a lot if theres no bass guitar) i will admit though, like you said in the video, eliminating variables helps me have a clearer head for mixing. i run a bit of kick drum to the subs, and it bothers me a lot having to juggle that with the bass, and with the whole PA. not to mention that whatever channel i run to the subs is always a different configuration to a purely FOH out channel which causes a hectic confusion sometimes. i will try a linked-sub system again this sunday, no aux and see how it goes. i think theres a lot to say on this topic, very interesting. and very interesting video too!
Hi Michael, I’d love to know if you still feel the same for corporate work. I usually do exactly this for music work, but for corporate I often do buses of different inputs (lecturn, lavs etc) straight to my various matrices to allow me to slightly shade down the lecturn in front fills for example to give me a tiny bit more headroom for the rest of the space. Thoughts?
Thanks for this excellent explaination of your preference. If im mixing multiple different sources. Ie headset mics, HH mics, close instrument mic, rifle mics etc. I set the console inp-grp-mtx. So bypassing the stereo bus. (Hear me out) So if I have big loud brass section who are loud onstage i can "dip" the send from the group to the front fill mtx. It makes the setup a little more complex but gives you a chance of evening out acousticly loud instruments. The default is grp send is unity so it makes it possible to do a full consistsnt sound check. So i only use this to attenuate levels never increase them. I think im going to try your way the next time though! great vid, keep up this great content
You probably don’t remember but several years back at KPC you and I actually had a conversation about this exact thing. I hate mixing separate to the subs for all of the reasons you give!
I have tried this (matrix to sub) and aux or mix. Correct me if I’m wrong, sub send on a matrix; you are sending all content after L&R to the matrix. Are you creating a crossover? I mainly work in the corporate AV world.
Hey, Robert. Great question! Yes, all channels you want going to your full PA go to your LR mix, then that LR mix goes to your mains, subs, and fill systems matrices. I usually run matrix 1/2 as mains, 3 as front fills, and 4 as subs, then use more if i've got side hangs, delays, etc. You would apply the EQ, crossover, and time alignment processing on the matrices, so that when they acoustically sum in the space you get the results you want.
You are absolutely right! Modern films sound wrong. The sound is all boom and crunch. It doesn't sound natural. If you use a good processor it will sound real and right!
For me it really depends on the system and how your console brand implements auxes and matrixes. I find, specifically on digico consoles, running subs as a matrix that you can choose weather or not a given channel sends is nice. Some systems implement this differently, and I find using whatever gives me the most control over the sound is generally the best to use. If I’m on a large PA with delay subs and massive delay line arrays as fills, aux subs may not give me the even sound across the audience that’s desired. It’s just a tool that’s sometimes helpful and sometimes not :) love the content btw
I would agree. If I am in an arena with multiple hangs, Each zone of PA is treated as it's own. For your example of large PA with delays and out fills, I may have the Main L/R zones with sub on aux, where my delays and out hangs are run full range. Again, like you said, different rooms and different gear builds, have to be treated with flexibility. Last month, I have had to build a show with a mono-block of subs in front of the stage, a regular point source set-up, an inline cardioid subs, and once a di-pole cardioid set-up. 3 weeks, same band, 4 different sub set-ups. Again, good job to Michael Curtis for initiating this dialog. And good job to you for bringing more information to the discussion.
I think it's only good for a big pro mixers or digital mixers, but for smaller mixer (like a Yamaha MGP16X or Beringer Xenyx XL2400) they doesn't have a matrix (a good one), so you must route subs from a Group, Aux, or mono(even Yamaha doesn't have a mono channel control)
i might agree with most of this if other people use the mixer, or if your live streaming off same mixer during live show. But disagree with most of this on my own mixer. As far as not having to think of where any signal is going during the show. I have that ll mapped in my head, so its easy decision in my head to decide if i send more kick or tom to the aux or boost the EQ. Its also way easier to tame the low end of a bass guitar by reducing the send to the sub vs EQing the lows out. Another huge plus is if you play outside in the wind. Its a lot easier to keep wind noise out of the subs, if your not sending most of your microphones to the subs.In fact, Iuse Matrices for each output, Left/Right Main, Center, Infill or Outfill, and 2 separate for subs. I have full control of what instruments or mics go into each matrix. Sometimes I will even send Kick Drum to a center sub, and Bass guitar and floor toms to the outer subs where I cant center cluster all the subs.
Very good video I'm using aux fed to fed my sub, but my livestreams sound weak but the room sound very good. Now where should I plug my subs, strait from the main speaker or else where.
Dave Rat would like a word... lol jokes aside.. all valid points, especially the part about it being uncorrelated with a stereo recording/stream/ etc. However theatre world where you have a million different speakers all over the place, correlation takes a bit of back seat when you have time to rehearse and program a console for 2 weeks and then aux fed subs are way more common. Great video as always!
@@MichaelCurtisAudioyeah ... Dave has a video and essentially he says noise is the reason he insists on aux fed subs ... Such as the noise that comes from gusts of air from instruments - say hi hat - that aren't designed to create low freq sounds. ua-cam.com/video/hpFK1XOZuUg/v-deo.html. I don't understand enough about matrix mix to understand your approach ... But I'm up for the learning!
I am running in the next 18 for local shows since it does not have any matrixes. How would you suggest that I control the lower end not using aux fed subs?
I engineer large corporate shows mainly. I usually run subs off a fixed bus, not an aux for corporate. The system is tuned full range, with the mains HPF to match the subs. The difference is that I only put things in the sub bus that I want there, and these are mainly video rolls/walkups/VOG/Playback. The channel counts on these shows are usually a whole bunch of RF lav/headset/handheld mics and fewer playback sources. I do still HPF these microphones but I only have to worry about that in regard to the main PA, because they do not go to the subs at all. With this format I can't add more/less sub per channel, either something is full range or in the mains only. If I am mixing music I will probably make the sub group into a variable [aux], but I will still tune the room with the aux at 0db so that is the absolute and 'correct' starting point for anything being fed into the subs. This just adds a little more freedom on something like a kick drum, to add that 'live thump' that is not going to translate well in a record mix anyway. I do like to use my L/R to feed the Matrices, which is counter to a lot of corporate guys who go group to matrix and use the L/R bus for record feeds. I like to be able to do a few system wide eq moves on the master L/R. But this can occasionally get you in trouble for corporate depending on how much of a matrix hog you are, for instance maybe you put out a lobby speaker or ran a feed into an audio embedder and made it a matrix... then the client doesn't want walk-in music in that feed and you basically have to rebuild that feed. I now do an additional feed into the matrices that I call 'royalty', and I will put my walk-in/out music through that feed. If it isn't wanted in some matrix then I can just cut it from the matrix. Sometimes there are additional feeds to the matrices as well.
One thing which I would like to experiment with more is unconventional groups of channels. Next time I will run a multitrack through a rig and group bass - kick - floor, then guitars - keys - vocals. I dare say that we often suffer from such time pressure that we rarely experiment!
Your really shaking the table here haha, But thank you for giving us some food for thought. I kinda agree with you, it doesn't make sense to tune the system, making it sound great using a reference track only to ignore and bypass the whole process by using auxes. Mixing without aux fed subs and doing it well is a challenge and a test of someone's mixing capabilities, If a reference track can sound good, you should be able as well.... I like it 😁😁 Personally what I've been doing is a separate system tuning for the aux subs and mains separately, because doing it as a whole never translated when mixing, I think it makes sense now. Will give it a go and see.
It never even occurred to me to run the subs out an aux channel. I just use the sub out of my FOH EQ, and adjust the LF channels at the mixer as needed. I'll give your approach a try though.
Hmmm. The trouble with the subs on matrix approach is that you have to high pass everything and that still doesn't keep the mix as clean as you'd like. This is especially apparent when recording live events. Dave Rat goes into further detail here: ua-cam.com/video/hpFK1XOZuUg/v-deo.html
Yes, I'm familiar with Dave's take on the issue. I just personally haven't reaped the same benefits from an aux fed approach in a live music situation.
Dave Rat just did a video on why he prefers the aux fed subs and I tend to agree with him although Pooch & Rabold have a video where they swear by a LR and no aux fed subs. I'm on the M32. Matrix 1 & 2 are Main LR like you said, high passed accordingly. I send only what I want hitting my subs to the M/C bus and then that goes to Matrix 3, low passed accordingly, LR 24 on all the Matrices. My fills live on Matrix 4. I like the idea of not sending any unintended non musical sounds to the subs. The HPF on a channel at 160 could still be producing some unwanted 80-120 Hz mud. Just my thoughts on it, still early on in my live sound career so I may change my mind. Great points to bring up!
@@MichaelCurtisAudio it depends on the gig. Going into venues, yes. Playing private parties/weddings where we bring our PA, it’s all happening at the desk.
@@drumskentala I would just make sure you're not "doubling up" on your processing with high and low pass filters for your mains and subs respectively. For instance, a QSC KW181 already has a low pass filter on it. Not saying that you could add another to reduce overlap, but just check how your mains would interact with those speakers first!
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Right on. Good guess I’m what I’m using for private events lol. I do find that in a lot of smaller room 90-120 Hz coming from the subs can be a bit overwhelming. Would you be wary of that because that could wind up killing too much frequency and it would make the whole rig out of balance and missing certain frequencies?
@@drumskentala If you feel that there's a buildup at 90-120Hz by all means use EQ to help tame it. I would just personally reach for a parametric filter first.
I run my my subs in aux for flexibility. I think it is very possible to set up aux fed subs in a way that negate pretty much all of the downsides you talk about. But it is good to be aware of the drawbacks of any mixing practices you use. I personally believe that if you are intentional, careful and understand the limitations aux fed is fine. I don't think your take is particularly convincing. The audio isn't ever really a coherent field for the average listener. Having discreet control as a mixer is important, there's no reason to limit us to just using EQ, compression, ect. Not having certain instruments go to your subs at all creates more headroom than just using high pass filter.
I think the current thing these days is to deploy a PA with subs on crossover with an additional input to mix into the sub, this way the LR mix is full range with sub, and guest engineers can still do their aux-fed or matrix-fed subs, everybody wins.
If I'm the SE and there's guest mix engineers that's absolutely how I set up the DSP. If they're feeding me LR, LR + Matrix Sub, or LRFS, I can matrix it out to feed whatever is needed.
I'm operating on a much smaller scale than you. But I have found that my sound is much better if I run subs from an aux. HPFs do work to some extent but have a slope. And mics and acoustic guitars do generate low freq signals which are just junk. My tops can do all the LF needed by any vocal mic or acoustic guitar. So I am very particular about what I let into my subs: usually kick drum and bass ONLY .... sometimes also keys if there is no bass. My bottom end sounds much cleaner when I do it this way, so regardless of any theoretical discussion, I will keep doing it this way, and I'll keep recommending it for people to try. In the end, whatever works for you. Aux subs work very well for me.
Referring to how you talked about using a matrix for your fills. What would be the benefit of using a matrix over using an aux in post? Wouldn’t an aux send in post have the same effect in terms of levels following the LR and getting the same mix?
Great question. With an aux I would not be able to send me Main LR to it as an input source. The LR on most desks can only flow "downstream" to a matrix. Furthermore, if I apply any master bus processing to main mix and the fills were on an aux, then my fill speakers wouldn't have my master bus processing.
6:17 If you Hi-Pass the Mains and Low Pass the Auxiliary Send that feeds the Sub at an appropriate frequency, 80Hz for example, and then send your reference track to the Sub on that Aux, no vocals should be reaching the subwoofer.
That's correct, but that's assuming that the subwoofer downstream of the aux send has no other processing after your console. If it's an active subwoofer, putting a high and low pass on the aux will double up on the crossover processing and narrow the sub's bandwidth unnecessarily.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Hi pass the Mains, low pass the Aux that feeds the Sub. If the Sub is already being low passed at the sub itself? Then, don't low pass it at the Sub Aux, or vice versa... Or choose which low pass you think sounds better. Easy work around if that concerns you..
Then we're right back at square one - running no LPF on the aux send means we're still sending a full range music track to the sub, then letting the sub itself do the processing.
@@nodaysback1 That would still double up the low pass filter on the subs. I promise I'm not trying to be confrontational, just having a hard time following the logic.
Interesting, I use an Allen&Heath Qu-Pac for live bands. I use an aux send for bass and kick to subs and let everything else ride in the mains. It really does provide me with better control and it doesn't take hardly any of my brain power to work it out if there is an issue or tweak I want to make live. So to each their own according to their needs. Be open to new ideas but know when you shouldn't change and when you should.
Mr. Curtis, you have been doing an awesome job with your videos. I’ve learned a lot. Do you have a video for how you process IEM feeds? Like EQ and an FX. What you generally do and any rules you have?
Thanks a lot, Bobby! Here's a few things I keep in mind for IEM feeds: 1. Always go stereo if you have the outputs. That opens up the stereo field so you can pan things around and create space. The "separation" really helps create clarity. 2. I don't usually end up applying an EQ across the whole IEM mix. Only if the performer tells me their overall mix is bright or dark. 3. Less is more. I usually start with the instrument the performer's playing at unity, their support instruments at -5dB, then everything else at -10dB or -15dB. 4. Use ambient/crowd mics if you got the time and inputs. Helps the performer feel less isolated. 5. Run FX returns back to performers post fader, for sure.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thanks for always taking the time to respond. Doing most of the things you mentioned here. Makes me feel more confident knowing you have confirmed I’m doing the right things. Thanks again for the reply’s and videos man. Much appreciated, keep it up.
Re X32 Buss to Aux (8:32): Yes you can route a Buss to an Aux, or any other channel, (and therefore also route a Bus to another Bus, via a Channel) I agree with the Subs (indeed all the PA) on Matrix after the LR, for simplicity of control and trouble shooting. After all, having spent the time (and money if you have bought Smart) to get a good even frequency response in the venue, would you mess with the PA balance (subs level) during the show rather than ‘tuning’ the band sound with Ch or Group Eq. Thanks for all your brilliant tutorials, especially on cardiod Subs, going to be experimenting with this next time I can get into the venue on a non show day.
Ah yes, totally forgot I can put a bus on a channel and do routing that way. Thanks for the reminder there. I'm glad you've found my videos helpful! Let me know how the cardioid setup goes for you.
Can you recommend an ideal setup for a DJ? I only have my mixing console with XLR outs to the amp. A lot of DJs are adding external mixers for more inputs and better control of the mics. They say it sounds better too. I'm wondering if thats really needed for better sub control?
subs on an aux was more a hang over form analogue console days it was easier to keep track of cause you could see all the pots all the time and with much more limited dsp system control back then it made a bit more sense then to do things that way. all the guys that still run that way def still think in that analogue work flow and they shoe horn the digital board into that work flow. but once you really get a grasp of the power available on a digital board its way better to run the way you do I switched over to your work flow about 10 years ago
Michael. I have really enjoyed your videos thus far. Though I am disheartened by your hardline/judgement you’ve set on sub control. It comes across as a rigid thought process to me. As a systems engineer and FOH mixer of 25+ years I’ve always taught/operated with an open mind and considered all the possibilities and the pros/consequences of any/all design/mix styles/choices and allowed the venue, system, music, and circumstance to dictate what technology or approach I take. If I’ve gained any wisdom it has been that in audio, “if it sounds good, its right”. THERE IS NO ONE WAY to do it right. The result must be the only metric. Probably 98% of the time I opt for an aux/mono sub control as FOR ME in most circumstances it is incredibly intuitive and fast and keeps my subs tight, reduces distortion and keeps my vocal, and guitar hpf as low as possible in the mains to retain warmth and tone, especially with male country artists. It helps that I am the systems engineer as well so I get to tune my aux/mono feeds to 0db with reference to the mains, with proper time, tone and gain alignments. FOR ME the sacrifice to vocal and guitar depth/power in the mains is not worth the infinitesimally small addition to my thought process that aux’s add. I NEVER go to my aux feed and ADD more of something to the subs, if something goes to the sub its sent at 0db, and at that point the sub send is post eq so if I want more overall bottom tone ... I add it with a tad of eq, and that’s it. Now sometimes with an EDM festival, especially if its a last minute setup, I run full range L/R to sub only and it works fine. But I would NEVER tell someone that they should do it my way because its easier for me, that’s just a turn off. I love hearing alternate ideas and enjoy analyzing every possible way of doing things, so its not that I take offense to your idea, it just seems like you intentionally ‘stirred the pot’ to create clicks and get a rise out of people and that insults the intelligence of those of us who have tried every way over years and hundreds of shows, and found a higher degree of excellence in OUR ART can be achieved with aux/mono. Lets continue the chorus of well thought through and tested ideas judged only by the metric of awesome sounding results for all.
Hey, George. Thanks for sharing here. I appreciate your well thought out response. I agree with you that I could have steered my language more in this video to say, "Here's how I choose to run my subs, and here's why." - rather than saying aux fed subs is wrong. I also know there's plenty of mix engineers out there who get great results using aux fed subs. Although some use the flexibility aux fed subs provides to their advantage, to me the amount of variables overwhelms me, so the simplicity of a matrix fed sub makes more sense. I'm sorry if my presentation was insulting to your hard fought knowledge and experience. Thanks again for sharing.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thanks Michael! That means alot. You have an amazing amount of awesome videos and this one just kinda bugged me, mostly because all your other videos are so great i felt this one didn't fit. I have been using your audio math spreadsheet alot actually, saves me from doing the conversions on scratch paper and my calculator app:). thanks again and keep em coming!
You're very welcome! I appreciate you sticking with me. I've actually decided that I'm going to take this video down soon and revisit the topic in a different way. My own approach and thought process on this has evolved since publishing this and I think I could tackle it more holistically. So, stay tuned!
Hey George. After thinking about it some I've decided to keep the video up for two reasons: 1. I want to be able to show the evolution of my thought over time, so being able to point back to this video once I post the followup will be useful. 2. I still think the points are valid, even if I came in a little hot at the top of the video. I will definitely keep your feedback in mind for future videos. Thanks for your support.
Hello, Michael. Big follower of you here. Quick question. Is putting the sub on a matrix essentially the same as aux feeding the sub? Since you are controlling the overall sub volume?
Hey, Aaron! It's different in that I choose to send my full LR mix to the matrix (not a piecemeal collection of channels). Yes you're right in that both have a fader and you can control overall level, but the big difference for me is the contents of the signal, not that you can adjust the level of the signal.
Hi Michel great vid!! I cannot disagree with your points but I still prefer having the option of not sending to the subs anything that doesn't need to be in the subs. I've also found myself in this dilema many times and started running some tests whenever I could. I got to a point that I feel that I get a much better working subwoofer, with more defined low end, if there's just the bare minimum needed there (for the bands that I tour with it's just kick drum, bass guitar and floor tom). I do understand that I have HPF on each channel for that, but having a first or second order HPF slope only drops by a few dBs the upper lows (less than an octave below the cutoff point). And as you pointed out these channel filters aren't as good and sharp as the Butterworth or Linkwitz-Riley filters that we usually find on system's processor crossovers, so the more channels we add to that sub matrix channel, the blurrier the low end and the overall mix it gets. When you mentioned that if a ref. track sounds good with everything there, why our FOH mix shouldn't as well, with all channels sent to L&R? My answer to that is that a mastered song has a level of dynamic control (especially in the low end) that isn't comparable to live music, we're talking about 7 to 10dB of crest factor as opposed to 15 to 20dB or higher crest factor for live (depending on the music genre). With this sort of dynamics I find that the subs work much more efficiently with less stuff being summed there. To be honest, the way I approach my mix is pretty much how you do it, I don't apply mix decisions to my "system setup", if I need more bottom to find balance with the tops, I simply push up the subs matrix fader exactly how you would, the only difference is that theres is only what I feel is necessary to be feeding that matrix. Nevertheless I surely find this is a valuable video with lots of great insights, and specially important to raise awareness about what to watch out carefully when using buss fed subwoofers.
Thanks for your great points here, Diego! I haven't yet thought about how crest factor influences how low end is perceived in a live setting, will have to chew on that more. So glad you've found the discussion helpful.
I second your comment. This video does a great job of getting your thought process stirring. Bottom line, every engineer needs to "play his instrument" the way he/she fills most comfortable. With that being said, there are "engineers" who could definately benefit from stepping out of their comfort zone. The comment that I made before, I said that I hadn't gone to deep in my reasons, but if I was to go deep into system tech world, it would include, like you said, system processing, individual gear characteristic's, and environmental effects.
@@artmathias9725 Hey, Art. Thanks for weighing in here. I just published a followup video today that I think does a better job than this video sharing my updated views on the subject - ua-cam.com/video/wqXVUmTv4iY/v-deo.html&lc=UgwAd7atGxkOPw-O8OB4AaABAg
Great material Michael. My primary mixer is an Allen & Heath SQ-5. I only have access to 3 Matrices. What would you recommend as a workaround for my limitation?
It's up to how many speaker zones you have, but I'm pretty sure those can each be run as stereo. So, you could have Mtx 1 feed your main LR speakers, Mtx 2 feed your subs, then Mtx 3 can still feed any delays or front fills. And this is all assuming you don't have a system processor to handle those duties for you.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio yessir. Not sure why that the MTXs are stereo wasn't clicking. Thanks. No processor as of now. Smaller events for me for the time being.
As a very small mobile wedding DJ this is a bit beyond my scale, but intelligent signal path is always good food for thought. As self-taught, I learned early-on that anything I leave to chance is gambling and is usually unnecessary. Reduce variables to the greatest extent possible and I won't embarrass myself. I don't have matrixes to worry about at my scale.. but how I'm setup would scale directly into your model. If I need more punch in the moment, I reach for the EQ knowing I've given myself the headroom in advance. Another local guy just turns the knob on his amplifier 👀 Diff'rent strokes I guess. Mental bandwidth is our greatest tool..I try to reserve as much as possible for room observation and judicious song selection.
Love your approach! Yes, eliminating variables is huge. I think having an EQ with a low shelf is a great idea. If an engineer who was mixing asked me to get more low end out of the system I was responsible for, adding a low shelf on his mix inputs is how I would add more low end myself.
I'm glad you think my thought process is on the right track given I'm not an engineer, just a problem solver and partymaker. Having to fit everything into a pickup to serve up to 300ish guests and multiple locations within a venue (ie ceremony outdoors, dance floor, dining room) being as succinct with gear and these types of processes eases deployment and workflow once live. I need to add something like a driverack but before throwing money in the wrong direction, I'm here and elsewhere to learn. So far yourself and Dave Rat have been a great resource. If I understand workflow at w high level, delivering an excellent experience for a quiet wedding in Telluride becomes cake.
Hey, long time aux fed subs guy here, however greatly considering a different method. Recently I’ve been trying to record shows and noticed the mix sounds great but is lacking some low end in the recording, plus I just bought a measurement rig, so I can see how going forward I will get poor results in the measurement. Also, if I use parallel compression in groups, that won’t get to subs on an aux! So now, if I go to a matrix, are you saying to make the sub matrix mix from L/R or from subgroups, and why? Also, what is the benefit to running the L/R from a matrix instead of the L/R outputs? I haven’t used fill speakers yet, but might consider that for some shows in the future and completely understand why those should be on a matrix.
Hey, David. Thanks for considering a new approach even with having your current workflow serving you well for a long time! Yes, signal flow would be subgroups --> L/R --> Matrices for speaker zones. And those zones would be a stereo PA matrix for left and right (assuming you're running left and right on a gig), a mono matrix for subs, then other matrices as you see fit for front fills, delays, lobby/overflow rooms, etc. I like running it this way so you can make sure every zone in your gig gets the same mix. You're not having to worry about mixing differently for each place your mix might end up. I like having the L/R mix always flow through a matrix for a few reasons: first is that I still have a quick way to turn down the ENTIRE rig with one fader, assuming that every speaker zone is fed by a matrix that is downstream of my LR. I can also apply global EQ to the LR bus for mix shaping purposes, then reserve the EQ's on the matrices themselves to shape the speakers. It helps separate out the "am I doing this to make my MIX sound better, or make the SYSTEM sound better?"
Thank you for the video. 😊 But i have a question on routing it. How do i route it on our x32 in our church. Because LR is on 15 and 16 i used to use subs on mono bus in out 14. Where is the best out to put it in?(matrices) Thank you. 😊
Hey, Jonathan. You can make your matrix outputs any output you need. You can replace outputs 15 and 16 on the stagebox with Matrices 1 & 2. Then use Matrix 3 as your sub matrix for output 14. You're able to adjust what source is "filling" those outputs on the routing tab, then go over to outputs. Then route outputs 1-16 to physical outputs 1-16 on your X32.
Good food for thought. I was taught to subs on aux, this all makes sense. Especially for someone like me that doesn't mix a lot, it's one less thing to keep in mind during the show. But I have a question. If your main PA is on matrix, what is plugged in to the console master out? Nothing? Is the purpose of the main PA on a matrix just that you can raise and lower the main PA level without also raising and lowering the fills/lobby/etc?
Great question! Yes, your LR master feed is not going directly to any output source. It is first flowing through a matrix. Being able to change the level of the main PA is one benefit. You can also apply EQ independently, etc. Any processing I'm doing to make the MIX sound better goes across the LR bus. Anything I'm doing to make a part of the PA itself sound better goes across the matrix.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio I guess I never thought of doing that, I guess I learned in the analog days where matrices were limited and the EQ was done outboard. Cool though. I like the organization. but what about front fills? I also was taught that you would do these on an aux (usually post fader) so if there were things that were naturally loud on stage that didn't need to be amplified for the people in the front row, you would create a separate mix and delay it so precedence would place the image on stage and not in the FF speakers for those in the expensive seats. sounds like you don't do that either if the FFs are on a matrix.
@@kevinzolitor If you want to get super granular and create a separate submix for the front fills, than totally go for it. Even if it's just on a matrix, you can still time align it. I just find it hard to keep track of mixing so many destinations differently, and if I'm at FOH I can't hear the FF mix. So why not get the PA sounding great everywhere, then trust that one mix will translate everywhere? I totally understand that if a band has live drums, open guitar amps, etc., that the front row will definitely feel different, though. But even left to right across the front of the stage you'll be hearing different amps at different times, will get monitor mix bleed differently, etc. I think that approach could be handy if you're working the same band night after night, but not as practical if it's a one-off.
Ung matrix system for FOH SUBS AND FRONFILL and send it to LR is my main standard in mixing since i used x32 mixer,.. I insert eq to all remain in flat and just invert sa polarity signal of the sub matrix mix.
Hey, Bobby. My latest video (which I'll link to below) documents this using M32 edit. Let me know if that answers your question: ua-cam.com/video/zAUXlVCF1Zc/v-deo.html
@@maizesoft Yes, I'm well aware of this video. Dave Rat has some good points, but I feel like it's a non-issue with most vocal mics. An SM58 already had a fairly steep LF dropoff below 160Hz and I'm usually high passing at least that high due to the proximity effect. I'm usually able to do a cardioid configuration on my subs which keeps more LF off the stage. If I do need to get some specific sources out of the subs (lav mics, podium mic) I opt to matrix out my subgroups to the appropriate destinations vs using an aux for my subs.
I think its not wrong to use aux feed sub. its just another way of using that low end. its like you have your own opinion on how to use it. plus it depends on the system, events and the setup. just my 2 cents. but you had your point though.
What are your thoughts on aux fed subs for a DJ situation, where it’s mostly recorded music and a few speeches, would it be beneficial to be able to turn subs down for speeches and background music and then turn them up when it’s time for dancing? (Thinking weddings!) Love your channel, I’m learning a ton about pro audio!
Great question. You still can still turn up and turn down your subs with a matrix. If you're just using a DJ mixer that doesn't have a matrix, then yes next thing would be an aux if you need that type of control.
I'd stick with a 160Hz High-Pass filter on the "speech" mic channel, and drastically cut anything below that on the channel's EQ as extra insurance. Speeches at weddings are usually not made by men (the crying in public thing), so unless there's a Betty Baritone giving a speech (or a belching contest), you shouldn't have to worry about anyone hitting 80Hz. I'd also make a steep sloping cut to the highs starting at about 8K to weed out the high screechies of excited women (it's a wedding) and sibilance when the party-goers start slurring their Ss. Put it at - infinity by the 12K band. It'll sound a bit boxey, like a bad radio, but speeches aren't entertaining, so they don't require the same clarity. I'd also notch down the immediate center 900-1.3K on this channel, since this is where someone with a nasal speaking voice (Fran Drescher) will cook your tweeters. You want to keep speakers audible but tolerable. If there is a belching contest, though, you want to kill the HPF so the full guttural richness comes shining through. And some Lysol or a replacement mic ball and windscreen.
Hello Michael. Could you please explain how to connect subs using matrix ? But I don’t understand what if I don’t need some instruments sounding in my subs? My mixer is Allen heath sq 5. Thanks for your answers! Happy New Year!!!
Hey, Victor. The whole point of running it on a matrix is for you stop thinking about, "What instruments do I want in my subs?" and trust the tonality of your system working as a whole from the get go. I'm sure you don't want a flute going to your subs, but there's not frequency content down there anyway. And you can use a high pass filter on an instrument that may have sub content, but you can then shape to fit into whatever tonal space you'd like. On the SQ5 you have four stereo matrices. You'd route your LR bus to Matrix 1 to feed your mains, then route the LR again to Matrix 2 to feed your subs.
Changing the level of subs thru mix/matrix/whatever will change your crossover freqency, destroying all the phase allignement you did between your sub/tops.
I only think the level change has any real impact, albeit a small one, when the mains+subs are coupled together. And even in that circumstance the amount of phase offset incurred isn't all that much.
I used to do aux fed subs because that's what the people before me did. These days, I never do it. Especially on the more gentle crossover slopes you need up losing much more than just the low end. I remember working with an old Dynacord system that had its crossover at 125Hz. The subs were looking after much more than just sub. Also, given the crossover slope, by offsetting the sub level on a channel, it's harder to maintain main+sub alignment. By pushing up the sub level, I'm effectively moving the crossover point up and turning down sub level moves it down. So now, instead negotiating one main/sub crossover point, I'm negotiating a different crossover point for every channel that uses subs. That's a hard no from me, thanks.
I'd love to watch a debate between you and Dave Rat regarding picking and choosing instruments that are sent to the subs on it's own feed opposed to sending the LR mix to the subs.. Seems you guys are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum :)
I would be honored to have a conversation with Dave Rat over a few beers. He's got SO much wisdom and experience. He's obviously been able to get great results with his own approach, so I can totally respect that. It just doesn't make as much sense in my brain when I'm behind a desk/system.
It depends how much you care about "stereo". You could send your main to Matrix 1, then another copy of it to Matrix 2. Then run Matrix 1 to your left and right mains, then matrix 2 to subs.
Can I use mix minus Theory with aux post fade into a channal and send that channal to aux pre to the sub with only lows to the sub instead of sending highs, mids and lows to the sub?
How would you run the subs on a xair18? That’s the mixer I’m currently using. I usually put it in bus 6 and go from there. Is there a different way you would recommend to run the subs
I don't think Matrices are available on the xair18, unfortunately. So, I would just use an Aux with everything post-fader to it, then have all the sends to that Aux at unity.
My updated take on the topic: ua-cam.com/video/wqXVUmTv4iY/v-deo.html
Hey Michael,
I saw your update. But I didn't understand how we can apply the philosophy of Dave Rat (sub on separate send) without using an aux.
Maybe using a group feeding a matrix dedicate to the sub. That seems very similar.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Thanks for this article. I have been constantly wondering about this since working in live sound and tend to be of the same opinion. I've done it each way, but it really does seem to me (coming from the studio, and thinking from a translation perspective - be it for streaming/broadcast or for a feed to another room) that it's better dealing with the PA as if it were a single full-range playback system.
I can understand the business with the transfer function, but even working in a 1000 person capacity room where visiting engineers often use SMAART, I really haven't seen them monitoring it during the show. They're just using their ears then and working the mix, or EQ'ing the master GEQ a bit to compensate for what they're hearing.
It's like a lot of things in audio: it's one way of doing it. I've found over the years that it's better to stay away from holding an opinion that states someone should never do something. Some of the reasons I love using aux fed subs is that I don't have to HPF nearly everything. I don't want acoustic going to the subs and I don't want a HPF on it. I also love having the ability to give the subs more level at lower volume to compensate or giving them a bit of a boost to emphasize some moments. Yes, the acoustic crossover changes, but while system design is linear and analytical, running sound is not. There is room for some of the artistic opinions and if no one gets hurt, then go for it.
Thanks for weighing in here, Steve. You're totally right. It's one way of doing it and you're more than welcome to run your shows how you see fit. And you probably get great results for how you put together a mix.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Great content by the way, even if I still like aux fed subs lol. Keep up the good work!
@@steve01010 Thank you very much! I appreciate you being able to hold the tension of "sure, we don't agree on everything", but still appreciate what else I have to say. Glad it's been helpful to you.
Can you not just get a sub with a hpf?
@@__Nata_he’s saying he doesn’t want a HPF on the acoustic instrument (and many other inputs), which usually cuts off most content going to the subs (though the HPF on most digital consoles is adjustable).
I try to maintain an open mind. I do typically run my subs aux style. However, I do like the concept of this approach and the benefits that could come out of it with regard to tonality, TF translation and stream balance. I might have to try it out at my venue! Can't knock it till ya try it! If it doesn't seem to work, it's easy enough to switch back. Keeps ya fresh!
Give it a shot and let me know how it goes!
this makes perfect sense to me. never stop challenging norms . it's how we grow. there will always be people who say outside ideas are invalid. even f they eventually are, trying new ideas is how we grow. i love this channel. one of the most eloquent educators out there. i wish i had your savvy at your age but i'm a late bloomer. by the time you are my age you will be top notch, no doubt.
Thank you for the encouragement!
Makes sense to me. I think most people arrive at the same conclusion considering these questions. Any reason I can find to make things easier.
Thanks to both of you gentleman for guidance🙏
I still just use a crossover lol. I will explore this method for sure. I've tried aux fed subs and just went back to an external crossover because I was constantly "balancing" the system. This would eliminate that👍 Oh, and I always MUTE the walk-in music channels right after I fade them out now. I had the same thing happen lol Great video! Cheers
Thanks a ton, Steve!
If you have a multi-speaker system, you will still need to use a crossover, whether it is passive or active. Now-a-days, it is mostly programmable amps that take care of crossover functions. If you are still running analog "dumb" amplifiers, you will need an active crossover to run your speakers correctly.
You said "I've tried aux fed subs and just went back to an external crossover because I was constantly "balancing" the system." This is kinda confusing. Without the external crossover, subs on aux doesn't work in the first place. Unless you are saying that you do something like low-passing the buhjesus out of your sub bus, and then send that signal straight to your amps. That is the only other way that I can see this happening, and that is just silly talk, lol.
Shout back if I confused you, that ability seems to come naturally to me, lol.
I’ve run subs in an aux for so long. I’m used to some of the “oddities” like walk in music and things that are hitting those subs differently. BUT. I have been watching your stuff and I am trying the LR to Matrix mixing for some clients to see how it works. I’ve got a room to test soon and I’m rebuilding their X32 for matrix feed and I will try the subs this way and A/B it to see how it works.
I also see the benefit from a mixing standpoint. You just mix faders at the end of the day. All those tweaks should represent a whole system that sounds good. Plus it cleans up your LR mix for reference and review.
When I think about training new people to mix, I can totally see this being a great choice. It’s more wholistic!
Thanks for considering this new approach! Let me know how it goes.
This is what I'm thingking too. If a reference music can go to a PA without mudding the vocals that means we can do it in live also, its only the matter on how to use your eq on your channel.
You got it!
Reference music doesn’t deal with feedback/live mics or the same kind of dynamic range or gain structure as live music. Not at all the same thing.
I really don't think your tone was bad at all... thank you for the info. I really agree and enjoy your content, even when I disagree. Keep it up!
Thank you for the support!
Michael, I have done this both ways. On very large shows I have done the Left/Right to 4 matrixes, Left/Right/Sub/Fill. We always do it in that order. We do get the request to set it up Left/Right/Sub/Fill for many of the artist we support where we are doing a Aux for sub and Matrix for fill. I myself prefer the way that you suggest and as you said if we need to do a live feed for recording, we can just simply pick another Matrix and send it to the live record feed. We did this at a corp show last week. As I said, I prefer to do my feeds as you suggest, however I have clients who prefer the aux method and when they are paying the bills we do as they wish. Nice video.
Thanks for sharing, Bill! Yes, totally agree that your system setup must be flexible enough to accommodate other engineers who run their mixes with an aux send as well as fills.
Thanks for your thoughts. I see one issue with sending a copy of your entire mix to the subs and that is that in the case of vocals you are right in that a recording doesn't have the big bottom on the vocals that many people seem to leave in them in live situations but I think we need to explore why that is a little more. Yes, some folks have not quite understood why we commonly don't use much bottom end in vocals on recordings. That is true but the thing that some people don't understand is that the best way to achieve any specific sound especially in a recording is at the source. In the best recordings the vocalists are a good distance from the mic thereby creating far less proximity effect than with mics on a stage. Heck more often than not even lectern mics are closer to the face of an orator than a common studio vocal set up. Also something to note is that lectern mics are commonly hyper or super cardioid designs because they need the off axis rejection but with that the trade off is that they suffer from excessive proximity effect. Some consoles offer a -24db/oct cut but with that if you look at the curve you will note that above the cut frequency they also ten to boost information which is most commonly not a desirable effect either. While using the crossover as a low cut is not going to fix your recording it can at least make the house mix more usable when using substandard quality mics (we commonly record with mics costing in excess of $5K. Stage vocal mics are commonly some of the cheapest mics in the box. While the cost of a given technology is not a direct correlation to sonic quality it does in fact factor in.) An alternate to correct for the record feed which I mostly do from stereo matrixes also is to run the vocal through a buss that is doing some of the global corrections for the vocals/ for example commonly engineers spec the same mic for all of the vocalists who are performing together. There are some good reasons for that for those who don't understand but that is another topic altogether. Suffice it to say that undoing the "58 curve" is something you can do as a global setting on a subgroup while using your channel eq to fix specific issues for the various singers as well as some consoles allow you to low cut in both sections or at least "low shelf" the bottom. Also inserted eq can be your friend there as well.
Great thoughts here! Thank you for sharing. That all makes a lot of sense and I totally agree that the proximity effect becomes much more of a bear in live sound.
Yes, I a great "compromise" approach is to have a Band subgroup that passes through to the LR unaffected then a Vocals subgroup that has any needed low end shaping so you don't have too much rumble. I can see how that's especially effective if you're mixing monitors from FOH and the lead vocalist doesn't want to hear their voice too kneecapped on the low end if you don't want any excess rumble in the PA.
Use the mix minus method, to control only sending lows to the subs using aux pre and post auxiliaries
@@MichaelCurtisAudioBringing up the subject of fold-back is a whooooooooole different topic, LOL.
Sick theory. That comparison to surround sound was brilliant. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks!
Great video! I would suggest to handle the proximity effect of the vocals in a more "elegant" way, to use a dynamic EQ or multiband compressor on your vocal group. This way you only trim down those muddy frequencies when proximity effect comes in play. (I do understand this tool is not always available in every mixer)
Yes, great input here. Dynamic EQ is a more elegant solution, for sure, especially if the vocalist is inconsistent with their mic placement.
When I first heard of the subs on aux idea, I had the same thoughts as you are expressing here. Thanks for confirming what I've been thinking about this for some time. Good video.
Question here.
I've been learning about aux subs and watched this to combat what I've been learning. Mixing at a smaller church. 50x80 room with overflow rooms open to main room (zone 2)
I have a external PA processor with only 2 inputs. How do I control different zones levels and subs on the console but still use the EV DC-one processor.
You use 1&2. Left/Right. 3. front fills (in my case overflow zone 2) 4. subs. with matrices, but i only have 2 inputs on my processor. Would I bypass the processor to do this and just go straight to amps? Or the processing on the matrices would output the stereo bus to the processor post fader with the sub fader affecting the stereo output? I have new gear on the way and i want to understand this stuff before i route the new console.
There are a lot of considerations when it comes to routing signal through your console. It not only depends on the capabilities of the console (some can't route groups to auxes and some can't route inputs direct to a matrix, or some don't have matrices), it also depends on what the PA is, how it is setup physically, and what system processing is in place. My first preference is to use group-fed subs so I don't have to worry about getting pre-post incorrect. The channel processing is still full range so my LR buss is still getting all the same low-end information which is getting recorded. It's up to my external system processor to handle the crossover between subs and mains. In some cases, if you have flown mains and ground subs, you may not wish to high-pass the mains anyway. In that case, the subs are definitely just icing on the cake and need to be treated more alike an LFE. If I really need the subs to carry the whole PA, then maybe the approach changes.
I strongly agree that variable sends to subs is a straight up terrible idea. I'd still use an aux in a pinch but it would only ever be unity sends and let the system tech do his thing (I'm also primarily a system tech, so there's that). On an M7CL, you can't have groups, only "fixed auxes" which is the same thing anyway.
I sort of don't care about the transfer function reasoning - I think you should mix with your ears, not your eyes. I've never mixed live with a constant TF and don't feel the need to. I still argue that with group-fed subs, the TF won't be completely wonky, it'll just appear to have a low-shelf boost because, again, your LR buss still has a copy of the same information as the subwoofer group.
Lastly, I strongly believe that high-pass alone is insufficient for low-end management. The HPF frequency is the 3dB down-point and the roll off is still a curve. A 4th order LR filter at 100 Hz is only 6dB down at around 80Hz. For every non-high-passed mic on stage, you're gaining 3dB. If every mic on stage is only high-passed at 100Hz, you've now added enough low-end energy back into the system to fight your crossover or high-pass frequency set points. It's still totally possible to get an 80Hz or 100Hz ring in this setup.
You got the point about a studio track through a PA incorrect. Once a 2-track is printed, the high-pass filters used on each channel become printed and there are no open mics. Microphones feed back, not speakers. Everything in the track will go to your subs, yes, but that's only if the information is in the track and that's why we use a system processor to low-pass the subs.
All great points here. Like you've mentioned, the routing and processing available to you on each gig will dictate how flexible the system can be.
I've personally found the high pass filter alone on my live music gigs to be sufficient, but on this most recent corporate gig of mine when I ran my LR Bus as the source for all speaker destinations I had to do more LF ring out on my lav group than I usually do since the PA tilt had a significant LF tilt in the PA because there was also a live band. So there the HPF alone didn't work, which proves your point.
All things considered, a variable aux alone I don't think is a good idea, but I'm starting to change my tune a bit about strictly sending the LR mix into the processor and having the processor ONLY manage the LF. I'm actually in the middle of rebuilding some of my corporate console file templates and will likely be sticking with LRSF and taking my lavs, handhelds, and podium groups out of the subs. I appreciate your feedback.
I hate aux fed subs. I learned on 4 way live mono. With a crossover. Club system I work on mostly we have two systems prosessers Yed into the amps. One for the DJ on for bands. I get sent out on many systems with aux fed subs and it is one more thing to think about. I prefer a system proscessor or X over. I am not that savvy on smmart. I would like to hear about your setup on the mono bus for smmart. These days you can’t burn an aux for subs when everyone wants stereo in ears or 10 separated mixes. I found what you said very interesting
I’ve seen some recordings missing kick drums because the mix engineer simply decided to run the kick only to the sub aux. Most churches and bands have volunteers, and probably someone from the band is doing the mix. Having less aux to worry about is great. A good and leveled PA is much better than mixing a separate aux.
Great thoughts. Related to #4 I would also add that when designing systems for permanent installs like churches, schools, community theater and similar venues where you will have a wide range of mix engineers, including volunteers, using the matrix approach and a single fader will be much more user friendly and keep them from getting lost. You set the system up properly and turn over the system with confidence.
Great point! Yes, I do feel like it's much more intuitive than having to worry about all of your send levels.
08:30
Sure you can send group to an aux on x32:
1. take 2 free channels, link them to be stereo
2. choose the input of those channels - the buses of the group
3. send the channels to an aux as usual
You're totally right! Great point.
people seem to miss the point of aux fed subs ..the point is you send only sound sources that has sub frequencies you want to the aux .so like plufs on vocals is not a problem .don't need subs for snares , rides ,crashes ,hi toms splash Banjos and ,Vocals ..there mics will only pick up wind and handling noises hi pass filter do not stop every thing
I might be wrong, but I don't think @MichaelCurtisAudio misunderstood the idea, he just said that modern consoles offer variable HPF and low shelf/peak cuts on every channel, and therefore this point is moot. IMO, if you are used to mixing in the studio on full-range speakers, the idea of mixing full-range on a PA just makes sense.
1A/3/4. I would best describe as make your life easy by not doubling the mental load of keeping track of where your decisions are. Similar to using a compressor - volume = volume out with the make up gain.
1B. I don't really buy the broadcast limitations. If you are using the FOH mix to feed broadcast you are already making a sub par compromise & most of the playback devices won't really produce the low end anyway. If you want to include the sub in broadcast then you can use a matrix to combine it with the LR. Ideally it should be a complete separate mix & if you have the budge a passive split (or like the Pro 2 with completely separate pres in the remote i/o).
1C. Yep shelf that low end away on everything that hasn't got bottom end you need.
Another argument against aux fed subs is that they dont track the rest of the system if you do any LR buss riding.
What about Headroom . . . Sub Frequencies eat up a lot of Headroom on your Stereo Bus/MixL/R ?
Also thought you would mention how Aux fed Subs change the X Over Frequency due to variable levels.
Lastly there is the question of Low End Contour on your whole system. Aux fed sub seems to give you control of that easier than with L/R and EQ.
When a gr8 Mix Engineer is Mixing A Good Band , L/R Stereo all good . . . . When the source is varied between different styles of music , especially playback / edm , how do you get around to control your Sub , considering different genres require different LFE contours ie. +3 , +6 , +9 dB.
Thank You for sharing your knowledge and videos. They are amazing. Learning a lot.
Hey, Mandla. Great questions.
A subwoofer will filter out unnecessary frequency content before trying to reproduce the waveform. So, the difference between a mix that only has kick and bass guitar in vs a full mix once bandlimited to the sub range is incredibly similar.
I'm not too concerned with the crossover changing unless the mains and subs are coupled together.
A mix engineer should just worry about the quality of their mix leaving the desk. The systems engineer can then give them the desired response of the system easily with a low shelf on the rig, no problem. Most large format mains speakers, like L-Acoustics K1 for example, go down to 31Hz themselves. So, if subs are on an aux and the engineer asks for less sub, you're taking out the subwoofer, but there's still PLENTY of low end coming from the mains. So, feeding the entire rig LR means you can apply a low shelf across the whole thing and shape the tonality in one simple place.
I could not agree less. But I appreciate your knowledge and personal experiences.
Two things: first is something I discovered recently, second is something you confirmed.
1. Adding low end shelf to the sub channel isn’t necessarily a good idea, due to affecting the crossover on the parametric eq (so far this is an observation)
2. Continuing 1, eq from input channels instead of thinking it’s a global issue. That changed the way tracks sound, as well as overall mix.
I use the Center channel on M32, factoring in what I do or don’t need in the mains. This works 99.9% of the time, especially since there’s a dedicated rotary knob in on the penthouse section. Even the TF series suggests a center channel via Sub out, yet I do like having the option of stereo subs depending. I’ve since then summed both sides to mono at my Sunday setup, but hasn’t caused any issues so far.
Good points, well made. But how do you respond to those who would say that a typical mixer channel strip HPF doesn't have sufficient rejection to keep microphone handling noise and other unmusical LF content out of your subs? (I've heard it argued that you would need an ultra-steep HPF slope to properly eliminate the unwanted microphone LF, but even if you had such a sharp HPF available, you would risk excessive group delay distortion near the passband edge.)
I think it all comes down to approach, coming from a sound engineer background a LR mix makes more sense. It's how I've always mixed at venues and it's worked fine to date. If people prefer aux fed subs, all the power to them. I don't believe there's one better way over another, if you can make it work, you made it work. The crowd don't know, they're not sitting there like "can you hear this A1 isnt using aux fed subs!!".
For me, it boils down to several things:
1. What console am I working with?
2. How many outputs do I need and how many are left?
3. What type of event am I mixing for?
4. So I have any external processing control for the PA?
All of that is going to influence whether I use aux-fed subs or not.
watch Dave Rats video on Aux and sub sends, you'll see why its a better method of mixing live audio and keeping unwanted frequencies that filters will not completely remove. I've done both depending on who's system Im using and will always use an aux send for subs if I have the choice. I politely disagre with what you are saying.
I've watched his video and I respectfully disagree with his approach as well. Thanks for weighing in!
While the SQ series can send groups to aux, it doesn't make sense with regard to the arguments pro aux-fed subs. Because would not send the drum group to aux, but only the kick drum. However, especially on small venues, you might want to delay the drum group to align PA drum output with direct acoustic drum sound. Which would work with aux-fed subs, however at a much higher level of complexity. You'd have at least two places to visit in the console to change the delay.
I'm the engineer at a relatively well known venue and the only touring engineers who show up and fiddle with some alternative to aux fed subs are younger than 40 and haven't been doing it for very long. On the flip side, every single 40+ engineer uses aux fed subs. The only real difference at the end of the day is that the younger engineers are all stressed out and having a bad time because they've inevitably overcomplicated things in an attempt to... not do it the way that's worked for decades? All the routing tomfoolery in the world won't make up for a fundamentally bad mix, and typically these engineers end up wasting valuable time when I hand them Left + Right + Sub drive lines that just go straight to the amp rack and it doesn't jive with their Proprietary Mix Magic.
Of course, to each their own and there are myriad ways to run sound, but the older guys aren't doing it because they're luddites, they're doing it because it's simple and effective.
I'm 1000% with you that this pervasively overcomplicated mix trend, especially with young engineers, is debilitating and unhelpful. I've seen too many talented young folks get so bogged down in miles long Waves channel strips on the hi hat that they forget to ride the lead guitar for the solo. Rant over : )
A good mix is a good mix, full stop. I'm not trying to stir the pot and say that these veteran engineers can't get great results out of an aux fed rig, I'm just saying with my workflow I prefer using matrices and here's why. That's all. If I'm system engineering for a FOH mixer who wants to send LR+Sub, they're more than welcome to.
TLDR uses a matrix
@@jakestanbro959 I just ran sound for a band at a large festival and several of the other touring engineers kept complaining about how the sound system wasn't tuned properly and there was too much low end. Turns out, they were all using subs on a matrix. They were complaining about an L'Acoustics line array sounding bad while making an active choice to remove their ability to simply turn down the subs with one fader.
I like to run aux fed subs because,
i use 2x dual 18 subs in the middle of the stage, then i have 2x single 15/18 subs on the side with my Array tops ontop for my LR mix.
Then i send the outside mic (for low-end only) of the kickdrum to the dual subs(aux fed) and the inside of kickdrum mic with a low cut of 100hz so i get mostly attack to the LR system. then bass guitar and the rest of the mix also to the LR speakers.
Is this an effective way to get separation of kick and bass guitar, low-end spread and a cleaner sound? what issues may occur?
Although I like your creativity, I think this overcomplicates things a little bit. Your technique borrows some elements from mixing on a front-field immersive rig. Although immersive mixing let's you physically separate out where audio sources are coming from, every major manufacturer I'm aware of with an immersive platform still recommends all low frequency heavy sources come from the same center sub cluster.
You've probably heard of Dave Rat double micing sources and panning them out left/right to get separation. I know you're not double micing EVERY source, but it is common to have an In and Out mic on the kick like you're doing.
What I think is worth investigating is how much actual correlation is occurring between those two mics. You can only mitigate comb filtering when two sources arriving at the same point are either decorrelated OR greater than 10dB in level from each other. Given that, I'd run some tests to see if the kick In and kick Out mic are actually all that "different". Hopefully that makes sense!
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thank you Michael. your content is epic.
I still have some questions,
Is it not preferable to separate the kick and bass guitar's with frequency like this,
kick drum focus is 50hz to 100hz
Bass guitar low cut till 90hz with focus on 90hz to 400hz.
This way you don't need the bass guitar going to the centre subs because you have made space for it in the LR mix just above the kickdrum frequency, even better separation?
Thank you for your feedback
That's definitely a school of thought when it comes to "carving out space" in your mix. Although this makes intuitive sense, I as a bass player wouldn't want the bottom octave of my instrument to be missing : )
I think there are other ways to make sure both the kick and bass can live in the same space without clouding the other. That largely comes down to the arrangement and players first, though.
At my regular gig, I use an m32 and the gain on my PA never changes, so I run everything to main L/R then use 3 matrix, one for L, one for R and a mono sub through out 14, 15 and 16, and 9 times out of 10, my sub matrix will be at -20 and rarely ever moves
Quesiton: Is the Left Right Matrix linked together as in X32 LInked Channel or is this even possible and why/ why not?
Hello, how can I make some bleachers in a Manuel way with my mapp3d app for places like fields, stadiums, etc.
Check this video out - ua-cam.com/video/E9VLOZfyVW0/v-deo.html
Mono to sub fan here. I like your theory as it forces you to make good EQ decisions, however it does not account for most consoles having only one HP filter slope on individual channels that might be less steep than what you’d want going to your subs.
Good point here. HPF flexibility is helpful.
Great video. I don’t disagree, but do have a counterpoint. With live PAs, we generally have an exaggerated sub to main ratio. Some level of a haystack in the bass frequencies.
With aux fed subs, the mix engineer is able to prevent vocal mics from going to the subs at all. Without aux fed subs, the only tool is the high pass filter.
Do you find yourself high passing at a higher frequency to be more effective in the sub region, when the subs are boosted 6-10db above the mains? If more aggressive on the HPF, that would affect other mixes for streams, etc.
Would love to hear your thoughts…
Hi Phillip that's a good point. I had a vocal with 85hz high pass filter. But I noticed it was still sending a bit of low frequency energy to the subs even though my xover freq was 80hz. I thought it had to do with a slope of the high pass filter. Anyway, that made me almost force me to use aux fed subs. Yes, I'd too like to hear your thoughts on this.
Great counterpoint here, Phillip! Glad you liked the video.
As much as it feels like vocals in the subs is the issue, in my own systems (without floor wedges) I have trouble with vocal feedback in the 200-600Hz range, which sits squarely in the custody of the mains. The highest crossover frequency I use for subs for most rigs is 100Hz, which would be a low G for a bass singer (and the open G string on a bass guitar). There's of course a slope downwards in level or frequency for the subs after that, but they're usually more than 10dB down by 200Hz.
I feel like the bigger issue is too big of a tilt in the LF on the MAINS. If I'm running a show that has both a big dialogue component AND a big a band component, I'll have the pink shift/LF shaping on the PA geared to sound great for the band, then use a low shelf to shape low end for my Lav/HH bus.
My system target curve shoots for a flat PA from 1kHz to 10kHz, then some tapered HF dropoff after that as you move from front row to back row. For LF shaping, there's a +9dB rise from 1kHz down to 100Hz, then it's flat from 100Hz down to 31Hz. So, it's PA systems that have a much bigger LF lift down towards the subs that I think pose a bigger issue.
Also, on BIG big PA systems the mains easily get to 60Hz. So, even if you did take your vocals out of the subs there, you've still got a significant amount of LF power coming from just your mains.
If you still want to make sure vocals never hit the subs, I'd run a Band and Vox subgroup, then route accordingly to matrices. That just makes it harder to do any overall PA tonal shaping without duplicating processing.
As far as vocal processing and EQ, these days I'm running HPF at 160Hz to start, then having a low shelf at 500Hz and a high shelf at 2kHz. These high and low shelves act as a "tilt EQ" together. If too much proximity effect, bring down the low shelf. If not enough top end to cut through, boost the high shelf. Then I have one parametric filter sitting at 400Hz to cut any mud.
Hope this helps!
@@MichaelCurtisAudioAlso, think of the harmonic's the subs unavoidable are creating ... there is actually more distortion in a "punchy" sub, so even if you have a 4th order crossover at 90 hz vill 120 hz and 180 hz come creeping in as byproducts.
There is another point to be made about the cumulative effekt of having a wast number of inputs lowcutted at the same frequency, the ripple or bump just at cut off - is pronounced
@@srendyhr5844 Yup! That can cause a ton of phase shift and weird frequency responses.
Is this also suggested for DJ applications as well?
i think this is a matter of "simple but limited" or "advanced but cumbersome". i run our subs aux-fed and i like to run our bass guitar exclusively to the subs. ive found that it gives a MUCH better spatial separation between the instruments, and it gives me _more_ room to mix the other instruments. i'd heard from Dave Rat's philosophy that sound comes from different places, so thats what im doing. (i let tops handle sub frequencies with an EQ. theres not a lot if theres no bass guitar)
i will admit though, like you said in the video, eliminating variables helps me have a clearer head for mixing. i run a bit of kick drum to the subs, and it bothers me a lot having to juggle that with the bass, and with the whole PA. not to mention that whatever channel i run to the subs is always a different configuration to a purely FOH out channel which causes a hectic confusion sometimes.
i will try a linked-sub system again this sunday, no aux and see how it goes. i think theres a lot to say on this topic, very interesting. and very interesting video too!
Hi Michael, I’d love to know if you still feel the same for corporate work. I usually do exactly this for music work, but for corporate I often do buses of different inputs (lecturn, lavs etc) straight to my various matrices to allow me to slightly shade down the lecturn in front fills for example to give me a tiny bit more headroom for the rest of the space. Thoughts?
Unfortunately, our mixer only has 3 matrixes, but I recently started using 1 for uppers, 1 for subs, and I'm experimenting with 1 for the live stream.
I'm assuming it's A&H SQ or Qu? I like those desks for the most part, but only three matrices is a beef for me : )
@@MichaelCurtisAudio yep! An SQ
How about if the mixer have zone /sub output?
Thanks for this excellent explaination of your preference. If im mixing multiple different sources. Ie headset mics, HH mics, close instrument mic, rifle mics etc. I set the console inp-grp-mtx. So bypassing the stereo bus. (Hear me out) So if I have big loud brass section who are loud onstage i can "dip" the send from the group to the front fill mtx. It makes the setup a little more complex but gives you a chance of evening out acousticly loud instruments. The default is grp send is unity so it makes it possible to do a full consistsnt sound check. So i only use this to attenuate levels never increase them. I think im going to try your way the next time though! great vid, keep up this great content
That's a cool workflow and makes a lot of sense! The feedback is much appreciated.
You probably don’t remember but several years back at KPC you and I actually had a conversation about this exact thing. I hate mixing separate to the subs for all of the reasons you give!
I do!
I have tried this (matrix to sub) and aux or mix. Correct me if I’m wrong, sub send on a matrix; you are sending all content after L&R to the matrix. Are you creating a crossover?
I mainly work in the corporate AV world.
Hey, Robert. Great question!
Yes, all channels you want going to your full PA go to your LR mix, then that LR mix goes to your mains, subs, and fill systems matrices. I usually run matrix 1/2 as mains, 3 as front fills, and 4 as subs, then use more if i've got side hangs, delays, etc.
You would apply the EQ, crossover, and time alignment processing on the matrices, so that when they acoustically sum in the space you get the results you want.
You are absolutely right! Modern films sound wrong. The sound is all boom and crunch. It doesn't sound natural. If you use a good processor it will sound real and right!
For me it really depends on the system and how your console brand implements auxes and matrixes. I find, specifically on digico consoles, running subs as a matrix that you can choose weather or not a given channel sends is nice. Some systems implement this differently, and I find using whatever gives me the most control over the sound is generally the best to use. If I’m on a large PA with delay subs and massive delay line arrays as fills, aux subs may not give me the even sound across the audience that’s desired. It’s just a tool that’s sometimes helpful and sometimes not :) love the content btw
Thanks for sharing!
I would agree. If I am in an arena with multiple hangs, Each zone of PA is treated as it's own. For your example of large PA with delays and out fills, I may have the Main L/R zones with sub on aux, where my delays and out hangs are run full range.
Again, like you said, different rooms and different gear builds, have to be treated with flexibility. Last month, I have had to build a show with a mono-block of subs in front of the stage, a regular point source set-up, an inline cardioid subs, and once a di-pole cardioid set-up. 3 weeks, same band, 4 different sub set-ups.
Again, good job to Michael Curtis for initiating this dialog. And good job to you for bringing more information to the discussion.
I think it's only good for a big pro mixers or digital mixers, but for smaller mixer (like a Yamaha MGP16X or Beringer Xenyx XL2400) they doesn't have a matrix (a good one), so you must route subs from a Group, Aux, or mono(even Yamaha doesn't have a mono channel control)
i might agree with most of this if other people use the mixer, or if your live streaming off same mixer during live show. But disagree with most of this on my own mixer. As far as not having to think of where any signal is going during the show. I have that ll mapped in my head, so its easy decision in my head to decide if i send more kick or tom to the aux or boost the EQ. Its also way easier to tame the low end of a bass guitar by reducing the send to the sub vs EQing the lows out. Another huge plus is if you play outside in the wind. Its a lot easier to keep wind noise out of the subs, if your not sending most of your microphones to the subs.In fact, Iuse Matrices for each output, Left/Right Main, Center, Infill or Outfill, and 2 separate for subs. I have full control of what instruments or mics go into each matrix. Sometimes I will even send Kick Drum to a center sub, and Bass guitar and floor toms to the outer subs where I cant center cluster all the subs.
Very good video I'm using aux fed to fed my sub, but my livestreams sound weak but the room sound very good. Now where should I plug my subs, strait from the main speaker or else where.
What if you mixer does not have Matrices? Behringer xAir 12
Dave Rat would like a word... lol jokes aside.. all valid points, especially the part about it being uncorrelated with a stereo recording/stream/ etc. However theatre world where you have a million different speakers all over the place, correlation takes a bit of back seat when you have time to rehearse and program a console for 2 weeks and then aux fed subs are way more common. Great video as always!
Thanks, man! I'd love to have a conversation with Dave Rat about it. He's a brilliant dude and I think it'd b a fun talk.
@@MichaelCurtisAudioyeah ... Dave has a video and essentially he says noise is the reason he insists on aux fed subs ... Such as the noise that comes from gusts of air from instruments - say hi hat - that aren't designed to create low freq sounds. ua-cam.com/video/hpFK1XOZuUg/v-deo.html. I don't understand enough about matrix mix to understand your approach ... But I'm up for the learning!
I am running in the next 18 for local shows since it does not have any matrixes. How would you suggest that I control the lower end not using aux fed subs?
I engineer large corporate shows mainly. I usually run subs off a fixed bus, not an aux for corporate. The system is tuned full range, with the mains HPF to match the subs. The difference is that I only put things in the sub bus that I want there, and these are mainly video rolls/walkups/VOG/Playback. The channel counts on these shows are usually a whole bunch of RF lav/headset/handheld mics and fewer playback sources. I do still HPF these microphones but I only have to worry about that in regard to the main PA, because they do not go to the subs at all. With this format I can't add more/less sub per channel, either something is full range or in the mains only. If I am mixing music I will probably make the sub group into a variable [aux], but I will still tune the room with the aux at 0db so that is the absolute and 'correct' starting point for anything being fed into the subs. This just adds a little more freedom on something like a kick drum, to add that 'live thump' that is not going to translate well in a record mix anyway.
I do like to use my L/R to feed the Matrices, which is counter to a lot of corporate guys who go group to matrix and use the L/R bus for record feeds. I like to be able to do a few system wide eq moves on the master L/R. But this can occasionally get you in trouble for corporate depending on how much of a matrix hog you are, for instance maybe you put out a lobby speaker or ran a feed into an audio embedder and made it a matrix... then the client doesn't want walk-in music in that feed and you basically have to rebuild that feed. I now do an additional feed into the matrices that I call 'royalty', and I will put my walk-in/out music through that feed. If it isn't wanted in some matrix then I can just cut it from the matrix. Sometimes there are additional feeds to the matrices as well.
Some great tips here, thanks for sharing!
One thing which I would like to experiment with more is unconventional groups of channels. Next time I will run a multitrack through a rig and group bass - kick - floor, then guitars - keys - vocals. I dare say that we often suffer from such time pressure that we rarely experiment!
Yes, most live events being so fast paced makes it very hard to experiment.
Your really shaking the table here haha, But thank you for giving us some food for thought. I kinda agree with you, it doesn't make sense to tune the system, making it sound great using a reference track only to ignore and bypass the whole process by using auxes.
Mixing without aux fed subs and doing it well is a challenge and a test of someone's mixing capabilities, If a reference track can sound good, you should be able as well.... I like it 😁😁
Personally what I've been doing is a separate system tuning for the aux subs and mains separately, because doing it as a whole never translated when mixing, I think it makes sense now. Will give it a go and see.
It was definitely a big transition for me as well when I stopped using aux fed subs. Give it a go on your next gig and let me know if it was helpful!
It never even occurred to me to run the subs out an aux channel. I just use the sub out of my FOH EQ, and adjust the LF channels at the mixer as needed. I'll give your approach a try though.
also wont changing sub woofer level AKA aux fed subs change the acoustic crossover point?
Same thing with Matrix fed subs, but yes that will change. Not a dealbreaker in my opinion, though.
Helpful and interesting ideas here. Thanks man!
isnt it pooch and rabold use LR system and not doing aux sub fed?
Hmmm. The trouble with the subs on matrix approach is that you have to high pass everything and that still doesn't keep the mix as clean as you'd like. This is especially apparent when recording live events. Dave Rat goes into further detail here: ua-cam.com/video/hpFK1XOZuUg/v-deo.html
Yes, I'm familiar with Dave's take on the issue. I just personally haven't reaped the same benefits from an aux fed approach in a live music situation.
Dave Rat just did a video on why he prefers the aux fed subs and I tend to agree with him although Pooch & Rabold have a video where they swear by a LR and no aux fed subs. I'm on the M32. Matrix 1 & 2 are Main LR like you said, high passed accordingly. I send only what I want hitting my subs to the M/C bus and then that goes to Matrix 3, low passed accordingly, LR 24 on all the Matrices. My fills live on Matrix 4. I like the idea of not sending any unintended non musical sounds to the subs. The HPF on a channel at 160 could still be producing some unwanted 80-120 Hz mud. Just my thoughts on it, still early on in my live sound career so I may change my mind. Great points to bring up!
Thanks for weighing in here, Steve! Do the speakers downstream of your desk have any built in DSP? Or does it all need to happen at the desk?
@@MichaelCurtisAudio it depends on the gig. Going into venues, yes. Playing private parties/weddings where we bring our PA, it’s all happening at the desk.
@@drumskentala I would just make sure you're not "doubling up" on your processing with high and low pass filters for your mains and subs respectively. For instance, a QSC KW181 already has a low pass filter on it. Not saying that you could add another to reduce overlap, but just check how your mains would interact with those speakers first!
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Right on. Good guess I’m what I’m using for private events lol. I do find that in a lot of smaller room 90-120 Hz coming from the subs can be a bit overwhelming. Would you be wary of that because that could wind up killing too much frequency and it would make the whole rig out of balance and missing certain frequencies?
@@drumskentala If you feel that there's a buildup at 90-120Hz by all means use EQ to help tame it. I would just personally reach for a parametric filter first.
I run my my subs in aux for flexibility. I think it is very possible to set up aux fed subs in a way that negate pretty much all of the downsides you talk about. But it is good to be aware of the drawbacks of any mixing practices you use. I personally believe that if you are intentional, careful and understand the limitations aux fed is fine. I don't think your take is particularly convincing. The audio isn't ever really a coherent field for the average listener. Having discreet control as a mixer is important, there's no reason to limit us to just using EQ, compression, ect. Not having certain instruments go to your subs at all creates more headroom than just using high pass filter.
I think the current thing these days is to deploy a PA with subs on crossover with an additional input to mix into the sub, this way the LR mix is full range with sub, and guest engineers can still do their aux-fed or matrix-fed subs, everybody wins.
If I'm the SE and there's guest mix engineers that's absolutely how I set up the DSP. If they're feeding me LR, LR + Matrix Sub, or LRFS, I can matrix it out to feed whatever is needed.
I'm operating on a much smaller scale than you. But I have found that my sound is much better if I run subs from an aux. HPFs do work to some extent but have a slope. And mics and acoustic guitars do generate low freq signals which are just junk. My tops can do all the LF needed by any vocal mic or acoustic guitar. So I am very particular about what I let into my subs: usually kick drum and bass ONLY .... sometimes also keys if there is no bass. My bottom end sounds much cleaner when I do it this way, so regardless of any theoretical discussion, I will keep doing it this way, and I'll keep recommending it for people to try. In the end, whatever works for you. Aux subs work very well for me.
I'm glad your setup gets you the results you're after! By all means keep going with it.
Referring to how you talked about using a matrix for your fills. What would be the benefit of using a matrix over using an aux in post? Wouldn’t an aux send in post have the same effect in terms of levels following the LR and getting the same mix?
Great question. With an aux I would not be able to send me Main LR to it as an input source. The LR on most desks can only flow "downstream" to a matrix.
Furthermore, if I apply any master bus processing to main mix and the fills were on an aux, then my fill speakers wouldn't have my master bus processing.
6:17 If you Hi-Pass the Mains and Low Pass the Auxiliary Send that feeds the Sub at an appropriate frequency, 80Hz for example, and then send your reference track to the Sub on that Aux, no vocals should be reaching the subwoofer.
That's correct, but that's assuming that the subwoofer downstream of the aux send has no other processing after your console. If it's an active subwoofer, putting a high and low pass on the aux will double up on the crossover processing and narrow the sub's bandwidth unnecessarily.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Hi pass the Mains, low pass the Aux that feeds the Sub.
If the Sub is already being low passed at the sub itself? Then, don't low pass it at the Sub Aux, or vice versa... Or choose which low pass you think sounds better.
Easy work around if that concerns you..
Then we're right back at square one - running no LPF on the aux send means we're still sending a full range music track to the sub, then letting the sub itself do the processing.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio No, Bro... I said it twice. "...Hi-Pass the Mains and *Low-Pass the Auxiliary Send that feeds the Sub* ..."
@@nodaysback1 That would still double up the low pass filter on the subs. I promise I'm not trying to be confrontational, just having a hard time following the logic.
Interesting, I use an Allen&Heath Qu-Pac for live bands. I use an aux send for bass and kick to subs and let everything else ride in the mains. It really does provide me with better control and it doesn't take hardly any of my brain power to work it out if there is an issue or tweak I want to make live. So to each their own according to their needs. Be open to new ideas but know when you shouldn't change and when you should.
Whatever is able to get you the best results the fastest!
Mr. Curtis, you have been doing an awesome job with your videos. I’ve learned a lot. Do you have a video for how you process IEM feeds? Like EQ and an FX. What you generally do and any rules you have?
Thanks a lot, Bobby! Here's a few things I keep in mind for IEM feeds:
1. Always go stereo if you have the outputs. That opens up the stereo field so you can pan things around and create space. The "separation" really helps create clarity.
2. I don't usually end up applying an EQ across the whole IEM mix. Only if the performer tells me their overall mix is bright or dark.
3. Less is more. I usually start with the instrument the performer's playing at unity, their support instruments at -5dB, then everything else at -10dB or -15dB.
4. Use ambient/crowd mics if you got the time and inputs. Helps the performer feel less isolated.
5. Run FX returns back to performers post fader, for sure.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thanks for always taking the time to respond. Doing most of the things you mentioned here. Makes me feel more confident knowing you have confirmed I’m doing the right things. Thanks again for the reply’s and videos man. Much appreciated, keep it up.
@@Bobby_Uterus You're very welcome! Happy to help.
Could anyone here walk in a room and tell if the subs were on an Aux..? ( had a friend that said they could tell what recording DAW was used )
Re X32 Buss to Aux (8:32): Yes you can route a Buss to an Aux, or any other channel, (and therefore also route a Bus to another Bus, via a Channel)
I agree with the Subs (indeed all the PA) on Matrix after the LR, for simplicity of control and trouble shooting. After all, having spent the time (and money if you have bought Smart) to get a good even frequency response in the venue, would you mess with the PA balance (subs level) during the show rather than ‘tuning’ the band sound with Ch or Group Eq.
Thanks for all your brilliant tutorials, especially on cardiod Subs, going to be experimenting with this next time I can get into the venue on a non show day.
Ah yes, totally forgot I can put a bus on a channel and do routing that way. Thanks for the reminder there.
I'm glad you've found my videos helpful! Let me know how the cardioid setup goes for you.
Can you recommend an ideal setup for a DJ? I only have my mixing console with XLR outs to the amp. A lot of DJs are adding external mixers for more inputs and better control of the mics. They say it sounds better too. I'm wondering if thats really needed for better sub control?
I'd say you can get appropriate control from just a single console.
subs on an aux was more a hang over form analogue console days it was easier to keep track of cause you could see all the pots all the time and with much more limited dsp system control back then it made a bit more sense then to do things that way. all the guys that still run that way def still think in that analogue work flow and they shoe horn the digital board into that work flow. but once you really get a grasp of the power available on a digital board its way better to run the way you do I switched over to your work flow about 10 years ago
Yup! It's still possible to get great results from subs on an aux, but just not my preferred way of getting low end right.
Michael. I have really enjoyed your videos thus far. Though I am disheartened by your hardline/judgement you’ve set on sub control. It comes across as a rigid thought process to me. As a systems engineer and FOH mixer of 25+ years I’ve always taught/operated with an open mind and considered all the possibilities and the pros/consequences of any/all design/mix styles/choices and allowed the venue, system, music, and circumstance to dictate what technology or approach I take. If I’ve gained any wisdom it has been that in audio, “if it sounds good, its right”. THERE IS NO ONE WAY to do it right. The result must be the only metric.
Probably 98% of the time I opt for an aux/mono sub control as FOR ME in most circumstances it is incredibly intuitive and fast and keeps my subs tight, reduces distortion and keeps my vocal, and guitar hpf as low as possible in the mains to retain warmth and tone, especially with male country artists. It helps that I am the systems engineer as well so I get to tune my aux/mono feeds to 0db with reference to the mains, with proper time, tone and gain alignments. FOR ME the sacrifice to vocal and guitar depth/power in the mains is not worth the infinitesimally small addition to my thought process that aux’s add. I NEVER go to my aux feed and ADD more of something to the subs, if something goes to the sub its sent at 0db, and at that point the sub send is post eq so if I want more overall bottom tone ... I add it with a tad of eq, and that’s it. Now sometimes with an EDM festival, especially if its a last minute setup, I run full range L/R to sub only and it works fine. But I would NEVER tell someone that they should do it my way because its easier for me, that’s just a turn off. I love hearing alternate ideas and enjoy analyzing every possible way of doing things, so its not that I take offense to your idea, it just seems like you intentionally ‘stirred the pot’ to create clicks and get a rise out of people and that insults the intelligence of those of us who have tried every way over years and hundreds of shows, and found a higher degree of excellence in OUR ART can be achieved with aux/mono. Lets continue the chorus of well thought through and tested ideas judged only by the metric of awesome sounding results for all.
Hey, George. Thanks for sharing here. I appreciate your well thought out response.
I agree with you that I could have steered my language more in this video to say, "Here's how I choose to run my subs, and here's why." - rather than saying aux fed subs is wrong. I also know there's plenty of mix engineers out there who get great results using aux fed subs. Although some use the flexibility aux fed subs provides to their advantage, to me the amount of variables overwhelms me, so the simplicity of a matrix fed sub makes more sense.
I'm sorry if my presentation was insulting to your hard fought knowledge and experience. Thanks again for sharing.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Thanks Michael! That means alot. You have an amazing amount of awesome videos and this one just kinda bugged me, mostly because all your other videos are so great i felt this one didn't fit. I have been using your audio math spreadsheet alot actually, saves me from doing the conversions on scratch paper and my calculator app:). thanks again and keep em coming!
You're very welcome! I appreciate you sticking with me. I've actually decided that I'm going to take this video down soon and revisit the topic in a different way. My own approach and thought process on this has evolved since publishing this and I think I could tackle it more holistically. So, stay tuned!
Hey George. After thinking about it some I've decided to keep the video up for two reasons:
1. I want to be able to show the evolution of my thought over time, so being able to point back to this video once I post the followup will be useful.
2. I still think the points are valid, even if I came in a little hot at the top of the video.
I will definitely keep your feedback in mind for future videos. Thanks for your support.
Hello, Michael. Big follower of you here. Quick question. Is putting the sub on a matrix essentially the same as aux feeding the sub? Since you are controlling the overall sub volume?
Hey, Aaron! It's different in that I choose to send my full LR mix to the matrix (not a piecemeal collection of channels). Yes you're right in that both have a fader and you can control overall level, but the big difference for me is the contents of the signal, not that you can adjust the level of the signal.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio Awesome. Thank you, Michael!
Hi Michel great vid!!
I cannot disagree with your points but I still prefer having the option of not sending to the subs anything that doesn't need to be in the subs. I've also found myself in this dilema many times and started running some tests whenever I could. I got to a point that I feel that I get a much better working subwoofer, with more defined low end, if there's just the bare minimum needed there (for the bands that I tour with it's just kick drum, bass guitar and floor tom). I do understand that I have HPF on each channel for that, but having a first or second order HPF slope only drops by a few dBs the upper lows (less than an octave below the cutoff point). And as you pointed out these channel filters aren't as good and sharp as the Butterworth or Linkwitz-Riley filters that we usually find on system's processor crossovers, so the more channels we add to that sub matrix channel, the blurrier the low end and the overall mix it gets. When you mentioned that if a ref. track sounds good with everything there, why our FOH mix shouldn't as well, with all channels sent to L&R? My answer to that is that a mastered song has a level of dynamic control (especially in the low end) that isn't comparable to live music, we're talking about 7 to 10dB of crest factor as opposed to 15 to 20dB or higher crest factor for live (depending on the music genre). With this sort of dynamics I find that the subs work much more efficiently with less stuff being summed there.
To be honest, the way I approach my mix is pretty much how you do it, I don't apply mix decisions to my "system setup", if I need more bottom to find balance with the tops, I simply push up the subs matrix fader exactly how you would, the only difference is that theres is only what I feel is necessary to be feeding that matrix.
Nevertheless I surely find this is a valuable video with lots of great insights, and specially important to raise awareness about what to watch out carefully when using buss fed subwoofers.
Thanks for your great points here, Diego! I haven't yet thought about how crest factor influences how low end is perceived in a live setting, will have to chew on that more. So glad you've found the discussion helpful.
I second your comment. This video does a great job of getting your thought process stirring. Bottom line, every engineer needs to "play his instrument" the way he/she fills most comfortable. With that being said, there are "engineers" who could definately benefit from stepping out of their comfort zone.
The comment that I made before, I said that I hadn't gone to deep in my reasons, but if I was to go deep into system tech world, it would include, like you said, system processing, individual gear characteristic's, and environmental effects.
@@artmathias9725 Hey, Art. Thanks for weighing in here. I just published a followup video today that I think does a better job than this video sharing my updated views on the subject - ua-cam.com/video/wqXVUmTv4iY/v-deo.html&lc=UgwAd7atGxkOPw-O8OB4AaABAg
Great material Michael. My primary mixer is an Allen & Heath SQ-5. I only have access to 3 Matrices. What would you recommend as a workaround for my limitation?
It's up to how many speaker zones you have, but I'm pretty sure those can each be run as stereo. So, you could have Mtx 1 feed your main LR speakers, Mtx 2 feed your subs, then Mtx 3 can still feed any delays or front fills. And this is all assuming you don't have a system processor to handle those duties for you.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio yessir. Not sure why that the MTXs are stereo wasn't clicking. Thanks. No processor as of now. Smaller events for me for the time being.
@@theflyingalamo No worries! Glad this was helpful.
As a very small mobile wedding DJ this is a bit beyond my scale, but intelligent signal path is always good food for thought.
As self-taught, I learned early-on that anything I leave to chance is gambling and is usually unnecessary. Reduce variables to the greatest extent possible and I won't embarrass myself.
I don't have matrixes to worry about at my scale.. but how I'm setup would scale directly into your model. If I need more punch in the moment, I reach for the EQ knowing I've given myself the headroom in advance. Another local guy just turns the knob on his amplifier 👀 Diff'rent strokes I guess.
Mental bandwidth is our greatest tool..I try to reserve as much as possible for room observation and judicious song selection.
Love your approach! Yes, eliminating variables is huge.
I think having an EQ with a low shelf is a great idea. If an engineer who was mixing asked me to get more low end out of the system I was responsible for, adding a low shelf on his mix inputs is how I would add more low end myself.
I'm glad you think my thought process is on the right track given I'm not an engineer, just a problem solver and partymaker.
Having to fit everything into a pickup to serve up to 300ish guests and multiple locations within a venue (ie ceremony outdoors, dance floor, dining room) being as succinct with gear and these types of processes eases deployment and workflow once live. I need to add something like a driverack but before throwing money in the wrong direction, I'm here and elsewhere to learn. So far yourself and Dave Rat have been a great resource. If I understand workflow at w high level, delivering an excellent experience for a quiet wedding in Telluride becomes cake.
Hey, long time aux fed subs guy here, however greatly considering a different method. Recently I’ve been trying to record shows and noticed the mix sounds great but is lacking some low end in the recording, plus I just bought a measurement rig, so I can see how going forward I will get poor results in the measurement. Also, if I use parallel compression in groups, that won’t get to subs on an aux! So now, if I go to a matrix, are you saying to make the sub matrix mix from L/R or from subgroups, and why? Also, what is the benefit to running the L/R from a matrix instead of the L/R outputs? I haven’t used fill speakers yet, but might consider that for some shows in the future and completely understand why those should be on a matrix.
Hey, David. Thanks for considering a new approach even with having your current workflow serving you well for a long time!
Yes, signal flow would be subgroups --> L/R --> Matrices for speaker zones. And those zones would be a stereo PA matrix for left and right (assuming you're running left and right on a gig), a mono matrix for subs, then other matrices as you see fit for front fills, delays, lobby/overflow rooms, etc. I like running it this way so you can make sure every zone in your gig gets the same mix. You're not having to worry about mixing differently for each place your mix might end up.
I like having the L/R mix always flow through a matrix for a few reasons: first is that I still have a quick way to turn down the ENTIRE rig with one fader, assuming that every speaker zone is fed by a matrix that is downstream of my LR. I can also apply global EQ to the LR bus for mix shaping purposes, then reserve the EQ's on the matrices themselves to shape the speakers. It helps separate out the "am I doing this to make my MIX sound better, or make the SYSTEM sound better?"
Thank you for the video. 😊 But i have a question on routing it. How do i route it on our x32 in our church. Because LR is on 15 and 16 i used to use subs on mono bus in out 14. Where is the best out to put it in?(matrices) Thank you. 😊
Hey, Jonathan. You can make your matrix outputs any output you need. You can replace outputs 15 and 16 on the stagebox with Matrices 1 & 2. Then use Matrix 3 as your sub matrix for output 14. You're able to adjust what source is "filling" those outputs on the routing tab, then go over to outputs. Then route outputs 1-16 to physical outputs 1-16 on your X32.
Good food for thought. I was taught to subs on aux, this all makes sense. Especially for someone like me that doesn't mix a lot, it's one less thing to keep in mind during the show. But I have a question. If your main PA is on matrix, what is plugged in to the console master out? Nothing? Is the purpose of the main PA on a matrix just that you can raise and lower the main PA level without also raising and lowering the fills/lobby/etc?
Great question! Yes, your LR master feed is not going directly to any output source. It is first flowing through a matrix.
Being able to change the level of the main PA is one benefit. You can also apply EQ independently, etc. Any processing I'm doing to make the MIX sound better goes across the LR bus. Anything I'm doing to make a part of the PA itself sound better goes across the matrix.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio I guess I never thought of doing that, I guess I learned in the analog days where matrices were limited and the EQ was done outboard. Cool though. I like the organization. but what about front fills? I also was taught that you would do these on an aux (usually post fader) so if there were things that were naturally loud on stage that didn't need to be amplified for the people in the front row, you would create a separate mix and delay it so precedence would place the image on stage and not in the FF speakers for those in the expensive seats. sounds like you don't do that either if the FFs are on a matrix.
@@kevinzolitor If you want to get super granular and create a separate submix for the front fills, than totally go for it. Even if it's just on a matrix, you can still time align it.
I just find it hard to keep track of mixing so many destinations differently, and if I'm at FOH I can't hear the FF mix. So why not get the PA sounding great everywhere, then trust that one mix will translate everywhere? I totally understand that if a band has live drums, open guitar amps, etc., that the front row will definitely feel different, though. But even left to right across the front of the stage you'll be hearing different amps at different times, will get monitor mix bleed differently, etc.
I think that approach could be handy if you're working the same band night after night, but not as practical if it's a one-off.
@@MichaelCurtisAudio i did not think about the left-to-right variation. Once again thanks for the insight.
Ung matrix system for FOH SUBS AND FRONFILL and send it to LR is my main standard in mixing since i used x32 mixer,.. I insert eq to all remain in flat and just invert sa polarity signal of the sub matrix mix.
Mr. Curtis, this is great info. would you consider doing a layout demonstration video using the M32 edit program?
Hey, Bobby. My latest video (which I'll link to below) documents this using M32 edit. Let me know if that answers your question:
ua-cam.com/video/zAUXlVCF1Zc/v-deo.html
@@MichaelCurtisAudio you are awesome! keep killing it man!
@@Bobby_Uterus You got it!
The problem I found using matrix is: even after I lowcut the vocal at 120hz, there is still some reproduced by the subwoofer which cause muddiness
Then move the low cut higher?
@@MichaelCurtisAudio ua-cam.com/video/hpFK1XOZuUg/v-deo.html
@@maizesoft Yes, I'm well aware of this video. Dave Rat has some good points, but I feel like it's a non-issue with most vocal mics. An SM58 already had a fairly steep LF dropoff below 160Hz and I'm usually high passing at least that high due to the proximity effect. I'm usually able to do a cardioid configuration on my subs which keeps more LF off the stage.
If I do need to get some specific sources out of the subs (lav mics, podium mic) I opt to matrix out my subgroups to the appropriate destinations vs using an aux for my subs.
I think its not wrong to use aux feed sub. its just another way of using that low end. its like you have your own opinion on how to use it. plus it depends on the system, events and the setup. just my 2 cents. but you had your point though.
If you get great results with aux fed subs, then go for it! Everyone is entitled to their own workflow.
Thanks for sharing. This was really helpful!
You got it!
Great points.
This video made me subscribe to your channel. Excellent and clear explanations.
Thank you so much, Clay!
What are your thoughts on aux fed subs for a DJ situation, where it’s mostly recorded music and a few speeches, would it be beneficial to be able to turn subs down for speeches and background music and then turn them up when it’s time for dancing? (Thinking weddings!)
Love your channel, I’m learning a ton about pro audio!
Great question. You still can still turn up and turn down your subs with a matrix. If you're just using a DJ mixer that doesn't have a matrix, then yes next thing would be an aux if you need that type of control.
I'd stick with a 160Hz High-Pass filter on the "speech" mic channel, and drastically cut anything below that on the channel's EQ as extra insurance. Speeches at weddings are usually not made by men (the crying in public thing), so unless there's a Betty Baritone giving a speech (or a belching contest), you shouldn't have to worry about anyone hitting 80Hz. I'd also make a steep sloping cut to the highs starting at about 8K to weed out the high screechies of excited women (it's a wedding) and sibilance when the party-goers start slurring their Ss. Put it at - infinity by the 12K band.
It'll sound a bit boxey, like a bad radio, but speeches aren't entertaining, so they don't require the same clarity. I'd also notch down the immediate center 900-1.3K on this channel, since this is where someone with a nasal speaking voice (Fran Drescher) will cook your tweeters. You want to keep speakers audible but tolerable.
If there is a belching contest, though, you want to kill the HPF so the full guttural richness comes shining through. And some Lysol or a replacement mic ball and windscreen.
Curious what slopes you run your high pass at on your vocal mics?
Usually second order butterworth. Sometimes third or fourth order.
Hello Michael. Could you please explain how to connect subs using matrix ? But I don’t understand what if I don’t need some instruments sounding in my subs? My mixer is Allen heath sq 5. Thanks for your answers! Happy New Year!!!
Hey, Victor. The whole point of running it on a matrix is for you stop thinking about, "What instruments do I want in my subs?" and trust the tonality of your system working as a whole from the get go. I'm sure you don't want a flute going to your subs, but there's not frequency content down there anyway. And you can use a high pass filter on an instrument that may have sub content, but you can then shape to fit into whatever tonal space you'd like.
On the SQ5 you have four stereo matrices. You'd route your LR bus to Matrix 1 to feed your mains, then route the LR again to Matrix 2 to feed your subs.
Thank you so much!!!
11:39 What I do is tune the room and then set the channel HPFs appropriately.
Changing the level of subs thru mix/matrix/whatever will change your crossover freqency, destroying all the phase allignement you did between your sub/tops.
I only think the level change has any real impact, albeit a small one, when the mains+subs are coupled together. And even in that circumstance the amount of phase offset incurred isn't all that much.
I used to do aux fed subs because that's what the people before me did. These days, I never do it. Especially on the more gentle crossover slopes you need up losing much more than just the low end. I remember working with an old Dynacord system that had its crossover at 125Hz. The subs were looking after much more than just sub. Also, given the crossover slope, by offsetting the sub level on a channel, it's harder to maintain main+sub alignment. By pushing up the sub level, I'm effectively moving the crossover point up and turning down sub level moves it down. So now, instead negotiating one main/sub crossover point, I'm negotiating a different crossover point for every channel that uses subs. That's a hard no from me, thanks.
Running things on a matrix fed by the LR, or simply feeding LR to the system processor and letting it handle everything simplifies a lot of things.
I'd love to watch a debate between you and Dave Rat regarding picking and choosing instruments that are sent to the subs on it's own feed opposed to sending the LR mix to the subs.. Seems you guys are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum :)
I would be honored to have a conversation with Dave Rat over a few beers. He's got SO much wisdom and experience.
He's obviously been able to get great results with his own approach, so I can totally respect that. It just doesn't make as much sense in my brain when I'm behind a desk/system.
Great Sub guidance for live mixing!
Glad this was helpful to you!
For subs i was told to use matrices instead of Auxs
How can one apply this an analogue mixer with two matrixes. I use the Yamaha MGP 24x
It depends how much you care about "stereo". You could send your main to Matrix 1, then another copy of it to Matrix 2. Then run Matrix 1 to your left and right mains, then matrix 2 to subs.
Can I use mix minus Theory with aux post fade into a channal and send that channal to aux pre to the sub with only lows to the sub instead of sending highs, mids and lows to the sub?
You can, but I think that's way overcomplicating things. The subs will take care of filtering out high frequency information.
How would you run the subs on a xair18? That’s the mixer I’m currently using. I usually put it in bus 6 and go from there. Is there a different way you would recommend to run the subs
I don't think Matrices are available on the xair18, unfortunately. So, I would just use an Aux with everything post-fader to it, then have all the sends to that Aux at unity.
I appreciate the reply. Thanks 💯