I also agree that Auxes shouldn't be considered channels, for another reason: a channel needs to refer to a SINGLE audio signal. Thus, stereo tracks have two channels. Most aux tracks are stereo, therefore they have two channels. I just spent a long time yesterday explaining to a novice employee how to operate the audio controls on a pro video camera. It had input adjustments (mic inputs) and channel adjustments (L/R channels in this case), I wanted to cement into her mind that a "channel" always referred, specifically, to one signal or waveform, and she could take that to her grave.
What really are channels are buses. Many times they are pairs of channels, but I think that's what is really more applicable to the term. I think of channels as stemming directly from physical or virtual patch cables, and buses really are patch cables... maybe they're actually closer to hardwired internal matrixes, but to me they're patch cables. If I go into the bundles window, I'm grabbing and organizing patch cables, labeling them so I know what they're used for.
Babz wrote:One way to think of Aux channels is to think of them as kind of junior master faders -- or sub master faders. All your channels end up going to the master fader, but you can take a subset of them and send them to a subordinate (or "Auxiliary" -- get it?) fader. And you can insert plugin effects on that fader.
I commonly hear this called a "submix" fader. I also hear the term "sub master" as well, but I don't particularly care for that term, since it seems like sort of an oxymoron. I guess if you have a 4-level hierarchy want to distinguish the lower levels from the higher ones, you could call, for instance, a collection of tom tracks a "submix", and your entire drum mix a "sub master".
Hell, most engineers just wind up calling them "subs" in the end anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.