Should direct outs on a mixer be pre- or post eq and pre- or post fader?

I'm confused: looking at different small (16 channel) mixers I find that many have there direct outs before the EQ. But some like the Soundcraft 16FX have the Direct outs post EQ and even switchable pre/post fader.

Would I be correct in stating that in a live situation it would be preferable to have the direct outs pre-eq and the in the studio you'd rather have the post-eq or even post fader?

Anyone using a mixer with post EQ direct outs for recording synth jams?

Any tips what to look out for?

There's no rule on direct outs or insert points. You used to encounter a lot of direct outs post fader in the days of tape the idea being that you could get the perfect signal to noise that way with your preamp exactly where you want it and the fader availableas trim... and on budget conscious desks based on the trident 80 topology (all the rage in the 80s and 90s, soundcraft being the most notable 80b tipoff company) the inserts would be post EQ. The reason for the insert positioning is also the secondary reason for post fader direct outs: reduced parts count for cost. The last tl072 of the eq section can easily drive the insert output as well as do its job in the eq and the fader buffer can do double duty in the same way, the pan buffer will receive the insert return and the fader amp drives the direct out as well as presenting a low impedance to the summing resistors. Another benefit of this simple a approach is the ability to create a post fader mult during mix down without travelling through the extra aux bus circuitry. But there are downsides too.

But there are other approaches and something like an SSL G let's you tap signal at a lot of points for many purposes. There's trade ups in every topology. Depending on your preamp design it may or may not be able to drive the EQ for cue mixes as well as the direct out without additional op amps... that's without talking about balancing. I could get more techy and historical if you want. I would say its personal preference in any situation and I kinda consider the circuit topology as well as use case when shopping mixers. I'm not sure how much sense I'm making but if you look at some schematics rather than block diagrams I'll make more sense.

EDIT: For instance my desk is an inline desk and I use it almost exclusively to mix. I have post fader direct outs but they're all looped into the tape returns of my monitor section via my patchbay which is then merged to my 2 bus which is the source for my 2 track outs and monitors. This allows me to control the level of 1 signal post eq and insert processing to a subgroup and the master with 1 fader but with a second level control and pan into the 2bus for parallel group processing and other tricks. That's a very specific use case but post fader outs was one of my imperatives along with an inline/split format with 8 groups when i was shopping for a new desk. But my desk is also very trident inspired in component selection and implementation so it lends itself to post eq inserts and post fader outs for the shortest signal path to the groups and master despite having a longer path to the direct outs than an A&H live desk like a GLseries. So YMMV.

YOU ASKED AN EXCELLENT QUESTION... now let me ask YOU; how do you plan to use your mixer? Synth jams is pretty broad ;)

Wow, thanks jimmarchi1 for your input.
To answer your question:

I've been making synthesizer music ( Global Communication, FSOL, The Bionaut, not half as good, but you get the point...) ) as a hobby since the nineties. I sold all hardware at some point because in the box (logic, ableton) seemed a very sensible and cheap solution, giving me maximum options.

But somehow I just did not have any fun making music this way, so I bought a elektron digitakt last year, just to see what 'dawless' was all about and I must say I'm having a lot of fun with it. But: I also want to use the digitakt to control some other stuff, like a bass station, 01w, nordlead, JV1080... and now suddenly I need a mixer...because I could just plug everything into a multi channel audio interface, but I hate having to turn on the PC just for playing my hardware. Also, I enjoy the control a desk gives me. ( I used to do sound for a small venue. )

But just recording the main mix is a bit too limiting; I would like to be able to record the synthesizers to different tracks simultaneously, so I can fix some mistakes, like balancing, eq, may be add some effects. That's why I was thinking I need direct outs. I want them to be post fader, so I can get balance and eq (almost?) right while recording in the daw.

Hope this all makes sense?

Are you then tracking to a DAW despite your aversion to turning your computer on? Or did you obtain a tape machine or something? I'll answer anyway.

If you want dawless digital multitrack recording, stereo monitor mixing for the performance but you're not tied to a fully analog desk, zoom makes a product with like 20 inputs, more or less knob per function for basic analog mixer tasks, internal flash memory recording and it can also work as an interface. I've heard positive things although I wouldn't expect tip top pro results. I believe it's called a livetrack20?

There's also the new tascam mixers which are all analog. They seem to use a modern search mode power supply though, although the zoom livetrack does too and any small format mixer withour an e CD tonal wall wart or full external supply these days provably does too. I'm not sure how many internal track the tascams record... I think presonus makes a similar product in their studiolive range too. Not sure how much they offer on terms if recording functionality. I know they exist.

If you're resigned to going to a daw and you don't have a lot of outboard I would go pre-eq direct outputs. Your interface us probably equipped with sufficient gain control and maybe pads. Then you can excitement with your monitor mix and record a dry signal. If you have a lot of outboard processors and find a desk with eq you love then post fader might be desirable for what you're doing. But I think pre-eq sounds like your kinda all analog desk.

I know what mixers you mean. A mixer that is also a multichannel audio interface and a multitrackrecorder would keep all options open and is less messy ( less cables I mean ) than a separate interface.

But you also rightly pointed out I am contradicting myself with the dawless recording into a daw thing…

I’ll play around with that a bit more to see if it is really what I want.

If I go on the hunt for a mixer I’ll keep your comments in mind. They’re much appreciated!