Fixed 48k Sample Rate Impedes Recording Studio Integrations

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my extensive experience most pros record the unit from the analog outs direct into the console. Second most popular would be AES. Third would be analog into a preamp. I've never seen SPDIF or USB used in a pro studio... but then, I do know that a number of "guest solos" performed by Fractal artists I work with have been recorded via USB into a laptop on the bus or in the hotel.

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...-through-a-mic-pre.113781/page-5#post-1365950
 
I only record via USB. I live monitor the Axe processed output through an analog mixer and record the raw pickup into the DAW. Latency is not an issue for recording or reamping. If I need to play virtual instruments, I use a PCIe soundcard with a 32 sample buffer. I'll never record analog with the Axe again. USB is just too easy and quiet. The 8x8 interface is a huge improvement. It would be nice to see drivers that could squeeze out a 32 sample buffer, but I know that is exceedingly difficult, especially with USB.
 
Digital resampling is not recommended when not using multiples, for example: 44.1 <-> 48.
Recording DI for reamp is a game changer in Axe Fx when using digital connection because of levels match and SNR.

If you have a project in different ratio than 48khz, there will be a compromise somewhere for reamp if Axe Fx3 won't support multiple sample rate.

My opinion: I don't think "it's ok" this kind of compromise for what Axe III potencially represents in the professional audio industry.
Do you know how many thousands of professional projects were recorded on ADAT or DA-88 at 48KHz and downsampled to 44.1 KHz for CD mastering?

It's a crazy amount.

There was also a cult of recording engineers in the 1980's and 1990's, before there were higher sample rates to master to, that used to mix to 48 KHz and have the mastering engineer manage the downsampling to 44.1KHz. They were convinced that the next big consumer format was going to be 48 KHz, so they wanted to have all the resolution available at pre-mastered mix for the future format.

Not only that, there were people like Peter Gabriel that recorded using a Mitsubishi X-80 32 track recorder that had a sample rate of 50.4 KHz. I believe they used the analog outs on that machine during mixdown due to sample rate mismatch with anything else in the known universe, mastering-wise.

Compromise is not ideal, but once you get to a certain level of quality, whether the audience can hear the difference is debatable.
 
Last edited:
The problem isn't the Axe-Fx, the problem is studios stubbornly sticking to 44.1 when 48 is a much better rate.

I think that Christmas should be moved to February 25th. I honestly do. December stands on its own as a cool and gorgeous late-autumn month. February is dead, boring and absolutely miserable in every other way and could use the pepping up and excitement. Plus, Dec 25 is probably not Christ's actual birth date nor is it Kris Kringle's. But moving Christmas to Feb 25 would be far too disruptive to so many things and will never happen.

In the same light, moving the sound studio standard to 48k will never happen. Yes, fixed at 48k is certainly sonically superior. But it's also a nonstarter. That will never change and there's nothing anyone can do about it short of implementing 48k across-the-board as part af an official, industry-wide agreement. And this will never happened because the slight aural advantage of 48 over 44 would be far too costly for studios. If you want the Axe to digitally integrate with larger pro studios, FAS will have to budge. The industry will never, so you can't even allow statements like "the problem is studios stubbornly sticking to 44.1" to pop in your head. You might harm the Axe FX if that's even a .1% consideration in your design decision processes.
 
Last edited:
As long as the CD is pressed and sold, music studio gear needs to be compatible with 44.1 KHz or use the analog outputs to resample to it at some point.

DVD audio, much like DCC, or SACD, or Blu-Ray audio never became widely adopted as a music format for consumers.
 
I can't afford a mastering grade hardware SRC. For me, the best quality for non-48K sessions is analog out. I've never had any time where I considered the analog out of the XL+ an issue. Haven't had to give it a bit of thought really.

A really good quality SRC would work too. But I can't see the cost / benefit ratio if the device has pro quality analog outs already?
 
Do you know how many thousands of professional projects were recorded on ADAT or DA-88 at 48KHz and downsampled to 44.1 KHz for CD mastering?

It's a crazy amount.

There was also a cult of recording engineers in the 1980's and 1990's, before there were higher sample rates to master to, that used to mix to 48 KHz and have the mastering engineer manage the downsampling to 44.1KHz. They were convinced that the next big consumer format was going to be 48 KHz, so they wanted to have all the resolution available at pre-mastered mix for the future format.

Not only that, there were people like Peter Gabriel that recorded using a Mitsubishi X-80 32 track recorder that had a sample rate of 50.4 KHz. I believe they used the analog outs on that machine during mixdown due to sample rate mismatch with anything else in the known universe, mastering-wise.

Compromise is not ideal, but once you get to a certain level of quality, whether the audience can hear the difference is debatable.

Most top professional master engineers do their jobs in an entirely analog chain (specially in those days), so really doesn’t matter what was the original SR because they will need to: D/A -> mastering -> A/D. That’s why they don't (didn't) worry to record at 48khz and down to 44.1 after mastering.

But you will never convince a pro mixing engineer to convert the SR of all his project digitally just to match the Axe Fx SR.

He (or us at home) will work it out anyway, analog or externally converting, but we’ll lost the opportunity to get the digital DI from Axe directly in a simple and absolute great way soundwise.
 
Last edited:
Somewhere you have to resample. If the Axe-Fx were running at 44.1 all the cab IRs would need to be resampled, or there would need to be an SRC chip on the digital I/O. There is no free lunch.

The problem isn't the Axe-Fx, the problem is studios stubbornly sticking to 44.1 when 48 is a much better rate.

Wow... it's an honor to get a quote from "the man" himself. ;)
 
The problem is that 48 KHz limits the ability for the vast majority of customers to use the Axe FX as their go-to audio interface. This is a shame, since its a great, great potential product feature. The problem is that this feature is not usable or is too complicated to work around. And although technically 48 KHz is superior to 44 KHz, the vast majority of people will never be able to hear the difference, nor do they need the ultimate in specifications. I don't know that there is any viable solution if all of the IR cabs are at 48 KHz. It's disappointing, but there are so many other positives about the Axe-FX that this can be overlooked by most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cn7
There is little no no point in going above 48khz when recording, in my opinion.
If you want to integrate into other recording sessions, record and up sample - Literally no one will notice a difference. Or record in an analog way...

Even if we can't hear the difference, there is an argument to be made for future proofing your recordings for release in hi-res formats without the need for upsampling. Personally, I do hear a difference with higher sampling rates - but higher is not necessarily better all the time. For instance, my old Apogee Ensemble sounds "better" to me at 88.2kHz than it does at 96kHz.
 
Most top professional master engineers do their jobs in an entirely analog chain (specially in those days), so really doesn’t matter what was the original SR because they will need to: D/A -> mastering -> A/D. That’s why they don't (didn't) worry to record at 48khz and down to 44.1 after mastering.

Were you working as an engineer in the late 80's to mid 90's on projects that were getting mastered?

I was.

There used to be 3 letters on the back of CD cases that described the signal chain. All the audiophiles back then used to bust your horns about wanting to stay DDD.

Royal pain in the tuckus. Once the 3 letters disappeared from CDs, people let engineers and mastering engineers do what sounded best for the most part except for those clients who had a sliver enough of knowledge to be dangerous to work at cross purposes to a producer's vision.

So while your post may describe the state of affairs now, it does not describe the studio environment in which a lot of great albums were made, sometimes in spite of a lot of "golden ears" who really were not.
 
Last edited:
My DAW resamples on the fly and I really can't notice any degradation when set to highest quality. Software resampling is not a problem for me. But I use 48 kHz anyway. Modern processors can easily run algorithms with enough FIR filter taps to do the job at 48 kHz, IMHO that is. Golden ears may disagree. I'm absolutely sure I can't hear past 20 kHz, and I hear no aliasing or filter artifacts.

What DAW are you using?
 
I'd love to see the results of some controlled double blind listening tests between 44.1 kHz and higher sampling rates (at 24 bit) of the same analog sources. Once you remove any sources of bias with a double blind test, things can get very interesting.
 
Somewhere you have to resample. If the Axe-Fx were running at 44.1 all the cab IRs would need to be resampled, or there would need to be an SRC chip on the digital I/O. There is no free lunch.

The problem isn't the Axe-Fx, the problem is studios stubbornly sticking to 44.1 when 48 is a much better rate.
I don't understand. Why can't you use a polyphase filter?
 
2 thoughts...

1- I hate using the outputs of my Korg Triton Extreme- it's fixed at 48k- so I have no choice to use 48k on digital stuff even though for some arbitrary reason i prefer 96k... so- The axe fx being 48k is not unhelpful or an outlier

2- Those complaining about the lack of digital options are too busy thinking with their brains and not with their ears...
The analog outs sound better in every way than digital- I know logic may disagree- but that aside- your ears will agree with me.

Not to mention, all you can do with analog outs you can't do with digital stuff in a nice studio
 
Dear FAS,

Word is that the Axe-Fx III is fixed at 48k again. First, can you confirm this? Second, if true, do you have any plans or even the technical ability to go adjustable-sample-rate (44k, 48k, 88k, 96k) with future Axe III hardware or firmware updates?

When you combine digital outboard gear in the recording studio, every connected piece must be set at the same digital sampling rate. When wanting to digitally integrate the Axe II into the recording studio’s workflow, restrictive fixed sample rate is a showstopper. (unless you have the money to buy, and the faith in, expensive sample rate converters to convert your outlying off-sample-rate gear.) The stellar effects in the Axe Fx II alone warrant the integration into recording studios, not to mention the primary focus of the Axe II…stunning amp sims. But in the big picture it’s usually not worth converting the entire digital side of a studio to all gear running 48k which is usually undesirable for varying reasons. Additionally often needed is to convert all the audio in every Pro Tools session folder to 48k just to use the Axe II. What’s left time and time again is only one practical and realistic solution…use Axe II in analog, suck up any unwanted audio artifacts and deal with it.

To make the situation worse however, the Axe II is fixed at 48k (the standard in the video realm) and not 44k or 96k or 88k (1st & 2nd & 3rd) most common in the recording studio realm. In rock/pop/hop studios, 44k is by far the most common session format still used, even at the pro levels. I know this because I have managed a three-room Manhattan studio for 15+ years doing 2000+ session per year with 500+ clients. We get guest engineers and sessions coming in from studios literally all over the world.

I thought that designing the Axe II fixed at 48k was simply an innocent oversight due to lack of experience in digital recording studios, but now I am worried that it has happened again in the Axe III…or is it that anything but 48k-fixed is absolutely cost-prohibitive for the Axe-Fx 2 and 3?

Thank you.


(Related is the thread in "Axe-Fx III Discussion" called "What is the base sampling rate?" However, that one is focused on the sound quality of say 48k vs 96k, not integrations of digital gear.)

totally w/ you, Dude!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom