Clock Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I guess I don't know what I'm doing. Record Marshall cab. AD to DAW. Back out my converters to analog 1176, back in through converters, back out to the SSL console to hit the 2 bus, print back into the DAW. Out again to the ATR-102 to master, back in to the DAW to go to distribution.

Replace Marshall with analog out of the AxeFx and there's no way I'd hear the difference. Try to eliminate all those conversions and I lose the convenience of my workflow so some teenager can listen to it on their earbuds on the bus? No thanks.

Ok, that’s your choice to make. Another choice is to use a plugin. Listen, you decide. I have no problem with your choice. Do you have a problem with mine?

The kid, BTW, is not offended by good sound (since he won’t hear it, at least in theory, though a case can be made otherwise) but critical listeners will certainly welcome it, and I can sleep better.

My standard is “can I live without this?” And I like some of the sounds I’m coming up with. I’m hoping the setup I’m trying this afternoon works. If it does I’ll keep it.

Thanks,
Don
 
Hey Don - I think part of the reason you're getting some of the responses you are is that the was just recently a very heated thread about "how dumb" the Axe Fx is because it doesn't support other sample rates.

So... It's a touchy subject right now.

Here's the thing: while the Axe IS a digital audio signal processor, and it's also a USB audio interface, it is first and foremost a guitar amp modeler and effects unit. And it is (IMO) in a class by itself for these features.

Does it have limitations? Of course. Is the 48khz sample rate one of them? Yes, for some.

If that was a requirement for you, it probably would have been advisable for you to check the specs in the manual before purchase:

CB25670E-A349-4863-ADB8-AB7C5A94F6E9.jpeg


Anyway, I don't want to tell you how to do your thing... But out of curiosity, what is your concern about using the analog outputs? If you were micing up a real amp, it would be no different, right?
 
Thanks. Analog is not going to happen. I’m going to try running everything @ 48 and clocking from the RME with both in and out AES cables and the RME as clock source later today.

If that works than that will be my standard setup. If not, then I’ll try the aggregate source setup with everything at 48 and no conversion.

You know, as good as the Axe III is for guitar sounds, it’s not even in the league with the UFX as a studio interface. The Axe needs to be something I can easily integrate into a pro level studio without using the analog outs and reconverting. Again basic stuff. If I can’t find a good way to do this, the Axe goes back.

Appreciate the good advice here.

Don
No one has ever claimed the Axe FX was a studio interface. Every piece of literature and documentation refers to the Axe FX as a “Guitar FX Processor”. It is more analogous to a guitar pre amp, which artists cart into your studio for you to record.

Yes, it is in rack format. Yes it has connections that may lead one to incorrectly infer that it is a studio appliance. But it is not. It is meant to serve as the centerpiece of a guitar rig, not a studio.

It is cool that the Axe FX inspires people to want to use it in their studios. But at this time that is not what it is.
 
Last edited:
Guitars have been recorded for decades using mic’d cabs, and now we’re not able to deal with Axe-Fx III analog outputs?
 
It is meant to serve as the centerpiece of a guitar rig, not a studio.
To be fair, I don't think that's a fair statement based on the product page, which says:

The Center of your Music Workstation
A 16-core, 500 MHz microcontroller provides 16 channels of flawless USB audio (8 in, 8 out) allowing the Axe-Fx III to be the center of your music workstation. The audiophile-grade signal path components and converters provide better audio performance than most dedicated USB audio interfaces. With 8×8 channels you can record multiple tracks of processed audio, DI signals, etc., while monitoring backing tracks, auditioning stereo reamps in real-time, and more. A USB audio sound source can even be placed on the grid with its own dedicated block. Windows 7/8/10 drivers are included, and the Axe-Fx III requires no driver on a Mac running 10.7.4 or newer.
 
To be fair, I don't think that's a fair statement based on the product page, which says:
I think it is a very fair statement.

In the “setting up” section of the manual, every single integration scenario has a guitar as the input. The manual is all about how to build different guitar oriented rigs. It does not go into any studio centric integration scenarios.

I think the use of the term “musical workstation” is unfortunate in this case as it is ambiguous and lacks context. But that term when viewed within the context that the manual provides clearly places the Axe FX at the center of guitar rigs.
 
Last edited:
It's a dead horse topic. I first raised this issue back in 2009 when I got an Ultra. It didn't change with the AxeII and 10 years later it hasn't changed with the AxeIII. Not enough people care about it for it to be a commercial concern. As Cliff said recently, if you really need that capability, buy something else.

I learned to work around it long ago. I don't like having to tie up valuable inputs on my Apollos with a device that also has USB Audio, but it is what it is. I've tried all the other modelers but none in my opinion are as good as the AxeIII. I don't have any particular brand loyalty, I just like using the best tool for the job. If a better modeler comes out, I will switch.

Dead horse topic summary...

I wish the digital output worked at 44.1kHz for music sessions.
"Duh! Just use the analog outputs!"

The fan seems loud.
"Duh! Just turn up the AxeFX!!"

I wish I didn't have to re-do my patches when the firmware gets updated.
"Duh! Don't update the firmware then!"

Why are there fewer user slots in the AxeIII than the AxeII XL?
"Duh! Who needs more than 512 slots anyway?!"
 
Hey Don - I think part of the reason you're getting some of the responses you are is that the was just recently a very heated thread about "how dumb" the Axe Fx is because it doesn't support other sample rates.

So... It's a touchy subject right now.

Here's the thing: while the Axe IS a digital audio signal processor, and it's also a USB audio interface, it is first and foremost a guitar amp modeler and effects unit. And it is (IMO) in a class by itself for these features.

Does it have limitations? Of course. Is the 48khz sample rate one of them? Yes, for some.

If that was a requirement for you, it probably would have been advisable for you to check the specs in the manual before purchase:

View attachment 54063


Anyway, I don't want to tell you how to do your thing... But out of curiosity, what is your concern about using the analog outputs? If you were micing up a real amp, it would be no different, right?
Two big issues:

1. Never said it was “dumb”. In fact I have said several times that it is quite good. Don’t confuse me with those forum trolls. And really, the level of hostility here is pretty unacceptable and augers towards sending it back, frankly.

2. I am willing to use a workaround such as doing all projects at 48 and clocking the Axe from the UFX via AES in while using AES out as a source to the UFX. If this works, I’ll probably keep it.

Yes a real amp is analog, but it is specious to claim that therefore it is the same as a digital emulation sent to an A-D converter. (The Axe) It’s not. It never will be since it must then be re-sampled. I need to stay digital and since I got the Axe for self-created very clean sounds mostly, the clarity of those sounds is enhanced by lowering the number of conversions.

I’ll know real soon if this is for me.

Don
 
I think it is a very fair statement.

In the “setting up” section of the manual, every single integration scenario has a guitar as the input. The manual is all about how to build different guitar oriented rigs. It does not go into any studio centric integration scenarios.

I think the use of the term “musical workstation” is unfortunate in this case as it is ambiguous and lacks context. But that term when viewed within the context that the manual provides clearly places the Axe FX at the center of guitar rigs.
In context of the manual, I agree.

In fact if you read my earlier post to the OP I also referred to the manual.

BUT in the context of the product page alone, that quote is worded in such a way that it can be construed differently because (as you say) it's a bit ambiguous.
 
1. Never said it was “dumb”. In fact I have said several times that it is quite good. Don’t confuse me with those forum trolls. And really, the level of hostility here is pretty unacceptable and augers towards sending it back, frankly.
I never said you did. The poster of the thread I refer to said that.

Quite frankly, your tone in this thread has been dismissive of pretty much every person that has tried to offer helpful input.

I personally could care less whether you keep your Axe Fx or not, that's totally your call.

Good luck to you.
 
I never said you did. The poster of the thread I refer to said that.

Quite frankly, your tone in this thread has been dismissive of pretty much every person that has tried to offer helpful input.

I personally could care less whether you keep your Axe Fx or not, that's totally your call.

Good luck to you.

The input you mention has not been helpful. “Tough crap, use the analog out” is not helpful in the least. It just isn’t.

Don
 
The input you mention has not been helpful. “Tough crap, use the analog out” is not helpful in the least. It just isn’t.

Don
The input provided are the choices at hand. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it not helpful.

The answers provided are not incorrect and they were provided in an attempt to help you with an alternate option.

Anyway, I'm out...
 
The input you mention has not been helpful. “Tough crap, use the analog out” is not helpful in the least. It just isn’t.

Don
It is not “helpful” when the OP of a thread comes in with unrealistic expectations and is unwilling to hear that those expectations are not reasonable.

This is a Guitar FX processor. That is what it was designed to do. Thus the name: Axe Fx. As in Axe == guitar. It was not named “Rack FX” or “Studio FX”. It was not designed to be a general purpose studio appliance. It has some features that someone who has not delved into the product documentation or vetted device capabilities and use cases could misconstrue, and thus view the Axe FX as a studio appliance.

Maybe in the future the product may go in that direction. That is not what it is today. No amount of wanting, wishing, mansplaining, debating, justifying or rationalizing is going to change what it is now; at this moment in time.

So while you may not see it as helpful, the fact of the matter is that you have a few options to get to 44.1:
  • Get a digital interface that does up/down conversion
  • Use a plug-in for up/down conversion
  • Use a software interface for up/down conversion
  • Record an analog source
Now, I already suspect that none of these options will meet your requirements because you insist that this Guitar FX Processor should be a studio appliance. Which it is not because it is a Guitar FX Processor.

Get my point? We have a nice tight endless loop. We can have this circular conversation for some time and all that will happen is that it will become a shit show. Now the design of the Axe FX is not changing, at least not any time too soon, so the one way out of this endless loop is for you to accept that the answer you are getting is the answer... at least for now.
 
Last edited:
The input you mention has not been helpful. “Tough crap, use the analog out” is not helpful in the least. It just isn’t.

Don

Well, that is one of the viable options. Going analog is not a bad option as the Axe has audiophile-grade signal path components and converters. I've done it, recording at 96k & it sounded great. No one would ever be able to tell it was not recorded digitally. In fact, you may very well be loosing more by recording at 44.1 than going to analog. Anyway, you may have actually answered your own question a while back. If I understand what is on the RME site, it doesn't matter that the Axe is 48 & your project is 44.1:

SteadyClock . RME's unique jitter suppression technology guarantees perfect sound quality throughout, making the device completely independent from the quality of external clock signals. Due to the highly efficient jitter reduction, the UFX converters operate independently from the quality of the external clock signal, as if they are working with internal clock all the time - guaranteeing a pristine sound quality!

SteadyClock allows the Fireface UFX to control the sample rate freely on its own. The settings dialog includes a direct choice of the video and audio world's most often used sample rates.

The bottom line is the Axe always has been & always will be at 48k, at least as far as the III goes: https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...ple-rate-feature-with-firmware-update.149605/
How you deal with it is up to you including buying something else.
 
Ok, that’s your choice to make. Another choice is to use a plugin. Listen, you decide. I have no problem with your choice. Do you have a problem with mine?

The kid, BTW, is not offended by good sound (since he won’t hear it, at least in theory, though a case can be made otherwise) but critical listeners will certainly welcome it, and I can sleep better.

My standard is “can I live without this?” And I like some of the sounds I’m coming up with. I’m hoping the setup I’m trying this afternoon works. If it does I’ll keep it.

Thanks,
Don

Hope your tests work out. The Axe is unbeatable for what it says on the tin.

My long-winded point, and MHO, is to just use what works and focus on what matters - playing guitar and capturing great performances. Once mixed in the extra conversion from the Axe shouldn't matter, unless you are producing a Sinewave Symphony.

And think, if it was fixed at 44.1k and you ended up landing a gig for film, we'd be back here again ;)


EDIT: this raises an interesting question. If JJ Abrams called and wanted your song for StarWars, would you say "sorry, no, it was recorded at 44.1k and I refuse to convert to 48k?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom