The Axe-Fx 3 works only at 48Khz

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kjetil A Nesheim said:
Again I never claimed to be a designer or an electrical engineer. I clame to be a studio engineer with experience with a lot of gear and what a unit needs to be able to do in a studio invirement to be considered a pro studio unit these days. Nothing more nothing less. A basic standard function for studio gear is missing, and it makes the unit harder to interface in the studio. That’s what the OP was frustrated about. It’s not a huge problem for most people but non the less frustrating for the ones impacted.
Click to expand...

In your professional studio I would assume you're using analog gear connected to your outboard mixer and/or audio interface(s). Those units entail ACDC conversion per se. In what way does Axe's analog connectivity compromise your recordings and mixes? I'm not a professional audio engineer. I'm just asking.

Ove
 
  • Like
Reactions: jon
oranheim said:
In your professional studio I would assume you're using analog gear connected to your outboard mixer and/or audio interface(s). Those units entail ACDC conversion per se. In what way does Axe's analog connectivity compromise your recordings and mixes? I'm not a professional audio engineer. I'm just asking.

Ove
Click to expand...
For me personally it’s not a problem. I’m running the analog out into my API console. But that still does not change my opinion that if a modern unit has digital I/o it needs no be able to switch sample rate. Coz some guys do use it that way. But hey I’m done.. no need do discuss this further. I’ve heard all the excuses and I’ve pointed out that the competition are able to do it. That kind of kills all the arguments..
 
Competition? FAS has competition?!?:eek:

Who? The bland toaster and the sucky black and silver floor unit that sounds like caca?:p ha!! More like your first guitar....good for starting off and not much else......

The unit has limitations, not likely to change because of all the reasons listed, and CERTAINLY not to lesser quality....more likely 64k or greater

It's not 'excuses', it's facts based on how the unit is designed. I'd suggest you actually read the wiki and you will understand:)

The OP has several great suggestions which are all workable, and nowhere near 'frustrating'. Slightly annoying yes, but all VERY workable. Bob Rock can use it, so why can't he?

If you kids were back here in the ultra days you would go crazy then!! Those units had no USB...you plugged in via midi and good ol' XLR or 1/4" cables and used your metric halo or apogee or whatever, just like studios typically do...lots of great records made with the standard/ultra and none of them had all these 'frustrations':rolleyes:

All the suggestions listed involve a mouse click or two, much cheaper than the Fireface or whatever most had to buy in the day just to record :)

Besides, with any decent studio I'm pretty sure there is some sort of Audio interface to be used
..unless you plan on sticking the USB cable up the singer's butt :p

Actually, I think I wanna do that to a couple singers now that I think about it :mad: claim it in the name of convenience and less latency :p
 
lqdsnddist said:
Big different between saying “I wish the III could have a selectable rate” and “the design is stupid, the designer has no clue about modern studio work etc” though isn’t there ?

Come in with hostility and aggression and you generally will get it in return, true in life, true on forums. Only difference is people are emboldened on forums to say things they wouldn’t otherwise say in person.

If Cliff was sitting around with a few fellow FAS employees having a drink would someone walk up and say his design is stupid, he doesn’t understand studio production etc ? Probably not; my guess is they’d preset their arguments in a far more civil manner.

Stomp into the establishment ranting “hey Cliff F’ing Chase... I’ve got a F’ing bone to pick with you....” and people would respond differently.

Simple as that, get back what you put out. Little civility, little respect, present your thoughts and ideas in a calm and rational manner, maybe type up a response and wait 5 minutes before hitting send.... it all goes a long ways.
Click to expand...

There are many other thread with people saying "i wish the III could have a selectable rate" and nobody at fractal seems to care about it.
It's frustrating seeing that a useful feature is still not implemented while you expect this feature since fractal is marketing AXE FX3 as "the center of your audio workstation". The center of any audio workstation has got selectable sample rate, if not so don't market it as it is or people would expect those feature and then get frustrated since AXE FX 3 simply can't be the center of any audio workstation. Why they dosen't market it as "all the amp needed for the live guitarist"?
 
All I know is the Axe has been used in a ton of great sounding productions, so the proof is in the results, which speak for themselves.

Does it mean it’s perfect ? No, but it’s still inherently useable. If only a handful of productions could make use of it, then sure, there is an argument for a serious limitation, but if tons of people can make it work, then how bad is it really?

It’s like saying a Floyd is a bad design, there are some drawbacks and limitations to them, but there are hundreds of thousands of them licensed out there and amazing players are doing great stuff with them, so yes they do work.

I don’t understand people who can only do soemthing one way. If soemthing doesn’t allow that, then you adapt, or you use something else. Lots of people can adapt though, so I don’t think it makes much sense why anyone can’t ? I’m seeing the III in the racks of some great producers and studios, more by the week, and somehow all these people are making it work.

If you can’t work around a limitation, and seemingly most other users can, then the limitation may be more on the part of the user than the hardware.

Either they have some very specific need, or they simply are unwilling to change. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it’s more of their issue than the products.
 
Kjetil A Nesheim said:
Again I never claimed to be a designer or an electrical engineer. I clame to be a studio engineer with experience with a lot of gear and what a unit needs to be able to do in a studio invirement to be considered a pro studio unit these days. Nothing more nothing less. A basic standard function for studio gear is missing, and it makes the unit harder to interface in the studio. That’s what the OP was frustrated about. It’s not a huge problem for most people but non the less frustrating for the ones impacted.
Click to expand...
This is a guitar FX processor. It is meant to be the centerpiece of a guitar rig.

The manual, marketing literature, the Wiki, and this forum all position the Axe FX as a guitar FX processor.

The Axe FX is not currently positioned as a studio appliance. It has the ability to integrate with computers and audio interfaces, but it is not a piece of studio gear.

I see integrating a guitar rig with the axe for the purpose of recording as no different than mic’ing a rig for recording. A mic is far from an optimal way to capture a guitar.

Besides, as a studio professional there are solutions available to you for digital sample rate up/down conversion. As a studio professional, you should have the capability and tools to deal with whatever an artist may bring into your studio. After all they are your customer. As an artist, if I walked into a studio that was unable handle converting my signal into what the studio needed, I would probably find another studio. You wouldn’t demand that an artist use a specific cab just beacause it is easier for you to mic up would you?
 
Threads like this are useful when providing solutions and new workarounds. Threads like this are also useful (in another way) when they illustrate a real idea of how many people think a feature ought to be added or not. For that, maybe a poll would be useful. But I am surprised at some of the reactions I see here. I personally don’t understand the desire for people to chime in and state that someone should stop requesting a feature. People questioning whether someone is important enough to have an opinion, or suggesting that they are a troll, or that they should sell their FAS device if they aren’t happy with “X” feature.
So it devolves into one or two frustrated people defending their opinion (ie: beating a dead horse) while a bunch of people pile on and tell them to shut up because they themselves love FAS and don’t care about said feature. It’s feasible that people reading this who might casually say “+1 I would love this” aren’t going to speak up, since they have to risk a negative reprisal from the community.
I know that others here don’t see it the way I’m describing, but yeah, sometimes it does seem a bit daunting around here for people on the “wrong” side of the discussion. IMO.
 
Capt Nasty said:
This is a guitar FX processor. It is meant to be the centerpiece of a guitar rig.

The manual, marketing literature, the Wiki, and this forum all position the Axe FX as a guitar FX processor.

The Axe FX is not currently positioned as a studio appliance. It has the ability to integrate with computers and audio interfaces, but it is not a piece of studio gear.

I see integrating a guitar rig with the axe for the purpose of recording as no different than mic’ing a rig for recording. A mic is far from an optimal way to capture a guitar.

Besides, as a studio professional there are solutions available to you for digital sample rate up/down conversion. As a studio professional, you should have the capability and tools to deal with whatever an artist may bring into your studio. After all they are your customer. As an artist, if I walked into a studio that was unable handle converting my signal into what the studio needed, I would probably find another studio. You wouldn’t demand that an artist use a specific cab just beacause it is easier for you to mic up would you?
Click to expand...
Again..for me personally in my studio? No problem..I use it purely as an stereo fx unit. But still the argument that it should have switchable sample rate is valid cause it has digital I/O. I don’t force anyone to use anything. My clients can use whatever they like. Most of the time they end up using my gear coz it’s better...trying to discredit me does not work. It does not change anything. If a unit has digital I/O it’s meant to be used in a studio digitally. For that to work it needs to be able to switch sample rate to work. If you use an Axe FX as your main guitar system in a studio and you do sessions for other people. You will get sessions in all different formats, bit depth and sample rate. The unit should without any workaround sync to whatever the sample rate of a session is. Plain and simple. I hope that when the MK 2 of the Axe FX III is out it’s fixed. Yes I know that there are ways to deal with it but you shouldn’t have too.
 
@Hooligan Any conversation in life gets daunting when it begins with “this is f’n stupid”.

So if you don’t like what is happening here take it up with OP. He set the trajectory for this shit show.

And no people are not just politely and kindly requesting a feature they are flaying the bloated carcass of this horse in some unproductive ways. But again, the conversation was started in an unproductive way.

As I said earlier this is a circular conversation. Both sides are repeating the same talking points over and over and over... and the one person who could break this circle is not participating. I don’t blame him for staying away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom