Wish Axe FX at 96k

antoan.arnaudov said:
It is clear that 96 kHz is needed. Instead of trying to convince us otherwise, please add this feature in a software update to AxeFx3. If you can not do this, at least make sure to add it in AxeFx4.
Click to expand...

It is unlikely that this would happen at the Axe-FX III, since it would require a hardware change.

If that has a considerable impact on the cost of future developments, I vote no to this sybaritisme that is only demanded by few.

Fractal Audio hardware components are selected amongst the best quality. There are cheap chips that can handle 96k (maybe the ones used at cheaper modelers that can handle these rates), but the top quality ones are not cheap at all, and I do not think that Fractal Audio would compromise the quality of their product like these cheaper modelers do. I would not want to stretch my pocket for that non-essential feature
 
Last edited:
antoan.arnaudov said:
It is clear that 96 kHz is needed.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? It might be interesting to see the numbers on how many people are both using a DAW that lacks on the fly SRC and are forced to use 96 KHz projects. I’d be surprised if there are many people in that predicament, but I don’t know for certain.
 
GlennO said:
Are you sure? It might be interesting to see the numbers on how many people are both using a DAW that lacks on the fly SRC and are forced to use 96 KHz projects. I’d be surprised if there are many people in that predicament, but I don’t know for certain.
Click to expand...
And if they were forced to do so, the clever ones would use the Axe-FX analog outputs. End of the problem
Back to square one :D
 
Piing said:
And if they were forced to do so, the clever ones would use the Axe-FX analog outputs. End of the problem
Back to square one :D
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go that far :). That workaround can be a real pain, for example if you’re using your AxeFX as your audio interface or if you want to re-amp.
 
GlennO said:
I wouldn’t go that far :). That workaround can be a real pain, for example if you’re using your AxeFX as your audio interface or if you want to re-amp.
Click to expand...

A professional who is working for customers that demand 96kHz will surely have good quality A/D converters that can handle a wide range of sample rates at his studio.

And if he is really willing to wait and to pay the extra cost for a future Axe-FX IV development containing that feature (that may or may not be there), why doesn't he buy these A/D converters now? Why is he relying exclusively on a guitar modeler for his work? That doesn't sound too professional. It rather sounds like trolling the Axe-FX Vs cheaper modelers that have multiple sample rates with lower quality converters.
 
Last edited:
I suspect some of the people (trying to be polite) calling for 96kHz are also the same people who will complain if the available processing power drops because of it (remember the processors will have to be processing twice as many samples).

I for one have no need for it, and agree that there can't be many people using the Axe who are using it in a digital only context and working at 96k

And those that are, as discussed - there are excellent (read couldn't get better if they null) software convertors, or if you want to spend a bit (which will be a lot less than the extra disc costs, since remember 96k audio files are twice as big) - get a hardware convertor.

96kHz also uses twice as much power on plugins etc. I'm quite happy where we are
 
peteri said:
I suspect some of the people (trying to be polite) calling for 96kHz are also the same people who will complain if the available processing power drops because of it (remember the processors will have to be processing twice as many samples).

...

96kHz also uses twice as much power on plugins etc. I'm quite happy where we are
Click to expand...
It shouldn't necessarily work that way, all it needs to be implemented is SRC on the digital I/O (usb, spdif, aes). That's how other hardware modelers work (eg. Helix and kemper), the processing is fixed at a certain sample rate (with oversampling where needed) and then it gets converted before the digital outputs. You don't see the CPU jumping around when you set a different SR.

Probably this approach wouldn't even need different converters since the AD/DA can still work at the original fixed sample rate.
 
Piing said:
And if they were forced to do so, the clever ones would use the Axe-FX analog outputs. End of the problem
Back to square one :D
Click to expand...

Reminds me of certain infamous TGP thread where OP's whole musical career was in danger because he couldn't record his FM3 (via USB I think?) despite being told numerous workarounds to get the job done (as you should, like any other pro in the biz).
 
Piing said:
If that has a considerable impact on the cost of future developments, I vote no to this sybaritisme that is only demanded by few.

Fractal Audio hardware components are selected amongst the best quality. There are cheap chips that can handle 96k (maybe the ones used at cheaper modelers that can handle these rates), but the top quality ones are not cheap at all, and I do not think that Fractal Audio would compromise the quality of their product like these cheaper modelers do. I would not want to stretch my pocket for that non-essential feature
Click to expand...

Fallacious statements at best. Its been requested tons of times. Search all the history of the forum and you will find endless postings.

And helix has it by the way up to 96k. The modeling in that is also top caliber it's only some of the reverse and pitch shifting that is not as good as fractal. But the amps themselves are stellar. There s just a lot less options in amp models.

And where are you getting this nonsense that you compromise quality at higher sample rates that other modelers can do? The only thing you compromise is processing power for the number of blocks that you will be able to implement.

An axe FX 4 would need this feature but right now I guess there's no point.

By that time, the whole dynamic cab modeling thing will likely be implemented and hopefully the sample rate options as well will be a feature. Right now I've just learned to live with this as the analog I/O is fine. Tested on my Avid Omni and HD w/o setup.

Now I just at least hope that midi beat clock will work from pro tools to a motu midi interface to the fractal.
 
RackAddict said:
Fallacious statements at best. Its been requested tons of times. Search all the history of the forum and you will find endless postings.

And helix has it by the way up to 96k. The modeling in that is also top caliber it's only some of the reverse and pitch shifting that is not as good as fractal. But the amps themselves are stellar. There s just a lot less options in amp models.

And where are you getting this nonsense that you compromise quality at higher sample rates that other modelers can do? The only thing you compromise is processing power for the number of blocks that you will be able to implement.

An axe FX 4 would need this feature but right now I guess there's no point.

By that time, the whole dynamic cab modeling thing will likely be implemented and hopefully the sample rate options as well will be a feature. Right now I've just learned to live with this as the analog I/O is fine. Tested on my Avid Omni and HD w/o setup.

Now I just at least hope that midi beat clock will work from pro tools to a motu midi interface to the fractal.
Click to expand...
Are you the artist formerly known as Thumperjack?
 
RackAddict said:
Fallacious statements at best. Its been requested tons of times. Search all the history of the forum and you will find endless postings.

And helix has it by the way up to 96k. The modeling in that is also top caliber it's only some of the reverse and pitch shifting that is not as good as fractal. But the amps themselves are stellar. There s just a lot less options in amp models.

And where are you getting this nonsense that you compromise quality at higher sample rates that other modelers can do? The only thing you compromise is processing power for the number of blocks that you will be able to implement.

An axe FX 4 would need this feature but right now I guess there's no point.

By that time, the whole dynamic cab modeling thing will likely be implemented and hopefully the sample rate options as well will be a feature. Right now I've just learned to live with this as the analog I/O is fine. Tested on my Avid Omni and HD w/o setup.

Now I just at least hope that midi beat clock will work from pro tools to a motu midi interface to the fractal.
Click to expand...
All modern modelers use fixed sample rates for the processing. If they offer adjustable sample rates on digital outputs, i.e. SPDIF or USB then that is accomplished using sample rate conversion.

The Axe-Fx III does not have a sample rate converter. Never has, never will so we cannot offer adjustable sample rates on the digital outputs. No amount of wishing can add the feature.

SRC is not perfect. It adds noise and distortion although most modern hardware SRCs are pretty good. Software SRC tends to be better so if you really need a different sample rate then it is preferable to do it in your DAW. The other option is to simply use the analog I/O.
 
FractalAudio said:
All modern modelers use fixed sample rates for the processing. If they offer adjustable sample rates on digital outputs, i.e. SPDIF or USB then that is accomplished using sample rate conversion.

The Axe-Fx III does not have a sample rate converter. Never has, never will so we cannot offer adjustable sample rates on the digital outputs. No amount of wishing can add the feature.

SRC is not perfect. It adds noise and distortion although most modern hardware SRCs are pretty good. Software SRC tends to be better so if you really need a different sample rate then it is preferable to do it in your DAW. The other option is to simply use the analog I/O.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Thanks. I would rather just use the analog outs to the Avid HD I/O analog ins to capture at 88.2 rather than any real time sample rate conversions. The sound seems good enough.

I find even the pro tools sample rate conversion is sub-par surprisingly. The best one I've experienced is from Izotope RX. But I still would not choose to do that real-time over the analog converter layering even if it was offered.
 
GlennO said:
Doing that is effectively perfoming a real time sample rate conversion, plus the additional loss of quality due to the D/A/D :).
Click to expand...
Umm don't you mean a digital to analog conversion coming out of the axe fx and then another analog to digital conversion going into the interface? at that point the sample rate wouldn't matter, at least to be able to get audio in. But I like to use higher sample rates in general for sessions up to 88.2k for music not just for the format ease thing but also because by doubling the standard 44.1 especially for saturated flavors you get an extra octave of headroom for 3rd harmonics before reaching the nyquist limit, with another octave above that that results in aliasing above 20kHz but which is still inaudible, hence the advantage of being in 88.2 or 96 at least for you DAW session. In other words doubling the Sample rate gives you two extra octaves of headroom for saturation to add harmonics without audible aliasing. And even heavier saturation that aliases across the spectrum is notably quieter.

With that being said, it would be nice to know if any of the saturation processing in the axe fx 3 has built-in oversampling.
 
Last edited:
VidarAus said:
Why? Genuine question.
Click to expand...

Read this...

FractalAudio said:
48 kHz is considered "pro" sampling rate. The reason for 44.1 kHz on CD's is subject to debate. Some maintain that the sample rate was lowered so that Beethoven's 9th would fit on a single CD. Others claim that it was because that rate was compatible with video equipment.

IMO 44.1 kHz is insufficient for professional audio. Personally I would prefer 64 kHz. Whilst Nyquist theorem is all well and good most people don't understand the details and simply state "the sample rate must be twice the highest desired frequency". The problem with this is as you approach Nyquist the filter demands become extreme. The more extreme the filter demands the more taps are needed, the more precision is needed, the more latency is incurred, etc. A 64 kHz sample rate would give you a nice, smooth roll-off from 20 kHz to 32 kHz rather than the brick wall you get with 44.1 kHz.

There is no hardware advantage to using 48 vs. 44.1. The costs would be the same in either case. Modern converters use over-sampling techniques to implement the necessary anti-aliasing filters thereby reducing off-chip filtering to simple circuits.

MP3s have no native sample rate but are typically 44.1 kHz because they are usually derived from CDs. MP3 is a psycho-acoustic compression format that exploits frequency masking to lower the data required to store audio information.
Click to expand...

...and this

FractalAudio said:
IMHO, the ideal sample rate is 64 kHz but that's not a standard. The nice thing about 64 kHz is that you can have a gentle transition band from 20 kHz to Nyquist which results in shorter filters, lower latency, less phase shift, etc., etc.

I was very tempted to make the Axe-Fx II run at 64 kHz but people probably would have freaked out.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom