Analog vs Digital recording test

I have Axe-Fx II and RME Fireface UFX. Haven't decided yet whether to go the analog or the digital route. Project we are currently working on is 96k so using digital would require conversions (which is not a problem, just a bit more work). In the end the decision will be which ever sounds/sits better in the mix.

When using digital connections I'm always a bit worried about jitter. Should I be or is it just a problem of the early or cheaper digital devices?
 
Well RME is using the "jitter free" technology. So far I believe the hype. I have never experienced jitter with Any RME device. And since I used ASIO4ALL with axe fx, I havent had problems there either. I Don't understand why people want to use higher resolutions, if it's for a movie or something else, then yes. For an album your fine with 48k.
 
Besides if you have good cables and good converters, just use the analog path. You will maybe hear the difference, but other people wont know anything. So in the end it's what makes you happy :)
 
Higher sample rate is used so that vst plugins, also the ones that do not offer oversampling option, are basically run in an "oversampling" mode. This is my first project with higher than 48k sample rate so I don't yet know if this is useless or not.
 
Well, do things your way, that's what most important :)
I didn't know about vst oversampling. Does it really affect the tone of the plugin?
 
knoll said:
Higher sample rate is used so that vst plugins, also the ones that do not offer oversampling option, are basically run in an "oversampling" mode. This is my first project with higher than 48k sample rate so I don't yet know if this is useless or not.
Click to expand...

One reason in the argument FOR recording at higher sample rates is to future proof your recordings. It may be a way off, but if mp3's ever get replaced by something much better like dvd audio etc, you will be able to take advantage of that higher resolution if all your recordings were done at, for example 96k. The current state of affairs in the music industry doesn't give a person a lot of motivation to want to use up all that extra drive space and push their computers harder when most everything gets crushed in the end, but hopefully sooner than later, with increased internet dl speeds, we will see HD audio as the norm. Maybe I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one. :)
 
This is my exact setup and my exact findings. I use the RME 400 and have also felt that when comparing the digital to the analog, the digital is just a teensy bit more "there" and shimmeringly bright.

Of course, before I got the fireface 400 I was in a quandary because I kept trying cheaper soundcards (less than $800) and when I listened to playback of recordings I was like, damn where did the brightness and clarity go... I know nothing about the actual hardware and software making the stuff work, but RME seems to suggest that accuracy of clocking can be involved in allowing the recording to approach the detail, for those with ears that can hear it anyway, of the "real sound". In my experience with the Fireface it is just as the OP says, that during the extra conversion back into the analog and then back into the digital, there may be some tiny loss. Not much, but for me it was enough to remain digital. But is that also saying that the Fireface is doing a good job of reproduction in the first place, so that you can hear the loss, versus something like an M-Audio where your playback of recordings of digital from the Axe FX is identically washed out when compared to analog from it?
 
Last edited:
Spazi said:
Well, do things your way, that's what most important :)
I didn't know about vst oversampling. Does it really affect the tone of the plugin?
Click to expand...

All sample rates sound different, I use 48KHz but I will move up higher when I get a better computer.
What I like about the higher sample rates is that mixing tracks seems to be faster and easier.

That said sometimes with heavily distorted guitar the Analog out on the AXE-FX will sound more pleasant.
Experiment, do what sounds good to you.


;)
 
Last edited:
jesussaddle said:
But is that also saying that the Fireface is doing a good job of reproduction in the first place, so that you can hear the loss, versus something like an M-Audio where your playback of recordings of digital from the Axe FX is identically washed out when compared to analog from it?
Click to expand...

I seriously don't understand the question...
I will try to answer it:

The whole Analog/digital conversion thing is very complex to explain. But YES, RME Fireface 400 is very good to reveal if something sounds like bad sound quality recordings. But RME fireface 400 is also very good to record the analog signal with very little loss of detail or quality.
When you record the SPDIF signal from Axe FX, it has already been converted from analog to digital using the AXE FX converters! So the sound you hear in the monitors is more "pure"
But then it depends what soundcard you are using! If you use a expensive stuff like Apogee or RME, it will sound better, but if you use something cheap it will not sound so detailed.
You must understand that you can record SPDIF using a cheap soundcard and have good quality recordings, because the signal has already been converted in the Axe FX, it goes directly to the hard drive as a wav file. But when you listen to it, it will sound bad, but that is only because of the low quality converters inside the cheap soundcard. If you used a better soundcard it will display the sound more detailed. So now you have a situation where the recording is good, but when you listen to it, it's missing the "sparkle"

Wow, When I read this, I can hardly understand it myself.
Sound conversion is very complex to explain, but in the end you can use the Axe FX 2 as your soundcard, it sounds awesome!
I just use my RME fireface to mix songs.
 
AndrewSimon said:
All sample rates sound different, I use 48KHz but I will move up higher when I get a better computer.
What I like about the higher sample rates is that mixing tracks seems to be faster and easier.

That said sometimes with heavily distorted guitar the Analog out on the AXE-FX will sound more pleasant.
Experiment, do what sounds good to you.


;)
Click to expand...

True that mate!
I work mostly at 48khz, because I find that it's easier to mix, especially if I make good quality recordings with good microphones, pre-amps and good converters.
The human ear can't really hear a lot of the frequencies that you can record at 96K. Some people talk about psycho-acoustics, but now we are talking science.
All my work always goes to Compact Disc and Mp3's, so no point in high end recordings there :(
I will probably some day record at higher sample rates, but I have to wait for the successor to MP3 and CD's.
 
hi all,
what you wrote is true,but when you add eq, comp, gates, limiters (i'm thinking expecially for drum tracks) etc etc then you realize that artifacts may become noticeble.
that's why i used to record my projects at 88 or even 172. (better than 96 and 192 for 44 downsample).

from this my question:

untill now i recorded guitar via analog DIY preamps in rme line in.

how can I handle my old projects?

shall I have to downsample them to match 48 digital in?

or is there any other way?

I'm using a FF800 with cubase 5 and the axe fx II is expected to be delivered on tuesday.

sorry for the (maybe) noob question.
byez.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom