• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Any way to record with SPDIF output other than 48k?

I record my axe fx 2 with the spdif output, into my pro tools mbox. I like it because it bypasses the preamps. Since i do that, i have to set up the pro tools session to 48k and use the axe fx as the midi sync clock for pro tools 10. I had people tell me that there is no sonic value of recording at 96k or 192k vs 48k, since the axe fx outputs at 24 bit, and i record at 32 bit float, which they said was way more important. Im just wondering if there any simple way to record the axe fx at a different rate. Its not a big deal for me recording at 48k, since i mix down to 44, its just one of those things that still bugs you even thought its not a big deal and fixing it would give me peace of mind. If not, thats okay too just thought id ask.
 

thewizardguy

Inspired
Don't worry, 48khz is really a great sample rate. There was a study done by Lavry that stated the highest necessary sample rate for music for the human ear is 66khz. 48khz is probably the best to go at for mixing/recording anyways (88.2khz isnt common enough, 96khz is overkill), so keep your project at it until its finished ;-)
 
Don't worry, 48khz is really a great sample rate. There was a study done by Lavry that stated the highest necessary sample rate for music for the human ear is 66khz. 48khz is probably the best to go at for mixing/recording anyways (88.2khz isnt common enough, 96khz is overkill), so keep your project at it until its finished ;-)
Thanks man, it helps a lot knowing that 48k is a good sample rate. Haha i tend to over think things like that, but since you aid a study was done now it doesnt bug me. I will keep at the projects :)
 
I run projects at 44.1, 48 and up to 88.2 (but no higher, see reference to Lavry white paper above). Software SRC is a great solution - r8brain and the one bundled with REAPER are good ones, but the best one, fortunately, is also free. SoX - Sound eXchange | HomePage

The linear phase VHQ converter in that program scores highest (or extremely close to highest) on all metrics, with competition coming only from the iZotope SRC technology, which you have to pay through the nose to get.

Source of above info - SRC Comparisons

As regards recording at 32-bit float, that's also unnecessary. Floating point is useful in the mixing process to minimize quantization errors while the computer is processing the audio. 24-bit integer has a theoretical -144 dB noise floor, which is more than enough for simply capturing audio.
 
Last edited:

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
Don't worry, 48khz is really a great sample rate. There was a study done by Lavry that stated the highest necessary sample rate for music for the human ear is 66khz. 48khz is probably the best to go at for mixing/recording anyways (88.2khz isnt common enough, 96khz is overkill), so keep your project at it until its finished ;-)
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.
 
I've heard the 64 kHz figure before, suggested by James D. Johnston who did a lot of work for the mp3 and AAC codecs. Lavry's also mentioned it specifically in the past, IIRC.

It would have been cool if you had made it so that it could output either 64 or 48, perhaps starting a trend toward a rate outside of the status quo which makes better engineering sense (as opposed to ludicrousy like 192) while preserving backward compatibility to a more common rate. Plus, the benefits of having recorded natively at 64 which you listed could then be preserved at the source.
 
Last edited:

endgroove

Inspired
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.

Cliff, people will freak out anyway. Do what you think is right. Nothing's perfect, but I've come to trust that it will - sound wise - indeed be right on the money... In any case AFAIK aren't a lot of devices just running at a single sample rate and doing SRC to give the illusion of choice?

I have to say, your engineering decisions have so far resulted in something that I thought was really not possible. Even after getting the Axe I wasn't sold on the idea.

In practice though, there's no denying the results. Forget the freaks.
 
I will just continue to use the Axe fx direct into Pro Tools 10 at 48k via spdif. It sounds great, and i dont need to go through the preamps of my interface, so i get the Axe fx's true sound. Its awesome for me. As long as its 24 bit, im happy. Thank you guys for your discussions, i really appreciate it.
 

antcarrier

Power User
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.
Would it be possible to add an optional 64kHz mode in future firmware?
 

jon

Fractal Fanatic
I was thinking that myself.....

Not that there's a problem with 48, but it would be interesting to hear. We all thought the ultra at one time was the height of digital guitar till the II. Let's now see what we're missing by running at 48? I have no problems doing tracks in 64, even though it would be a little strange at first lol
 

Trazan

Experienced
I was thinking that myself.....

Not that there's a problem with 48, but it would be interesting to hear. We all thought the ultra at one time was the height of digital guitar till the II. Let's now see what we're missing by running at 48? I have no problems doing tracks in 64, even though it would be a little strange at first lol
It's a processor for electric guitar. Believe me, you're not missing out on anything, sample rate-wise.
 
Top Bottom