Axe as audio interface... Flexible sample rate?

henryrobinett said:
Wow. I just totally disagree. I can hear the difference between 96k and 48 easily. I always record at 96. I record the Axe Fx analog into my DAW. Easy.
Click to expand...

You can easily hear a difference recording the axe-fx analog outs through 48KHz and 96KHz? Something is not right there.
 
henryrobinett said:
Wow. I just totally disagree. I can hear the difference between 96k and 48 easily. I always record at 96. I record the Axe Fx analog into my DAW. Easy.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that if you record two samples of the Axe FX in your DAW, one at 48 kHz and another at 96 kHz, you can hear a difference?
 
What? That's not what I said. I said I can hear the difference easily between 96k and 48k. I've been doing this since the early 90s. I did multiple blind test, double blind. I trust my ears. I've used multiple high end gear. I never said anything about hearing the difference with the Axe Fx at 96 or 48. I have not tried that double blind yet.

But listen here - I'm not interested in getting into another drawn out debate over this thing. It's bloody and it's tiring. Im just TELLING you about me. Your findings may be different.
 
I've been recording and mixing since '92? '94? Long before I ever thought there'd be a Fractal. I've been recording at 96k ever since.
 
Jason Scott said:
Are you saying that if you record two samples of the Axe FX in your DAW, one at 48 kHz and another at 96 kHz, you can hear a difference?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Because Axe Fx is 48k. It's not going to upsample to 96k. But I'm not talking about guitar only here guys. I record drums and bass and vocals and sax and keyboards. It's not a guitar only world.
 
henryrobinett said:
What? That's not what I said. I said I can hear the difference easily between 96k and 48k. I've been doing this since the early 90s. I did multiple blind test, double blind. I trust my ears. I've used multiple high end gear. I never said anything about hearing the difference with the Axe Fx at 96 or 48. I have not tried that double blind yet.

But listen here - I'm not interested in getting into another drawn out debate over this thing. It's bloody and it's tiring. Im just TELLING you about me. Your findings may be different.
Click to expand...

Not interested in any debate either. Just curious....what interface are you currently using?
 
I mean why do you think 96 and even 192 are such a thing in high-end studios? You wouldn't find a decent studio recording at 48k. I hate to say it but that's kind of a consumer sample rate. The excuse is double-blind tests and null tests.

The first time it came home to me was in 1994 when I was mixing, wth engineer Mark Wilsher, who became the head sound engineer for all of the LOTR movies. We mixed on his and Stephan Jarvis' gear in Hyde Studios SF. Three days at 96s. Highest quality converters of the day. Amazing three-dimensional sound quality. We were starting to master. I went to the bathroom and returned. Everything had changed. No more 3D. Flat. shitty. WHAT HAPPENED??????

"Oh, I was hoping you maybe wouldn't notice. We just went from 96 to 44.1." Hadn't even gone to 16 bit yet. That was my first experience. I didn't see that coming. He never told me it was coming. But I now know it when it's there and not.
 
henryrobinett said:
I mean why do you think 96 and even 192 are such a thing in high-end studios? You wouldn't find a decent studio recording at 48k. I hate to say it but that's kind of a consumer sample rate. The excuse is double-blind tests and null tests.

The first time it came home to me was in 1994 when I was mixing, wth engineer Mark Wilsher, who became the head sound engineer for all of the LOTR movies. We mixed on his and Stephan Jarvis' gear in Hyde Studios SF. Three days at 96s. Highest quality converters of the day. Amazing three-dimensional sound quality. We were starting to master. I went to the bathroom and returned. Everything had changed. No more 3D. Flat. shitty. WHAT HAPPENED??????

"Oh, I was hoping you maybe wouldn't notice. We just went from 96 to 44.1." Hadn't even gone to 16 bit yet. That was my first experience. I didn't see that coming. He never told me it was coming. But I now know it when it's there and not.
Click to expand...

If the difference were really that noticeable to a vast majority of engineers though(not that you're claiming it is), it begs the question, why weren't any of the participants in the blind test conducted by the Boston Audio Society I referenced able to score higher than chance? Per the notes from the AES summary, the tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects.
 
Last edited:
You know, I've seen those and other tests as well. You can find anything to support anything. But I don't trust ANYTHING but my own ears.
 
Last edited:
Realistically, 48 kHz / 24 bit is plenty for electric guitar or bass, which is not exactly the most dynamic or widest range audio source. Now if you are recording full orchestral mixes on the other hand, the huge dynamic range and textural complexity there would probably benefit more from stepping up to a higher resolution. Honestly though, anyone doing such work is not going to be using an Axe II as their primary audio interface.
 
henryrobinett said:
You know, I've seen those and other tests as well. You can find anything to support anything. But I don't trust ANYTHING but my own ears.
Click to expand...

I respect your right to trust your ears.

As someone who believes in objective truth, if science didn't test the validity of perceptions, chances are we'd all still believe the Sun revolved around the Earth.

That said, it's quite possible that the percentage of those who actually are capable of hearing a difference is negligible to the point of being inconsequential.
 
Last edited:
That's fine. We can agree to disagree. Art is subjective. Art is made from the confidence of perception. I won't doubt mine.
 
henryrobinett said:
That's fine. We can agree to disagree. Art is subjective. Art is made from the confidence of perception. I won't doubt mine.
Click to expand...

I don't consider the perception of higher resolution audio a matter of art anymore than I consider a high degree of visual acuity a matter of creativity. They're matters of ability that can be validated. We can agree to disagree, though.
 
Omg Jason, I said I didn't want to debate and there you go, into debate land. This is exactly where it goes. One dude insisting you can prove scientifically what can be heard and can't and the other side insisting something else must be occurring because I can hear it.

I'm not debating this again. I'm merely stating what is true for me. You don't have to believe it. I aask your not to believe it. Please.

And yes, anyone concerned with recording real dynamic range of a full orchestra, something I've recorded many times, at 96k, sometimes while playing the Axe Fx simultaneously, would not be considering using the Axe Fx as their primary interface.
 
henryrobinett said:
Wow. I just totally disagree. I can hear the difference between 96k and 48 easily. I always record at 96. I record the Axe Fx analog into my DAW. Easy.
Click to expand...
If my understanding of the tech is correct, there's no information coming out of the Axe above ~24kHz anyway, due to the filters used in A/D/A accounting for Nyquist-Shannon.

By sampling it at 96kHz you may be lifting the frequency to which some noticeable sample error may occur, up out of audibility... But 48kHz already did that.

I do not doubt how you feel about the results you get, but I suspect that capturing the A/D/A'd signal from the Axe at 192kHz or even higher couldn't possibly capture more authentic signal than simply taking the digital out and not converting two more times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom