Wish Axe FX at 96k

My name is mud said:
Using the axe in a sound card is globally easier for my set up, as we record other instruments in the same room (vocals, drums…) , I don’t want to use the axe to listen to music from my computer for example, so having the studio monitoring plugged in the axe is “annoying”
Click to expand...
I use the AES/BEU outputs to my Audio Interface. No extra D/A conversion, no studio monitoring needed through the Axe-fx, and my Audio interface can do SRC.
 
javajunkie said:
I use the AES/BEU outputs to my Audio Interface. No extra D/A conversion, no studio monitoring needed through the Axe-fx, and my Audio interface can do SRC.
Click to expand...
what is the main difference between plugging an XLR cable from out 1 or using the AES ? just that AES can synchronize with the soundcard ? (if I remember) But If you dont need to synchronize ? I never used the AES cause is function was blurry to me

edit : ha ! AES is not analog? like spdif? I have the spdif too in my soundcard but you have less control in volume as it bypass it etc, i tried the spdif and notice no sound difference and just strange thing in the DAW with it so, sometimes plugging a cable and turning knob is great :)
 
My name is mud said:
what is the main difference between plugging an XLR cable from out 1 or using the AES ? just that AES can synchronize with the soundcard ? (if I remember) But If you dont need to synchronize ? I never used the AES cause is function was blurry to me

edit : ha ! AES is not analog? like spdif? I have the spdif too in my soundcard but you have less control in volume as it bypass it etc, i tried the spdif and notice no sound difference and just strange thing in the DAW with it so, sometimes plugging a cable and turning knob is great :)
Click to expand...
Less latency, yes Like S/PDIF. Has the same control for volume in my audio interfaces mixer, using both AES in and out makes reamping easier, faster, with less latency for me in my DAW.
 
DLC86 said:
Which interface?
Click to expand...
MOTU AVBs (1248 , 16A, 112D, 8D, and an Ultra AVB). My interfaces are all networked through AVB and I can route channels and mixes to and from the devices. The 1248 is connected by thunderbolt to my main DAW, My digital devices are connected to the 112D and 8D, I have the Ultralight AVB upstairs connected to a laptop. I can record or mix from there on my main DAW or the laptop. The AVB network synchronizes all the clocks of all the interfaces. You can save different routings for physical in/out and AVB in/outs on each device. It is amazing what can be done with Digital Audio Networking these days. You can hook up all your devices and just route to them in a DAW like a plugin.
 
javajunkie said:
MOTU AVBs (1248 , 16A, 112D, 8D, and an Ultra AVB). My interfaces are all networked through AVB and I can route channels and mixes to and from the devices. The 1248 is connected by thunderbolt to my main DAW, My digital devices are connected to the 112D and 8D, I have the Ultralight AVB upstairs connected to a laptop. I can record or mix from there on my main DAW or the laptop. The AVB network synchronizes all the clocks of all the interfaces. You can save different routings for physical in/out and AVB in/outs on each device. It is amazing what can be done with Digital Audio Networking these days. You can hook up all your devices and just route to them in a DAW like a plugin.
Click to expand...
That seems quite an excellent (and expensive) system!
 
yek said:
The manufacturer should... <> aversion towards people telling what you should be doing.

I guess I qualify as a smart ass.
Click to expand...
Then a company will be heavily consumed if they go with how much aversion that would take to be putting out that kind of energy. I can assure you it's not recommended to get to the letter B in monetary status.

The question is will a company go to the same mindset as in big leagues of multi-national corporations to separate itself from that mentality you suggest, and to professionally consider such things positively for future releases of racks due to the 'demands' of industry standards.

88.2 and 96 options are a no-brainer in the industry with all other competition providing it. If it's not possible then yes there at least should be some sort of smart SRC at the last stage so that compatible digital connection is possible.

And the same goes with the need of a BNC connector for wordclocking as either master or slave and not just slave.
 
Last edited:
javajunkie said:
I use the AES/BEU outputs to my Audio Interface. No extra D/A conversion, no studio monitoring needed through the Axe-fx, and my Audio interface can do SRC.
Click to expand...

Pardon the ignorance, but using the AES output, how would you get both the reamp (input 1) signal as well as the output signal at the same time? You can only get two channels out of the digital outs, so I'm curious how you do reamping digitally with just the AES i/o. In other words, once I have the original signal, easy enough to use AES to reamp, but how do you get the original signal at the same time as you're getting the output of Channel 1 (stereo?). Just record ONLY the original signal first, then switch the digital inputs over to the output and always reamp?

Thanks!
 
briansin said:
Pardon the ignorance, but using the AES output, how would you get both the reamp (input 1) signal as well as the output signal at the same time? You can only get two channels out of the digital outs, so I'm curious how you do reamping digitally with just the AES i/o. In other words, once I have the original signal, easy enough to use AES to reamp, but how do you get the original signal at the same time as you're getting the output of Channel 1 (stereo?). Just record ONLY the original signal first, then switch the digital inputs over to the output and always reamp?
Click to expand...

See configuration #5 in the recording guide:
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/axe-fx-for-the-recording-musician.177592/
 

Yes, very helpful, I hadn't thought of plugging the guitar into the interface and essentially doing the same path for reamping as I would for a live take (i.e. record DI in interface and always use the AES for Input 1 as well as Output 1). Before, I'd have to do 1 channel for the DI signal, and another stereo channel for the ouptut, which of course woudln't work in 1 AES output.

Question, however. If the AXE has good converters, and your interface has good converters, why DOESN'T the analog route work form a fidelity perspective? (of course, there is more delay due to the additional D/A and A/D) but why the fidelity problems?

Thanks
 
briansin said:
Pardon the ignorance, but using the AES output, how would you get both the reamp (input 1) signal as well as the output signal at the same time?
Click to expand...
With guitar connected to Axe-FX, you could configure a preset to have a DI and (mono) processed signal as left & right. Add a path of shunts for the DI signal and pan DI/processed rows oppositely in the output block. You might want to avoid using any input noise gating so you have the option of different gate settings when reamping. (A gate block could still be used in the processed path during this initial recording step.)
 
briansin said:
Yes, very helpful, I hadn't thought of plugging the guitar into the interface and essentially doing the same path for reamping as I would for a live take (i.e. record DI in interface and always use the AES for Input 1 as well as Output 1). Before, I'd have to do 1 channel for the DI signal, and another stereo channel for the ouptut, which of course woudln't work in 1 AES output.

Question, however. If the AXE has good converters, and your interface has good converters, why DOESN'T the analog route work form a fidelity perspective? (of course, there is more delay due to the additional D/A and A/D) but why the fidelity problems?

Thanks
Click to expand...
It works, but there are disadvantages. In addition to adding latency, it makes level balancing more complex, and d/a/d conversion will always mean a loss of fidelity, no matter how good the converters are. If you have digital amp simulator, you'll get the best results by recording a digital signal path.

I'd recommend using configuration #5 if you need to use an audio interface, since it gives you reamping, a digital signal path, and doesn't restrict you to mono output. But don't overlook configurations 1-4 if one of those simpler configurations meet your needs.
 
Bakerman said:
With guitar connected to Axe-FX, you could configure a preset to have a DI and (mono) processed signal as left & right. Add a path of shunts for the DI signal and pan DI/processed rows oppositely in the output block. You might want to avoid using any input noise gating so you have the option of different gate settings when reamping. (A gate block could still be used in the processed path during this initial recording step.)
Click to expand...

Totally, but this doesn't let me use the stereo fx of the axe. but i could do that in the DAW instead and just use the AXE for amp sim, then this would work great. that might be the best approach anyways
 
GlennO said:
It works, but there are disadvantages. In addition to adding latency, it makes level balancing more complex, and d/a/d conversion will always mean a loss of fidelity, no matter how good the converters are. If you have digital amp simulator, you'll get the best results by recording a digital signal path.

I'd recommend using configuration #5 if you need to use an audio interface, since it gives you reamping, a digital signal path, and doesn't restrict you to mono output. But don't overlook configurations 1-4 if one of those simpler configurations meet your needs.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and again, this makes sense. The only problem with this approach, as I see it, is still the SRC on the output. While SPDIF will usually do SRC on the input, I still need to get the reamp signal BACK to the axe, and most things don't do it on the output. Maybe a combo of #5 plus a Sonifex will allow me to run my sessions at 96k. (aggregate device doesn't help here, of course, as all devices need to be the same SR). I guess I could always use a different DAW to do AXE stuff then go back to my main DAW from there....
 
GlennO said:
It works, but there are disadvantages. In addition to adding latency, it makes level balancing more complex, and d/a/d conversion will always mean a loss of fidelity, no matter how good the converters are. If you have digital amp simulator, you'll get the best results by recording a digital signal path.

I'd recommend using configuration #5 if you need to use an audio interface, since it gives you reamping, a digital signal path, and doesn't restrict you to mono output. But don't overlook configurations 1-4 if one of those simpler configurations meet your needs.
Click to expand...

Also, as a modification to #5, and as a way to avoid changing SPDIF routing in your interface, do you think the following would work? (besides extra digital latency)

Use interface DI to record guitar to DAW, and ALWAYS use that track to output to SPDIF to axe? In other words, instead of routing DI to both DAW and AXE, could you just always record DI to DAW and, in realtime, output that track to AXE (via SPDIF) and record wet (again, via spdif) to a separate track in the DAW? would save you from ever really having to reroute the DI signal in your interface.... but maybe too annoying with additional latency?
 
Some audio interfaces are capable of performing src on spdif input, which is what I think you mean. Many DAWs however, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, are capable of doing both in and out src on the fly, so one option would be to leave your audio interface at 48k. Whether that's a good option for you depends on the reason you're using 96k.

This would be so much simpler if the Axe-FX had selectable i/o sample rate :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom