Axe FX USB + High End DAC for mixing/monitoring

I

imrecs

Inspired
I plan on recording guitar and bass via USB in the Axe (tracking/reamping).

I also am buying a Dangerous Source DAC to connect my monitors for doing all my mixing work.

I am not sure if it's possible to connect the 2 as an aggregate device via Mac/Logic (Dangerous Source is also a USB device)X...it seems the other option might be to use the Axe FX via USB and then connect the AES OUT into the Dangerous Source AES IN. Is that correct?

I don't record via microphones (just Axe Fx, soft sytnhs and drum samplers) so I don't really require a full interface, but I want to make sure using the Axe / Dangerous combo will be stable, low latency, and extremely high quality monitoring for both tracking and mixing.

Btw, I know the Axe's DACs are supposed to be great, has anyone compared them to high end DACs like Dangerous, Mytek, Lynx, Prism, etc. and can comment on the differences? I trust the Axe's DAC for all guitar and bass of course, though after just comparing them to my RME UC, I prefer the sound of the RME's DAC. The Dangerous Source would be a step up from that. Just want to make sure I don't need another interface and can have the AXE connected via USB as my main connection the computer.

Thanks!

P.S. Just tried running the Axe FX as my sole interface (output 1 to monitors) and was getting a ton of noise and a message that the CPU was overloading even on a preset that wouldn't overload (but was high) when the axe was just used with it's outs into another interface. How much more CPU does the Axe consume when used as the interface for USB recording/monitoring?
 
Last edited:
I can't give you numbers but I can't record one of my live presets for the same reason. The CPU load is at about 96% when not connected and degenerates into clicks when connected by USB to my DAW.
 
Why not use the AxeFx as your sound card and outputs to monitors? It's got one of the best DAC's built into it- one less thing to buy, one less thing to connect
 
I was considering that, though I a/b'd it with my RME UC and thought the low end on the Axe wasn't as focused as the RME while monitoring full range music (not just guitar and bass). I will A/B a few more times just to make sure I'm hearing what I think I am hearing.

I did try recording via USB vs. Analog outs into RME line ins, and the USB tracking sounded better. Very impressed. I then tried running it out of the analog outs into my Chandler Preamps, into the RME and that sounded the best...I definitely felt the USB sounded better though than Analog outs into line ins without a preamp in between...one extra level of conversion took something away (it became a bit thinner basically).
 
Last edited:
imrecs said:
Btw, I know the Axe's DACs are supposed to be great, has anyone compared them to high end DACs like Dangerous, Mytek, Lynx, Prism, etc. and can comment on the differences? I trust the Axe's DAC for all guitar and bass of course, though after just comparing them to my RME UC, I prefer the sound of the RME's DAC. The Dangerous Source would be a step up from that. Just want to make sure I don't need another interface and can have the AXE connected via USB as my main connection the computer.
Click to expand...

I've actually been wondering lately how the Axe's DAC compares to my Benchmark DAC and Cranesong HEDD...just on a purely academic level. In practice, each box fits a specific niche in my workflow and the Axe would not be a suitable replacement.
 
I did the following tests with a Metric Halo ULN8 and a pair of Sennheiser HD800:
Configuration 1. Guitar -> AxeFX2 IN -> AxeFX2 analog OUT -> ULN8 MIC in -> ULN headphone out -> Sennheiser HD800
Configuration 2. Guitar -> AxeFX2 IN -> AxeFX2 Digital OUT (AES/EBU) -> ULN8 Digital IN -> ULN headphone out -> Sennheiser HD800

What I have found is that Configuration 2 gives me a more detailed sound, more solid bass and a sensation of less "haze" around the notes. I don't know if this is due to the behavior of the DAC in the AxeFX2 or the MIc Pre + ADC in the ULN8. I would tend to think that is the DAC...Mic Pres and ADC in ULN8 are at the highest level...

M
 
Definitely on the fence right now. Recording via USB sounds better than analog outs into RME's line ins, so clearly the conversion isn't flawless out of the AXE or into the RME....however if I place a high end preamp like a Chandler in there, the Chandler does something magical...to my ear it basically softens the top end of the digital signal in a very pleasing way (not reducing top end, just softening it so it's not as brittle), and fills out the lower mids and makes them richer...I did try various console/preamp plugins in the box which gave me a very similar sound in terms of saturation and eq, though running it through the external preamp was the only thing that actually seemed to "transform" the digital signal into something more "analog"....I've been mixing entirely ITB with incredible results for a while, though something that many of my peers have always suggested was to still track through some analog equipment on the way in, before mixing ITB completely. I am starting to really understand that. Once the Axe went through the analog "transformation" in the Chandler, all of the plugins I put on it sounded INCREDIBLE! For example, the Waves Scheps 73 - same settings USB-out Axe-Fx Signal and the Chandler Preamp Signal...sounded significantly better on the Chandler...the sound seems to mold like clay into various forms with the eq and gain settings, whereas the purely digital signal just seemed to "change". I understand I am describing something very abstract, though I want to emphasize that the differences between the signal that went through a preamp and the signal that stayed digital became more obvious the further I mixed and molded the sound in the box.

So I think I will definitely be going out of the analog outs on the Axe FX into a 2 Ch Preamp into the RME for now....I guess the next level would be to go AES from the Fractal into a superior AD/DA like a Lynx Hilo...once the signal is in the computer, send it out the Lynx DAC into an external preamp and back in through the Lynx. Though not sure that will make enough of a difference to justify the cost.

Anyone else experiencing a similar thing?
 
The Axe does have a decent DAC and at this point I'm exclusively recording guitar and bass direct via USB but when it comes to monitoring a mix there is quite a noticeable difference using my BLA white sparrow DAC either with monitors or my Audeze cans. I have access to some nice preamps but have found I'm able to achieve similar quality whether I record direct via USB and then process or fiddle with a hardware preamp on the way in. Loving some of the nebula software preamps - they sound amazing.
 
trying to approximate the chandler preamp with the Axe's preamp simulation in the cabinet block....would be cool to know which style of preamp resembles which in the real world....I was considering picking up Nebula as I'm really impressed with the Ownhammer stuff and I know they have TG2 simulations in Nebula.

EJB: what do you mean by "record direct via USB and the process or fiddle with a hardware preamp on the way in."? If you go straight to USB then where do you put your hardware preamp?
 
Recording direct via USB and then process using Nebula Preamps and other effects in software vs. Recording through a hardware preamp and then into my interface. Either way I'm able to achieve similar quality. I'd say using the Nebula plugins affords me additional flexibility as I can change the preamps etc later on in the process if I want to try something different for the mix :) Any way you do it the Axe sounds great

imrecs said:
trying to approximate the chandler preamp with the Axe's preamp simulation in the cabinet block....would be cool to know which style of preamp resembles which in the real world....I was considering picking up Nebula as I'm really impressed with the Ownhammer stuff and I know they have TG2 simulations in Nebula.

EJB: what do you mean by "record direct via USB and the process or fiddle with a hardware preamp on the way in."? If you go straight to USB then where do you put your hardware preamp?
Click to expand...
 
I think I will definitely check out Nebula...Also, is there any benefit to recording with an interface via SPDIF vs Axe's USB?

If not, and if Nebula pans out, I'll be selling my RME UC, recording via USB, using Nebula to simulate external preamps, and monitoring/mixing via a Dangerous source connected to the Axe FX's AES output while tracking. Just want to make sure I can utilize the AES out on the Axe for monitoring while tracking via USB.
 
Last edited:
If you never plan to record anything through the interface and are happy with the results obtained via USB (48k I believe) then I'd say go ahead and ditch the RME. Personally I'd keep it just in case - flexibility and all... It's a very subjective assessment but if you think it sounds good - then it probably is - that's the beauty of music. I can't see you getting less than a great result with either approach (unless your clipping like mad lol). Best of luck :)
 
imrecs said:
Just tried running the Axe FX as my sole interface (output 1 to monitors) and was getting a ton of noise and a message that the CPU was overloading even on a preset that wouldn't overload (but was high) when the axe was just used with it's outs into another interface. How much more CPU does the Axe consume when used as the interface for USB recording/monitoring?
Click to expand...

to monitor your performance [whilst recording the guitar's dry signal] you'll not need all the fx, features and hoops you need to jump through live..
so make a couple of stripped down versions of your presets for monitoring.. a riffing one, a soloing one and a clean one etc..
that'll drop the CPU by a shed load cos anything / everything that's not needed is stripped out

once you have the dry guitar recorded, you 'd mostly only want to reamp using presets that are one amp into a cab and nothing else..
unless of course there's a very specific / screwy tone you've created in the Axe that'd be almost impossible to re-create within the DAW [so this case would be a bit of a one-off / exception to the rule]..

you only need "all bells and whistles" presets for live performance..

note: my studio [used for monitoring my performance] presets use normal res cabs, standard reverb etc.. so it's enough to create a tone that's nice to play with without pinning the Axe's cpu meters..
my reamping presets are all one amp, one U-res mono cab.. and mostly nothing else..
so I strip back the functionality and up the game for the tone I want to make to 'tape'
 
just had a thought.....
if the presets are up in the 90% plus range.. and if they are also intended to be used for live work too..
I know I'd not be wanting to step out on stage with them..

audio glitching
MIDI control lag

a recipe for aggravation..

IMHO, I'd take another look at this preset with a view to either:
- redesign it to something more efficient
- breaking it up into a number of smaller presets, considering:
--- that every single thing the preset can do may not be required for every single song in the live set
--- create presets that are more zeroed in functionally to work for specific songs / specific types of songs [so you don't need to config absolutely everything into a single preset]..

the Axe has 384 preset slots..
it's like having a 384 channel amp.. cool ain't it..
so... why try to live life in a single channel??
there's just no need..
spread the love across the other 383.. lmao
 
Thinking of running an FX8 along with the axe fx so I don't have to worry about CPU ;) just wondering if the FX8 can also control scene changes in the Axe, or if I'll need a separate midi controller for the AxeFx as well. The FX8 doesn't cost that much more than the MFC101 so it's a consideration
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom