knoll
Inspired
Depends on the quality of your audio interface's spdif implementation. It's possible that the analog side is better.
This is what I'm going to do, except with Motu 828mk3. + the direct usb connection.
-
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.
Does the Axe-FX II mean no more audio interfaces / preamps?
- Thread starter RJSAudio.
- Start date
USB latency is irrelevant really. If you use the Axe-Fx II as your audio interface then your monitoring is essentially zero latency. You may need to do some time alignment in your recording software but the latency is irrelevant.
SockPuppet
Inspired
Some people think that sending the signal through a Neve pre amp will make the recording sound like a million dollar recording, and in most cases it won't. But it all depends on what sound suits you. In my experience using a less clustered signal chain is what you want to aim for. My advice is; ditch the preamp in this case. The Axe FX already sounds amazing - and the Axe FX II will without a doubt do that too. 
As for the interface question I personally would use the Axe FX's USB and record it directly into my DAW, simply because I'll have a cleaner signal chain. (at the moment I don't even have a decent interface... so it doesn't really leave me that much choice)
Hopefully this cleared it up a bit for you!
As for the interface question I personally would use the Axe FX's USB and record it directly into my DAW, simply because I'll have a cleaner signal chain. (at the moment I don't even have a decent interface... so it doesn't really leave me that much choice)
Hopefully this cleared it up a bit for you!
solo-act
Fractal Fanatic
I simplify the signal chain live as well. My little digital board (hardware unit) has an 80 bit mixer running at 48k. It also has an AES input. I use the AES output on the axe-fx (before I sold mine...waaaa) and that saves a conversion on the way to the PA speakers.
The mixing board takes the digital signal, leaves it alone (flat EQ, etc) combines it with the others and sends it through an internal digital 12-band parametric EQ on the way to its output converters. Then it goes down XLR to the PA speakers.
Once the signal leaves the axe-fx, it doesn't go down a stage snake, or FOH channel preamp/channel strip, or through a FOH hardware signal rack...it only goes through that internal digital 12band PEQ.
My signal chain is essentially this: guitar --- 20 inches of cable -- axe-fx -- XLR speaker cable -- powered PA speakers.
The mixing board takes the digital signal, leaves it alone (flat EQ, etc) combines it with the others and sends it through an internal digital 12-band parametric EQ on the way to its output converters. Then it goes down XLR to the PA speakers.
Once the signal leaves the axe-fx, it doesn't go down a stage snake, or FOH channel preamp/channel strip, or through a FOH hardware signal rack...it only goes through that internal digital 12band PEQ.
My signal chain is essentially this: guitar --- 20 inches of cable -- axe-fx -- XLR speaker cable -- powered PA speakers.
Last edited:
THIS IS THE BIGGEST FAULT WITH THE AXE FX, IT'S TOO PERFECTLY DIGITAL TO PERFECTLY SIMULATE AMPS. Fractal needs to add some chaos algorithms to the AXE III.
If your goal is to fool people on your recordings that they're actually listening to a real amp, then you shouldn't use the USB amped outs, nor should you even record the Axe FX analog outs. If you don't give a toss about the AXE FX tricking people, and let it stand on it's own beautiful, new and larger-than-life-sound, then the USB amped outs are fine. The Axe-FX on it's own does not sound like a real amp...it has it's own sound, a sound many of us far prefer to even the best real amps.
The AXE-FX sounds too digital. Usually, when referring to software amp modelers, "digital" means harsh, stiff (from the early days of digital) and with that horrendous fizzy digital sounding distortion that *ALL* software amp sims (except the Axe FX) currently posses. When I say the outs on the Axe FX are "digitally" I mean new-school, high-end "digitally." Meaning, too perfect, too sterile, needing some analog "messing up" to sound like a real amp. However, this "digitally" is not bad in isolation, just different than the sound of a real amp...you might like the Axe FX "digitally" sound...it's pure, not harsh, organic and clean...near perfect...too perfect to be a real amp. The many analog byproducts that you're accustom too are missing.
Here is what we have today, from predictable > unpredictable.....digital>solid state>tubes>tape
If you want to fool people into thinking your AXE FX studio recordings are using real amps, you need to mess up the sound a bit. The AXE-FX amped output is too digital perfect. You need to add randomness.
These will help make the sound less digitally perfect and predictable:
-Tubes or analog before the axe FX like preamps or even a mild solid state or tube compressor
-Tubes or analog after the axe FX like preamps or even a mild solid state or tube compressor. This is what I usually do. At the every least, I run the AXE-FX outputs through some high quality analog EQ or compressor, tube being the least predictable and therefore best at hiding the digitalness of the Axe-FX.
In my world, if I wanted to record a clean signal in parallel to the Axe-FX amped outputs, I would use a high end DI to record the clean, then go to the Axe FX as if it was a regular amp. The Avalon, REDDis, Summit DIs of this world sound clearer than the Axe FX preamp and you eliminate an extra layer of conversion. Also, remember to run guitar DI thru signals to the guitar input of the Axe FX and line-outs out of active DIs into the line in on the Axe FX to avoid impedance mismatch darkening/muddying. With my Axe II, I will definitely try out the USB clean outs...can't wait!
Just like when we got CDs (besides the horrendous conversions until c.2000) digital sounded weird and unnatural to most...no hiss, no pops, no analog distortion glue, bizarrely punchy bass, etc. That is quite analogous to what the Axe FX delivers, (but without the bad converters) The note punch on the Axe FX is stunning! While the Axe FX can do a decent (relative word) job of recreating the existing, loved analog signal paths of traditional guitar chains, I emphasise looking at this a new way to listen to your pickups...don't even call it an "amp" maybe, but if you must, call it a digital guitar amplifier.
If your goal is to fool people on your recordings that they're actually listening to a real amp, then you shouldn't use the USB amped outs, nor should you even record the Axe FX analog outs. If you don't give a toss about the AXE FX tricking people, and let it stand on it's own beautiful, new and larger-than-life-sound, then the USB amped outs are fine. The Axe-FX on it's own does not sound like a real amp...it has it's own sound, a sound many of us far prefer to even the best real amps.
The AXE-FX sounds too digital. Usually, when referring to software amp modelers, "digital" means harsh, stiff (from the early days of digital) and with that horrendous fizzy digital sounding distortion that *ALL* software amp sims (except the Axe FX) currently posses. When I say the outs on the Axe FX are "digitally" I mean new-school, high-end "digitally." Meaning, too perfect, too sterile, needing some analog "messing up" to sound like a real amp. However, this "digitally" is not bad in isolation, just different than the sound of a real amp...you might like the Axe FX "digitally" sound...it's pure, not harsh, organic and clean...near perfect...too perfect to be a real amp. The many analog byproducts that you're accustom too are missing.
Here is what we have today, from predictable > unpredictable.....digital>solid state>tubes>tape
If you want to fool people into thinking your AXE FX studio recordings are using real amps, you need to mess up the sound a bit. The AXE-FX amped output is too digital perfect. You need to add randomness.
These will help make the sound less digitally perfect and predictable:
-Tubes or analog before the axe FX like preamps or even a mild solid state or tube compressor
-Tubes or analog after the axe FX like preamps or even a mild solid state or tube compressor. This is what I usually do. At the every least, I run the AXE-FX outputs through some high quality analog EQ or compressor, tube being the least predictable and therefore best at hiding the digitalness of the Axe-FX.
In my world, if I wanted to record a clean signal in parallel to the Axe-FX amped outputs, I would use a high end DI to record the clean, then go to the Axe FX as if it was a regular amp. The Avalon, REDDis, Summit DIs of this world sound clearer than the Axe FX preamp and you eliminate an extra layer of conversion. Also, remember to run guitar DI thru signals to the guitar input of the Axe FX and line-outs out of active DIs into the line in on the Axe FX to avoid impedance mismatch darkening/muddying. With my Axe II, I will definitely try out the USB clean outs...can't wait!
Just like when we got CDs (besides the horrendous conversions until c.2000) digital sounded weird and unnatural to most...no hiss, no pops, no analog distortion glue, bizarrely punchy bass, etc. That is quite analogous to what the Axe FX delivers, (but without the bad converters) The note punch on the Axe FX is stunning! While the Axe FX can do a decent (relative word) job of recreating the existing, loved analog signal paths of traditional guitar chains, I emphasise looking at this a new way to listen to your pickups...don't even call it an "amp" maybe, but if you must, call it a digital guitar amplifier.
Last edited:
steverosburg
Experienced
I'll take clean & pristine any day over noise. To each his own.
yek
Legend!
You are kidding, right??? :shock
Are you suggesting that the Axe signal should be "dumbed down" by running the output thru some hi-end EQ (or other device) to make it sound more like a real amp? That's ludicrous. Fix the other recordings first.
IMHO - if the Axe you are recording sounds "too digital", something is not set correctly in the presets. Have you listened to any of the clips from the Axe-Fx II that have been posted? I'd challenge anyone on a blind test to A/B the real thing. Yes, they sound better than a real amp - even recorded thru USB, so why the 1-step forward, 2-steps back ??
Jack Napalm
Power User
guittarzzan
Inspired
I'll probably do a comparison when I get my AxeII, but chances are, I'll stick with analog outs-Chandler TG2-Anamod-UA2192-Pro Tools. USB would definitely be cleaner and faster etc, but those pieces add some pretty good mojo that becomes more and more apparent the more tracks stacked through them in a song. Plus, I'm still on PTHD 7.4 and I don't think that will allow me to use a non Avid interface. Avid hadn't quite opened it's iron gates at the time of 7.4.
whatever works,
Steve
The USB is real clean - pretty much zero latency. I can vouch for that!I'll probably do a comparison when I get my AxeII, but chances are, I'll stick with analog outs-Chandler TG2-Anamod-UA2192-Pro Tools. USB would definitely be cleaner and faster etc, but those pieces add some pretty good mojo that becomes more and more apparent the more tracks stacked through them in a song. Plus, I'm still on PTHD 7.4 and I don't think that will allow me to use a non Avid interface. Avid hadn't quite opened it's iron gates at the time of 7.4.
whatever works,
Steve
Yes, and so would every professional recording engineer if the goal is to fool the listener and/or to get a traditional sound.
You gonna go "fix" the Motown sound?
It's always fun to read strong opinions. I am glad you have the courage of your convictions.
No sarcasm, no snarkiness, no condescension or attitude when I say this: I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
But I am glad you feel you can step up and speak your mind. I'm not going to try to get you to change your mind, no more than you can change mine.
And that's why conversations are interesting and informative. It is good to have differing opinions, no matter the strength of the convictions on any side of the opinion.
Peace.
barhrecords
Axe-Master
For me, it is easier to low-fi a hi-fi track vs. trying to hi-fi a low-fi track.
- Richard
- Richard
electronpirate
Axe-Master
I agree. Seems a little silly, but honestly, aren't there a number of post-production steps you can take that would achieve what you're wanting to do here?
IMO, getting it from 'too perfect' to 'sounds like it was done in a garage' is kind of like getting married just to cheat on your wife...
But it is fun to debate about it!
Ron
Selling the Axe FX in the recording studio has proven to be a very tough sell over and over, especially with the "older" guitar players. They come in, our engineers recommend the Axe, they say "no thanks" 90% of the time. They're so jaded by so many previous boxes that promised to deliver a usable sound, but always fell so short. They don't realize they gave up too soon and don't want to waste any more time, especially $60 per hour time!!!!. It's always, "please.....just get the Twin out and lets roll. Thanks."
The majority of NYC engineers don't want to mess with the Axe FX settings for more that 15 minutes or so, ***much less tweak the "digitalness" out of the AXE-FX.*** They have a lot to do and are under a lot of pressure and often with other tasks to manage. They just want to set up the Twin too and get rolling as well. Those that do use that Axe always use expensive iron transformers and or tubes after the Axe analog outs. The Axe-FX digital outs are well out of the realm of possibility in real life real tube amplifier simulation tasks.
That said, it's many people opinion, including mine, that the Axe FX has a better, bigger and more beautiful sound than any real amp (and are fine with unaltered direct recordings.) It's a different sound. We all hear soooo differently...like tastes...some like Coke and some like Pepsi....who knows why?
Our job is to be professional listeners, we spend our careers choosing between very fines lines, A, B and C. We hear things most don't, that's whey we exist. I will put $1000 down to anyone who thinks that can fool us in a real life shootout using at least 20 different recordings done by someone who isn't trying to rig the results in either direction. (Unheard Axe II not included) The Axe-FX Ultra DOES sound different that real tube amps. I think it's a better sound and that's why I have two Axes and have sold off all our expensive tube heads.
We're talking about tone-minutiae here that's another reason I have 100% moved my songwriting and recording to the Axe-FX. Focusing on minutia harms the overall music making process so often. The creative benefits of the Axe Fx over tube amps and pedal boards are immense. Spinning the patch selector knob on the Axe FX is a whole lot less creative-flow killing than setting up a new head, patching boxes, getting new cabinets out, de-cracking and de humming heads, going to the repair shop over and over etc etc etc. Life is too short.
The majority of NYC engineers don't want to mess with the Axe FX settings for more that 15 minutes or so, ***much less tweak the "digitalness" out of the AXE-FX.*** They have a lot to do and are under a lot of pressure and often with other tasks to manage. They just want to set up the Twin too and get rolling as well. Those that do use that Axe always use expensive iron transformers and or tubes after the Axe analog outs. The Axe-FX digital outs are well out of the realm of possibility in real life real tube amplifier simulation tasks.
That said, it's many people opinion, including mine, that the Axe FX has a better, bigger and more beautiful sound than any real amp (and are fine with unaltered direct recordings.) It's a different sound. We all hear soooo differently...like tastes...some like Coke and some like Pepsi....who knows why?
Our job is to be professional listeners, we spend our careers choosing between very fines lines, A, B and C. We hear things most don't, that's whey we exist. I will put $1000 down to anyone who thinks that can fool us in a real life shootout using at least 20 different recordings done by someone who isn't trying to rig the results in either direction. (Unheard Axe II not included
) The Axe-FX Ultra DOES sound different that real tube amps. I think it's a better sound and that's why I have two Axes and have sold off all our expensive tube heads.We're talking about tone-minutiae here that's another reason I have 100% moved my songwriting and recording to the Axe-FX. Focusing on minutia harms the overall music making process so often. The creative benefits of the Axe Fx over tube amps and pedal boards are immense. Spinning the patch selector knob on the Axe FX is a whole lot less creative-flow killing than setting up a new head, patching boxes, getting new cabinets out, de-cracking and de humming heads, going to the repair shop over and over etc etc etc. Life is too short.
Last edited:
Completely respect your position on the above, and am unable to substantiate to the contrary. While I have some background in recording, I made the decision many yrs ago that IT paid a whole lot better and had more potential.Selling the Axe FX in the recording studio has PROVEN to be a very tough sell over and over, especially with the "older" guitar players. They come in, our engineers recommend the Axe, they say "no thanks" 90% of the time. They're so jaded by so many previous boxes that promised to deliver a usable sound, but always fell so short. They don't realize they gave up too soon and don't want to waste any more time, especially $60 per hours time!!!!. It's always, "please, just get the Twin out and lets roll...Thanks."
The majority of NYC engineers don't want to mess with the Axe FX settings for more that 15 minutes or so, ***much less tweak the flawless "digitalness" out of the AXE-FX.*** They have a lot to do and are under a lot of pressure and often with other tasks to manage. They just want to set up the Twin too and get rolling as well. Those that do use that Axe always use expensive iron transformers and or tubes after the Axe analog outs. The Axe-FX digital outs are well out of the realm of possibility in real life real tube amplifier simulation tasks.
That said, it's many people opinion, including mine, that the Axe FX has a better, bigger and more beautiful sound than any real amp (and are fine with unaltered direct recordings.) It's a different sound. We all hear soooo differently...like tastes...some like Coke and some like Pepsi....who knows why?
Our job is to be professional listeners, we spend our careers choosing between very fines lines, A, B and C. We hear things most don't, that's whey we exist. I will put $1000 down to anyone who thinks that can fool us in a real life shootout using at least 20 different recordings done by someone who isn't trying to rig the results in either direction. (Unheard Axe II not included
FreaqyFrequency
Inspired
In short, people fear what is unfamiliar to them.
Amirite?
Amirite?
guittarzzan
Inspired
Dude, if you like using an analog path to your DAW, then go for it. No one said you can't run your Axefx analog out into a killer tube power amp,cabs, great mics, pre's and converters. Not everyone has the gear and the know how to do it. I, personally, will record most of my main tracks through a low wattage, tube power amp, nice pre's and converters etc as well as the best mojo piece out there imo...an Anamod, but that's just personal preference.
In an era of Mp3's and Itunes etc, it's quite arguable whether taking those extra steps really results in an improved sound in the end and it's even more arguable as to whether or not the average listener would even notice or care. Unforunately, there's an entire generation growing up thinking that mp3's sound great. Welcome to the present day.
I DO think it's a bit silly to take the most cutting edge digital guitar product in the world and say it sounds "too digital" etc. Most of us haven't even really heard this thing yet and the fact that it is an improvement on the Ultra is quite astonishing because the Ultra sounds great as is. To almost demand that the Axefx should have it's own randomness or in other words, simulations of an entire high end, analog signal chain, is really getting into the "unreasonable expectation" department don't you think? It's a guitar amp modeler and not a studio in a box. There are a ton of plug ins to emulate SSL boards, Neve pre's, analog tape etc. You don't buy a Lamborghini expecting it to have a toaster oven built into it. Why would you expect a guitar amp modeler to emulate the entire signal chain of a high end studio? To my ears, if you run the Axefx analog out into a power amp and cab, you have yourself a killer amp set up. There's nothing "digital" about the sound I hear. I've never used a solid state power amp with the Axefx so I don't know how that sounds, but many seem to swear by it.
If you think it sounds too digital, then keep all your tube amps etc for another decade until the technology satisfies your expectations. In the meantime, I'll look at it as a powerful tool that can do a lot of things very well at a professional level.
cheers,
Steve
One of my points that I am clearly stating (and sometimes being misunderstood) is that if, and only if, your goal is fool all people into thinking this is a real tube amp, you cannot record the Axe FX Standard or Ultra unaltered direct because it sounds too flawless still. Maybe the v12, Axe II or III will improve this area. I highly recommend that Fractal look into adding user-controlled chaos into their algorithms and any other trickery and/or technology conceivable to sound more like real amps because many many many people do in fact wish their Axe FX to fool all people (not just aunt Ginny) in the end.
My other major point is that many of us, including myself, could care less if this sounds like a real tube amp. The Axe FX stands on it's own as a FAR more desirable instrument, in every way, to put our musical ideas and playing into recordings.
My other major point is that many of us, including myself, could care less if this sounds like a real tube amp. The Axe FX stands on it's own as a FAR more desirable instrument, in every way, to put our musical ideas and playing into recordings.
Last edited: