Fixed 48k Sample Rate Impedes Recording Studio Integrations

[iaresee]

How do you do it? Set one of the outputs to be dry?

Attach an output to your input, say output 3/4. That's your reamp signal. Record that output to a separate track. Assign the output of that track in your DAW to another output like 5/6 and feed that output, in parallel, into your grid. Unmute the reamp track in your DAW and it'll run the reamp signal through your signal chain and you can capture it via output 1/2 back in your DAW.

You can even do analog re-amping with the II. With the II you can't monitor the rest of your project while re-amping. But otherwise it can be done.

 

[cn7]

The problem isn't the Axe-Fx, the problem is studios stubbornly sticking to 44.1 when 48 is a much better rate.

Of course 48k is better....
But as if the AxeFx is going to force the entire industry to conform to it.

 

[cn7]

Every single day i uave prayed for an AxeFXIII to have selectable sample rates. Maybe even an SRC deall lile the Apollo ĺbut thata pushing it).

It has been SOOOOO frustrating dealing with 48k it's ridiculous.

I want to stay in digital land AMAP and use the AxeFx as a sound card replacement for my home studio. Without selectable frequencies, I sadly probably won't be buying a III. I don't want to go through that frustration all over again. It's way too much gear to have to deal with not having this ultra-convenient feature. Without this feature, I might as well continue on my mission to trade my II to get an Apollo and keep using my K....

Please please selectable sample rate!

 

[Jeries]

Every single day i uave prayed for an AxeFXIII to have selectable sample rates.

if it's so important to everyone- you can buy a converter for like $100 and select any rate you want...

 

[Pwrmac7600]

Those complaining about the lack of digital options are too busy thinking with their brains and not with their ears...
The analog outs sound better in every way than digital- I know logic may disagree- but that aside- your ears will agree with me

I have my axefx hooked up spidf and analog, for those older sessions I have recorded at 44.1. I have toggled back and forth between the to sources in a 48k session and truthfully there really is no substantial difference, even when layering. Maybe an extremely nominal touch if clarity in the high end on the spidf signal. But I mean EXTREMELY nominal. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Clockwork Creep]

How do you do it? Set one of the outputs to be dry?

Output 2 - Dry signal.
Output 1 - Affected signal.
Going to a separate audio interface....
I think that's the most straightforward way to do it...

 

[mwd]

It has been SOOOOO frustrating dealing with 48k it's ridiculous. I want to stay in digital land AMAP and use the AxeFx as a sound card replacement for my home studio.

When Fractal was introduced via Standard and Ultra we hailed them as the 'guitar' processors they were. When the audio card option was introduced it was almost like a convenience bonus, as was the headphone jack, to early users.

I would be totally grateful if the Axe has selectable sample rate. I too found fixed 48 a pain in the butt however would we then expect monitoring software? To me that is half of what makes a good interface is the ability to balance your monitor mix without impacting your record levels and that is a total pain on the Axe anyway.

My brain finally settled on no matter what rate you use you'll wind up at 44.1 and no matter what bit depth you use you'll wind up at 16. As well would we rather have our compromises in the source or after the source... where we can manage them?

 

[Jeries]

@Pwrmac7600
Although not exactly apples to apples
I would compare the 48k digital to 96k analog

I noticed a difference there- as much as logic said 'digital must be better'
I tested myself in every way too

 

[ethomas1013]

96k analog? What does that even mean?

 

[Pwrmac7600]

96k analog? What does that even mean?

an analog signal being recorded in a 96k session...

 

[Pwrmac7600]

@Pwrmac7600
Although not exactly apples to apples
I would compare the 48k digital to 96k analog

I noticed a difference there- as much as logic said 'digital must be better'
I tested myself in every way too

Which I could understand. But my point being, even if the Axe ran at 96k digital, I think the differences between running analog into a 96k session and digital into a 96k session would be just as minimal. Therefore, just use the analog outs....

 

[ethomas1013]

an analog signal being recorded in a 96k session...

Duh... Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[EricP1954]

Yes, the Behringer SRC 2496 Ultramatch Pro Format Converter to the rescue! At $200.00, it's a small investment and immediately solves the problem.
https://www.zzounds.com/item--BEHSR...VeUj87d-bUMqj35-tGmgQ0NIK75BxmQaAh32EALw_wcB=

 

[davidespinosa]

@FractalAudio -- please do take the digital interface more seriously.

I would like a completely flexible digital interface on the Axe III.
Outboard units should be slaves, and they should sync to an arbitrary external clock.
They should dictate neither the sample rate nor the synchronization.

So I think the Axe III should definitely have built-in sample-rate conversion.
I prefer built-in SRC to an external Behringer unit.

However, if Fractal want to standardize on the Behringer, that's fine.
Just test the crap out of it, and make sure it works correctly.
And hope they keep it in production.

I run my studio digitally via AES/EBU at 48khz, so I'm good as long as the Axe syncs to the AES input.
But what if I change to 96khz? Then I'm stuck.

To the people saying "just use analog" -- that's ridiculous. The Axe is digital. The DAW is digital. Interfacing them via analog is poor man's sample rate conversion. Even the crappy Behringer unit can do better than that.

 

[chris]

Interfacing them via analog is poor man's sample rate conversion.

Is this a theoretical argument or is there actually a severe quality difference? The studios I’m familiar with use Analog connections all the time.

 

[randyman]

As far as I know, pretty much 100% of the existing UltraRes cabs started out as feeds from analog mics.

An awful lot of “glass half empty” caterwauling going on… no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[vangrieg]

Is this a theoretical argument or is there actually a severe quality difference? The studios I’m familiar with use Analog connections all the time.

Not everyone has a Lynx Aurora for those analog connections at home, and I wouldn't be surprised if Axe had the same CS4385 for DAC as the rest of the industry, from processors to cheap sound cards (I don't actually know what's there).

On the other hand, of course, who knows how SRC would work and whether it would be better than what's available in DAWs these days.

But it would certainly be convenient to have flexibility here.

 

[chris]

Not everyone has a Lynx Aurora for those analog connections at home, and I wouldn't be surprised if Axe had the same CS4385 for DAC as the rest of the industry, from processors to cheap sound cards (I don't actually know what's there).

On the other hand, of course, who knows how SRC would work and whether it would be better than what's available in DAWs these days.

But it would certainly be convenient to have flexibility here.

What does needing a Lynx Aurora have to do with using a XLR cable from the Axe to any normal preamp a typical studio - home or otherwise - would have?

I’m asking is there a substantial difference between recording the Axe with 1 less AD/DA conversion vs using the XLR out into the preamps you already use for microphones?

 

[mwd]

I’m asking is there a substantial difference between recording the Axe with 1 less AD/DA conversion vs using the XLR out into the preamps you already use for microphones?

Not per sound but I do love the one cable via S/PDIF. It does get tricky going into Apollo because when you use XLR it thinks you're using a microphone.

 

[relaxo]

substantial difference between recording the Axe with 1 less AD/DA conversion vs using the XLR out into the preamps you already use for microphones?

OT-I've seen this misunderstanding a few times in this forum. The Axe Fx's XLR balanced analog outs are at +4 level and would normally be fed directly (or via patchbay) into the AD converter, not into a mic preamp. The only time you would run these +4 outs into an isolated mic pre is for more color. But you would not run +4 into the mic pre circuitry but rather put the preamp into "line input mode" not "mic input mode."

I actually put a great DI/preamp before the Axe FX and run +4 balanced analog into the Axe Fx, bypassing the Axe Fx's guitar input, but this is totally OT, so I'm stopping here.