Fixed 48k Sample Rate Impedes Recording Studio Integrations

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I’m aware. I spoke generally and used the term “mic preamp” to just get a general question across.
 
is there a substantial difference between recording the Axe with 1 less AD/DA conversion vs using the XLR...?

It's all relative and also depending on the context. Is there a substantial difference between Amplitube and Axe Fx? Those with ears who can hear and who are going for that certain tone...HUGE...nearly night and day! Most of the general public...tiny, if any, difference at all.

If definition is what you want with as little original audio information loss as possible, then digital-digital connections are peerless as original aural information is lost with each DA-AD pass...and in each pass, new and different audio information is gained. For those seeking that tone in a studio or in an arena, 95% of the money and effort is spent attainting that final 5% of sound quality. This is the realm where everything matters a lot and it's not imaginary if you can clearly hear it. So does it matter? It all depends on who you are, where you're at and what you're trying to do. A one-size-fits-all definitive answer is impossible to this question.

Not having variable SR outputs on the Axe matters a lot to a few (and you can't tell them it doesn't matter) and it doesn't matter at all to most Axe owners. The title of this thread is not "Fixed 48k Sample Rate Ruins the Axe FX" it's simply "Fixed 48k Sample Rate Impedes Recording Studio Integrations." And that's it. Fixed 48k sample rate impedes recording studio integrations (to some, not all). Now the question is...is it worth it to FAS to address this fact?
 
Last edited:
It's all relative and also depending on the context. Is there a substantial difference between Amplitube and Axe Fx? Those with ears who can hear and who are going for that certain tone...HUGE...nearly night and day! Most of the general public...tiny, if any, difference at all.

If definition is what you want with as little original audio information loss as possible, then digital-digital connections are peerless as original aural information is lost with each DA-AD pass...and in each pass, new and different audio information is gained. For those seeking that tone in a studio or in an arena, 95% of the money and effort is spent attainting that final 5% of sound quality. This is the realm where everything matters a lot and it's not imaginary if you can clearly hear it. So does it matter? It all depends on who you are, where you're at and what you're trying to do. A one-size-fits-all definitive answer is impossible to this question.

Not having variable SR outputs on the Axe matters a lot to a few (and you can't tell them it doesn't matter) and it doesn't matter at all to most Axe owners. The title of this thread is not "Fixed 48k Sample Rate Ruins the Axe FX" it's simply "Fixed 48k Sample Rate Impedes Recording Studio Integrations." And that's it. Fixed 48k sample rate impedes recording studio integrations (to some, not all). Now the question is...is it worth it to FAS to address this fact?
Just to clarify, my question didn’t have a “no” attached to it. I’m actually asking the question because I don’t know.

So you’d say generally that “95%” of the sound quality would be there, XLR analog out vs digital? Regardless of what any one person could perceive, would that generally be something I could say?

Assuming I had good ears, I would be able to tell the difference between the 2? I’m curious because I’ve never heard a comparison. I don’t have any spdif recording gear with me to test myself.
 
•••OT•••

Hi Chris, no don't worry, I knew your question was a question.

I could talk for hours on this, but because it’s mostly OT IMHO, I will keep it as short as I can. I would generally say most people somehow involved with frequently intently “listening to sound” can tell the difference between:

A) AxeFx > Analog > AD > DAW
B) AxeFx > Digital > DAW

On the human side, the more you get “dialed-in" as a deep listener, the more you hear the difference. (BTW, your listening improvements will be exponential when you make the effort and time to focus.) One the gear side, for one, as an overall rule, the lower the quality of analog connections and AD converters, the more you'll hear the difference.

Of course it gets even more tricky when you begin putting numbers on subjective senses and variable ideas. If you ask, “So you’d say generally that “95%” of the sound quality would be there, XLR analog out vs digital?” (A vs B above I assume you are talking about, right?) I’d of course first listen to the AD converters of your DAW interface which can vary wildly.

"Sound quality" is the sum of many qualities of course so I’d also be asking about which qualities of the sound are important to the listener:
A) detail information/definition
B) accuracy/realism vs cool hyped
C) fullness/richness
D) noise floor
E) 3D/spacial
F) etc etc

It’s said that Stevie Ray used cheap-ass cables because it dulled the piercing Strat pickups. To him, deadening certain high frequencies is a better quality of sound. Similar, many Axe FX users who have no problem digitally integrating their Axe Fx at 48k will still never do that because they dislike one or all of the digital > digital sound characteristics or love what happens going to analog and back. Going to analog for a cycle or two typically smooths and rounds with good converters…and removes certain types of information in the audio signal and adds other informations like raising the noise floor which has benefits (to some) in mixing a song. Sorry to complicate, but we’re all so different…and so is the gear.

To somehow give an answer to “can you achieve 95% of the sound quality doing AxeFx > Analog > AD > DAW?” I would say to many…yes you can reach 95% and in many studios too.
 
Last edited:
However, this is all off-topic. The fixed 48k sample rate still impedes digital workflow integrations in the Axe Fx for many pro users who do not want any additional digital>analog>digital round trips for whatever reason, be it sound-related or workflow-related. Ultimately, we know that the fixed 48k sample rate is a showstopper for many who want to digitally integrate their Axe Fx's.

The questions I hope FAS can get some solid data on are:
A) how many owners are affected?
B) how many sales are lost?
C) how much sacrifice (of any type) must FAS (and even other Axe users potentially) endure to get variable sample rate happening?

The questions I hope that I can get some solid data on are:
Will the Axe III have at the very least, 44k and 96k...either at launch or added in the future!
 
Last edited:
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?

I don’t do much recording, and when I do, I set my projects to 48 kHz. I certainly don’t need 96 or 192 for any practical purpose. This causes some headache, but not that big of a deal because to me, the benefits of using all digital out weight any drawbacks of selecting a non-standard sample rate.

With this disclaimer, using Axe’s analog outputs into a cheap crappy sound card like some Focusrite which is popular at home studios doesn’t produce results much different from using digital, to my ears, if we’re talking about processed signal.

It all changes when we’re talking about DI though - the amount of noise added is very substantial and very noticeable when you plug your Axe into a cheap(ish) interface (or vice versa). You can easily get 10 dB or more noise added this way. That means your gate needs to be more aggressive, more transients screwed up, etc. there may also be more distortion this way, as cheap interfaces aren’t particularly transparent at higher levels.

Also, reamping via analog is simply much less convenient as you have to worry about level matching.

I do get that onboard real-time resampling in Axe-FX probably wouldn’t be perfect either. But it would certainly be less noisy.
 
Last edited:
The recording guitarist is often faced with working on projects that do not use a 48k sample rate. The project sample rate frequently has nothing to do with somebody stubbornly refusing to use a better sample rate. It's often due to compatibility constraints.

In this situation, if the guitarist is using a competing product like a Helix, they can select the desired sample rate and record via USB. The AxeFX owner must fall back to using analog and lose the convenience and advantages of recording via USB.
 
I mean recording raw unprocessed signal from your guitar for later reamping.
So the dry guitar is recorded separately then somehow you run it through the Axe later? Preferred digital into the Axe from the DAW rather than line level in analog?
 
So the dry guitar is recorded separately then somehow you run it through the Axe later?

Yes. When I record, I record both dry and wet. If wet works for the mix, fine. If not, it can be reamped later, it's easier than playing it all over again.

Preferred digital into the Axe from the DAW rather than line level in analog?

Digital works for this dry signal because you don't add noise or distortion sending it to your DAW and back, and because when you reamp you get exactly the same level as if you were playing it yourself. Noise could be a big deal with a crappy interface though. When you have some crazy Lynx Aurora type interfaces in pro studios it doesn't matter as they would be much quieter than Axe-FX, but with a Focusrite or some such cheap stuff it's a different story.
 
B) how many sales are lost?

IMHO I don't think a single sale will be lost due to a sampling rate. Yes other units can select 44.1 but they are not the quality of FAS. It was stated the box needed a minimum of 48 for IR's. Which to me means if it could do 44.1 something is getting it's quality reduced. This leaves the other direction. You could go the direction of 96 or 192 but then the question becomes 'who needs those rates' on a mass scale? I think what gets lost is this is a guitar pre-amp with a crap load of bonuses.
 
Respectfully grammar I don't see that happening. UAD is a powered plug-in foundation and most users are fairly deep in that money pit. I know cuz' I'm one of them...lol. As well FAS would then have to author a monitoring software that rivaled Console. I know that they could do it, and if they did they would do it well, but marketwise is that the direction they really want to go?

Don't get me wrong I would like having the versatility, if it could be done at current price point, BUT I just accepted it and started recording at 48 sample rate and no longer was it an issue. I feel I can hear a quality difference in 44.1 vs 48 and I can't hear it in 48 vs 96, or greater, so for me it became not a big deal.
 
Respectfully grammar I don't see that happening. UAD is a powered plug-in foundation and most users are fairly deep in that money pit.

I largely agree, but if I can add the Axe FX III as an insert and use an effect on the Axe FX III as essentially outboard gear (and thus using the DSP inside the Axe FX III), I think this will sway a lot of people.
 
I would certainly prefer that they continue working on perfecting guitar amps and the current grid concept rather than distract on emulating vintage preamps, compressors drawing stupid skeuomorphic interfaces and redoing the whole thing to use blocks as DAW inserts.

Just about the only thing we as guitar players could win from such endeavor would be better converters, possibly. Every other requirement is so different that it’s total sidetracking, IMO.
 
Some rules:

(1) Pro gear has a digital interface.
That's why the Axe has one.

(2) Pro gear doesn't dictate the sample rate.
It's my studio, and I'll pick the sample rate.

(3) Pro gear is always a slave.
There's only one master clock in the studio.
For example: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/10MX--antelope-audio-10mx

For me, the argument *is* somewhat theoretical. I want to send a digital signal sample-for-sample into my computer. Converting D/A/D is like translating English / Swahili / English. Just say No.
 
I could be wrong, but I think the 44.1Khz sampling rate is an unfortunate relic of early adherence to Nyquist's theorem that says a sampling frequency a little over double the sampled frequency will return an accurate reproduction of the original waveform. In audio, we really don't care about anything over 20Khz, so 44.1 is "a little over" double that.

Equally unfortunately, it's an oddball float number, so it adds processing time, while 48Khz, 96Khz, 192Khz, etc. are evenly divisible and easily derived in hardware. No processing time, which leaves processors free to do other fun stuff.

I seriously doubt anybody can hear the difference between 44.1 Khz and 48 Khz, but the electronics involved are dramatically different. Again, unfortunately, since the industry started off in a bad place and it settled in as dogma, we're stuck with this goofy sampling frequency and now there's a bajillion dollars of gear and habits out there that would have to be overcome and replaced to get to a sensible place. Not gonna happen. At least, not this week. But, if smart/determined guys like Cliff keep pushing for sensibility, perhaps one day the status quo will realign.

But, I'm not gonna hold my breath while waiting. It's just a theory of mine.
 
I literally spent months complaining about the 48kHz locked sample rate and spent even more time and a lot of money trying to remain in the digital realm. What I found was that the only time that digital was necessary for me was with recording the dry signal for reamping. It's too low for analog; even balanced analog was too close to the noise floor. Remaining in digital for dry and reamping is pristine. Recording wet signals with a half decent DAC (balanced) is going to sound great for nearly everyone.

Good quality outboard SRC's start at about a grand. I shopped around for a long time and tried several. I'm pretty sure that they aren't a single chip. That's what you have inside of most devices that allow multiple sample rates onboard. I've owned some of them, done testing and there is a difference in sound quality between sample rates with those devices. I am pretty convinced that it isn't because 96kHz inherently sounds better, but because the native sample rate of those devices is 96kHz and then it's down converted on the fly to a lower sample rate using a $1-5 chip. And this notion that you can't get good quality at lower sample rates like 48kHz is wrong. I've recorded at multiple sample rates using a high end DAC and there is no difference. The real cost is in the filters of the DAC. It is expensive to have quality components that have a sharp rolloff at the higher frequencies, but it is very cheap to just throw a faster clock in there and oversample it and then filter it. If you want good quality real time SRC it is costly. Even then software conversion is still better and a hell of a lot cheaper.

The other issue is that it may add latency to the signal path. So we'd have many of us who have hundreds to even thousands invested in IR's that would be rendered useless, lesser audio quality to integrate real time SRC cost effectively and potentially higher latency.

In the end it would be nice to have multiple sample rates, but at this point I've come up with a workflow to get around it and it isn't going to bother me. Bottom line is that knowing FAS I am pretty sure that if there was a viable path to multiple sample rates that it would have been done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom