I was referred here for guitar amp modeling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smilzo said:
Tone_Freak said:
Why is the Axe FX digital clock set to a fixed 48k?
Click to expand...

Search the forum, Cliff gave detailed explanations. Some user reported better perfomance going analog. "All in the digital domain" depends on hardware... clock... :cool:
Click to expand...

actually he just replied to me via email and said that "Modern software SRC is superior to hardware SRC so we simply let the user resample to the desired rate." So I assume that there will not be any noticeable quality issues when I use the internal sample rate converter of my eventide.... i have to because like another member just said, SPDIF is not reliable... and i do not want to rely on my less than acceptable sound card's conversion... (and i dont even know if it can do it real time but i prefer to take care of it before going in digitally otherwise i might get that blue screen on my computer which is horrid stuff).
 
Tone_Freak said:
Which is why the option to switch sample rates is industry standard if SPDIF comes with a unit. The only units that have a fixed 48k sample rate are home theater products for the broadcast audio standard of 48k (this was the old standard for A/V receivers and but I am behind now with that technology and am unaware if newer home A/V gear allows different rates for audio).

The internal processing of the Axe-FX is always 48K and it doesn't matter where the conversion takes place, it's going to have to be done anyway.
Click to expand...

Hmm... i wonder why he picked 48 with no option to change it like on an eventide. Oh well.
Click to expand...
I'm not an engineer, but I'm pretty sure any device has a fixed internal processing frequency and any choice you can make will be involving internal hardware sample rate conversion to the desired output sample rate. The Axe's internal 48K seems to suffice for it to produce the best guitar effects tone available. A great number of people including an impressive selection of the world's top guitarists think it's da bomb and the best thing since the monks first brewed ale... Go figure.


Does your recording interface offer direct monitoring? I'm simply monitoring my playing direct and having it converted later. After having lost quite a bit of time trying and failing to get spdif to work stable I gave up. Then again. I don't record much and it's just to rehearse and demo stuff so usually I record at 44.1 or just leave it at 48. No biggies there.


But if it drives you to inflict bodily harm unto thine self it appears to be a big thing to you. I wish you much wisdom.
 
Well, I will try and see what happens.

With regards to the noose and hanging myself comments, thats just a figure of speech, and i am not in a mentally fragile state at all... its just a way of saying something.

my eventide can switch its internal sample rate... but then some programs dont work because everything takes double the processing power... but if the axe is as good sounding as you say it is,.... then it would sound even better at 88, even better than that at 96, and ever still better in the higher sample rates... because it would be higher resolution - and higher resolution makes a difference in perceptible higher order harmonics.
 
Tone_Freak said:
but if the axe is as good sounding as you say it is,.... then it would sound even better at 88, even better than that at 96,
Click to expand...
No.

... because it would be higher resolution
Click to expand...
No. Higher bandwidth. Not higher resolution.

and higher resolution makes a difference in perceptible higher order harmonics.
Click to expand...
The resolution of the Axe-Fx is 24 bits. There are no audible benefits to be derived from higher resolution than that. Nor are there audible benefits to be found from increasing its 24 kHz bandwidth.
 
ok i'll try it this week and see. and if I find certain cabs i need as iumpulses.. but still, impulses just seems wierd to me and i do not see how matching cabs accurately is even possible through impulses when i try this... because certain cabs break up in certain ways at certain levels... how would the impulse know how to match all these elements in an Axe at a certain 'virtual level' as opposed to lets say - loading impulses into peavey revalver?
 
Tone_Freak said:
ok i'll try it this week and see. and if I find certain cabs i need as iumpulses.. but still, impulses just seems wierd to me and i do not see how matching cabs accurately is even possible through impulses when i try this... because certain cabs break up in certain ways at certain levels... how would the impulse know how to match all these elements in an Axe at a certain 'virtual level' as opposed to lets say - loading impulses into peavey revalver?
Click to expand...
:roll:

Just remember, Jimmy Page recorded Black Dog without an amp or a cab. It's about music, not bit rates or resolution.

http://www.woodytone.com/2010/07/02/black-f-ing-dog-jimmy-used-no-amp/
 
Tone_Freak said:
but still, impulses just seems wierd to me and i do not see how matching cabs accurately is even possible through impulses when i try this... because certain cabs break up in certain ways at certain levels... how would the impulse know how to match all these elements in an Axe at a certain 'virtual level' as opposed to lets say - loading impulses into peavey revalver?
Click to expand...

In short: they don't know. The impulse isn't made to capture the speaker under a load that breaks it up. That's sort of counter purpose.

For speaker breakup the AxeFx includes a parameter in the cab block that introduces speaker distortion to your chain.
 
Tone_Freak said:
i do not see how matching cabs accurately is even possible through impulses
Click to expand...
You inability to see how this is possible does not make it impossible.

because certain cabs break up in certain ways at certain levels...
Click to expand...
Not at levels that they will survive for more than a few seconds. I find it interesting that nobody who proclaims the importance of speaker "breakup" in guitar sounds has ever gone to the trouble to isolate and identify the contribution it actually makes. You might try that sometime. You'd be almost as shocked as you were to find that the Axe-Fx's sampling rate is fixed at 48kHz. :lol:
 
Give the guy a break, Jay, he doesn't know you. ;)

Believe us, Jay knows his stuff. Speakers don't really break up unless you either destroy them with knives or with amplifiers. Or chainsaws. Sledgehammers might do a good job.
 
Jay your witty comments always crack me up lol. I would suspect that tone_freak wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sample rates between 48 and 96 khz.
 
brettllingle said:
Jay your witty comments always crack me up lol. I would suspect that tone_freak wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sample rates between 48 and 96 khz.
Click to expand...

AcousticsWizard could tell. :twisted:
 
Jay Mitchell said:
[quote="Tone_Freak":2siuoaib] I find it interesting that nobody who proclaims the importance of speaker "breakup" in guitar sounds has ever gone to the trouble to isolate and identify the contribution it actually makes.
Click to expand...
[/quote:2siuoaib]

For the type of sound i am talking about, trust me, you wouldn't understand, and you have no idea of the type of harmonic break up i refer to. Its funny how clueless you are regarding the various types of speaker breakup.

So thats breakup for you. And btw... that type of breakup has nothing to do with harmonic distortion or even the type of break up that you are used to. It is a type of breakup only possible with speakers that have 100+ watt output or more like EVs or the 100watt marshall - and huge magnets.

Keep trying. :lol:
 
Scott Peterson said:
brettllingle said:
Jay your witty comments always crack me up lol. I would suspect that tone_freak wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sample rates between 48 and 96 khz.
Click to expand...

AcousticsWizard could tell. :twisted:
Click to expand...

Looks like the Fundy is back at it.

Actually the overtones possible and subtly audible at 96 vs 48 is another thing you just would not understand. These are called higher order harmonics. Thats why pro tools HD studios use sample rates as high as 192. Ever heard of them? Look them up sometime. These are facts the top producers in major studios have mastered, and facts that home studio enthusiasts simply fail to grasp.

Acoustic guitars nor their wizards are not the subject here, despite a few indications of such things I have started noticing.

Please keep this topic to within a non-random and a non-weird focus.
 
brettllingle said:
Jay your witty comments always crack me up lol. I would suspect that tone_freak wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sample rates between 48 and 96 khz.
Click to expand...


Actually the overtones possible and subtly audible at 96 vs 48 is another thing you just would not understand. These are called higher order harmonics. Thats why pro tools HD studios use sample rates as high as 192. Ever heard of them? Look them up sometime. These are facts the top producers in major studios have mastered, and facts that home studio enthusiasts such as yourself simply fail to grasp.

Which also makes it bizarre why the old TV broadcast standard of 48 was chosen for the Axe - FX - regardless of how good the amp sims in it are... even if it is the best unit for this purpose ever - the fact remains that the 48 sample rate preference is strange and limited either way.
 
Tone_Freak said:
[quote="Jay Mitchell":2d93lilj][quote="Tone_Freak":2d93lilj] I find it interesting that nobody who proclaims the importance of speaker "breakup" in guitar sounds has ever gone to the trouble to isolate and identify the contribution it actually makes.
Click to expand...
[/quote:2d93lilj]

For the type of sound i am talking about, trust me, you wouldn't understand, and you have no idea of the type of harmonic break up i refer to. Its funny how clueless you are regarding the various types of speaker breakup.

So thats breakup for you. And btw... that type of breakup has nothing to do with harmonic distortion or even the type of break up that you are used to. It is a type of breakup only possible with speakers that have 100+ watt output or more like EVs or the 100watt marshall - and huge magnets.

Keep trying. :lol:[/quote:2d93lilj]


I think he more than understands. He designs speakers for a living and has published notable material on the matter. May I ask what your credentials are or what references you have to support this. I am open to differering ideas if they are supported by solid data.
 
Tone_Freak said:
[quote="Jay Mitchell":2wa9ld01][quote="Tone_Freak":2wa9ld01] I find it interesting that nobody who proclaims the importance of speaker "breakup" in guitar sounds has ever gone to the trouble to isolate and identify the contribution it actually makes.
Click to expand...
[/quote:2wa9ld01]

For the type of sound i am talking about, trust me, you wouldn't understand, and you have no idea of the type of harmonic break up i refer to. Its funny how clueless you are regarding the various types of speaker breakup.

So thats breakup for you. And btw... that type of breakup has nothing to do with harmonic distortion or even the type of break up that you are used to. It is a type of breakup only possible with speakers that have 100+ watt output or more like EVs or the 100watt marshall - and huge magnets.

Keep trying. :lol:[/quote:2wa9ld01]

You still didn't rise to his challenge of isolating the actual CONTRIBUTION that speaker breakup makes to the audible tone, if any.

Oh, and congratulations. You just challenged Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Shaq rolled into one person to a 1 on 1 on the court. Have fun!
 
javajunkie said:
May I ask what your credentials are or what references you have to support this. I am open to differering ideas if they are supported by solid data.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and not just a self-righteous, degrading "You wouldn't understand this kind of thing." Try us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom