Quality of the Axe FX III converters?

Jono Bacon

Jono Bacon

Inspired
Hi All,

There has been quite a bit of discussion here about the input/outputs of the Axe FX III and integrating it into a studio.

I currently have a Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 (Firewire) and I have been recording my guitars/bass using analog. So far I have been pretty satisfied with the results.

When I get my Axe FX III, I plan on using it as my main audio interface.

To be honest, my knowledge of converters and mic preamps is pretty limited. So, a few questions:

* Is it likely the Axe FX III converters will be better than the ones in my Saffire Pro 40? As in, will I notice a higher audio quality?
* Obviously the Axe FX III is designed for guitars/bass, but is it sensible to use it for a vocal mic?

Thanks,
 
Jono Bacon said:
Hi All,

There has been quite a bit of discussion here about the input/outputs of the Axe FX III and integrating it into a studio.

I currently have a Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 (Firewire) and I have been recording my guitars/bass using analog. So far I have been pretty satisfied with the results.

When I get my Axe FX III, I plan on using it as my main audio interface.

To be honest, my knowledge of converters and mic preamps is pretty limited. So, a few questions:

* Is it likely the Axe FX III converters will be better than the ones in my Saffire Pro 40? As in, will I notice a higher audio quality?
* Obviously the Axe FX III is designed for guitars/bass, but is it sensible to use it for a vocal mic?

Thanks,
Click to expand...
From my understanding per other threads there is no mic preamp.
 
unix-guy said:
From my understanding per other threads there is no mic preamp.
Click to expand...

No mic preamp, that’s right.

Jono Bacon said:
Is it likely the Axe FX III converters will be better than the ones in my Saffire Pro 40? As in, will I notice a higher audio quality?
Click to expand...

I say if you think your Saffire has good converters, Axe FX II is already better for sure. And III is announced to be an improvement over II, so it’s a relatively safe bet to say the answer to your first question here is yes.

Will you notice it? Maybe not. How do you judge converter quality?
 
The saffire can record at 96k
The saffire is designed as a stand alone audio recording interface

The Axe Fx has the best converters of anything in the guitar market- but it's a guitar processor- it can record via usb- but it really shouldn't be the only recording option in someones studio.

I spent $3000 on an audio interface before I ever spent $3000 on a guitar

USB/Audio Interface is a nice feature and usable for some- but it's not the end all be all for most of its users.
 
vangrieg said:
How do you judge converter quality?
Click to expand...

I used an M-Box 2 for years
I got a UA Apollo Quad- and ran through old sessions with it-

It made my M-Box sessions sound like they were recorded on a million dollar console- those converters brought music to life

Don't diss the M-Box 2- I got 3 songs on the radio - with decent airplay with bands that I recorded all the vocals and almost all the guitars with an M-Box in my home studio.

For a guitar processor the Axe Fx gives you an incredible value and the best converters in the world for what it is....

BUT there are Axe Fx users that plug theirs into $8000 converters before hitting record-
 
Jeries said:
BUT there are Axe Fx users that plug theirs into $8000 converters before hitting record-
Click to expand...
it's quite interesting, because they will do AD-DA (in Axe-FX) + plus AD (in 8k converter)

Obviously the Axe FX III is designed for guitars/bass, but is it sensible to use it for a vocal mic?
Click to expand...
I did this with Axe-FX II and external preamp which can be very cheap.

I'm still curios how Axe-FX III can be used as a studio audio interface because of number of channels for live recording is enough for me. I hope that FAS will explain it better soon.
 
Plugging Axe-FX into an $8K converter could make sense if the converter you have costs $8K, you already have it, and your project uses a sample rate other than 48k. :)
 
The Saffire 40 is a very nice interface and a super value in both performance and features. I always felt like my Axe was a bit cleaner than the Saffire 40 I had but also think my Apollo Quad is even better. There is also the possibility that it's in my head. I think once you reach a certain level of quality it is very hard to actually hear the difference.

There are those that would smack me but honestly I don't think it is as important as we try and make it. I have heard crap recorded at 96K on pricey systems and I have heard awesome songs recorded on a 2 channel cheap interface at 44.1. Content is powerful.
 
I have previously owned the Saffire Pro 40
Obviously I can only compare it to the Axe Fx II XL I own for now.

Jono Bacon said:
* Is it likely the Axe FX III converters will be better than the ones in my Saffire Pro 40? As in, will I notice a higher audio quality?
Click to expand...

Apart from nerding special listning tests I don't think so with regards to guitar tracking.*


Jono Bacon said:
* Obviously the Axe FX III is designed for guitars/bass, but is it sensible to use it for a vocal mic?
Click to expand...

I've used an external mic pre-amp with the Axe II XL with great results and I'm planing to that again with the III or keep using my RME sound card. But that will depend on what the Axe III actually can perform with regards to latency etc. when I get it.

* Using a good mic pre-amp with better converters will yield a better result as pr. my experience with my RME card.
 
vangrieg said:
Not according to its specs.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you on white paper. However in actually using it, comparing results (that I could hear...lol), considering it's channel capacity, full MIDI capability as well as price (recently $249.00 new) and very useable monitoring software (once you get the hang of it) I think it's a very hard interface to beat for the money.
 
I’m actually a little surprised how Fractal was fairly detailed in describing the targeted use of particular components wrt the converters in the new unit. A lot of companies will not walk down that path. Respect...
 
Jono Bacon said:
Hi All,

There has been quite a bit of discussion here about the input/outputs of the Axe FX III and integrating it into a studio.

I currently have a Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 (Firewire) and I have been recording my guitars/bass using analog. So far I have been pretty satisfied with the results.

When I get my Axe FX III, I plan on using it as my main audio interface.

To be honest, my knowledge of converters and mic preamps is pretty limited. So, a few questions:

* Is it likely the Axe FX III converters will be better than the ones in my Saffire Pro 40? As in, will I notice a higher audio quality?
* Obviously the Axe FX III is designed for guitars/bass, but is it sensible to use it for a vocal mic?

Thanks,
Click to expand...

Most people will not notice if there is a difference in audio converter quality. At this stage it's hard to say, but I will say that I personally most likely wont hear a difference.

There is no mic pre in the Axe III as of yet. I would imagine that this would be a way to go for an upgraded unit to become the go-to unit for small project studios audio recording needs, but that is pure speculation on my part.
 
mwd said:
I 100% agree with you on white paper. However in actually using it, comparing results (that I could hear...lol), considering it's channel capacity, full MIDI capability as well as price (recently $249.00 new) and very useable monitoring software (once you get the hang of it) I think it's a very hard interface to beat for the money.
Click to expand...

Since the thread is about converter quality, I was talking about that. I myself use a card that’s somewhat better than the Saffire, maybe closer to Axe territory, but nothing stellar. I use it as a glorified mixer, and I’m pretty happy with it as such. I wouldn’t use its instrument inputs for recording though.

yeky83 said:
Well, we don't really have full specs for Axe-Fx II, so we don't know, do we? Have you done tests?
Click to expand...

Some things we know. The Saffire is noisier. It also has quite a lot of distortion, and its instrument input doesn’t have enough headroom to use with hot humbuckers, it’ll clip. We don’t have distortion specs for the Axe, although the data sheets for the converters are available, and we know it cannot be better overall than the chips. I looked those up a couple years ago, and, IIRC, they are, well, nothing to write home about, and in line with the rest of the specs that we know. Some manufacturers use good chips but still screw up with the analog input circuitry so overall specs are much worse. This isn’t the case with Axe, they seemed to have used the chip quite efficiently. UAD converters are in a whole different league. In general, I would say that noise is a good indicator of overall quality, I don’t think there’s such a thing as a noisy interface that’s excellent in everything else.

DJPT said:
Most people will not notice if there is a difference in audio converter quality. At this stage it's hard to say, but I will say that I personally most likely wont hear a difference.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends. If you plug your guitar into an instrument input and use a preset with 50 dB of gain, the difference between a UAD and a Saffire will translate to some -55 and -68 dB of noise. That’s a lot. You change your gate threshold and say how it affects your sound.
 
merlin17 said:
Has anybody of you really done a blind converter test? I bet you will barely hear a difference between the Saffire, Axe and UAD (if at all)...
Click to expand...

You hear the noise, it’s loud and clear in guitar amp presets. The difference in volume is also obvious.

Also, I did participate in a blind test with a top of the line Apogee card and a Zoom TAC-2 (which is WAY better than the Saffire, by the way, as far as inputs are concerned). The Apogee was very noticeably better on clean sounds, and EVERYBODY noticed the difference, although it required decent speakers, and some people preferred the Zoom. In general, noise is always bad, the less you have the better. Distortion can be a matter of preference. But that was about recording a dry track through instrument input and then reamping via digital. If we’re talking about using line inputs for hot fully processed signal - well, in this case, unless an interface has some obvious glaring problems, I don’t notice much difference or care that much.

Noise isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s just pure evil. There are two arguments people use when saying it doesn’t matter. One, guitars are noisy. Not necessarily. In fact, in a properly shielded guitar, with a humbuckers with symmetrically winded coils, with a good cable, in a room without RF interference, you can get -113 dB. So you need an interface that’s much better than that to have no adverse effect. Two, amps are noisy. Well, they may be, but why even use them as a benchmark if we can do better? Also, they aren’t as noisy as many think, in ways that actually matter. Much of that noise is coming from power amps, after distortion. So it’s not all that noticeable and ugly. Noise before distortion, on the other hand, gets amplified immensely and compressed. And tube amps don’t have much of that. A converter, on the other hand, adds noise in the very beginning of the chain, where it hurts most.
 
Last edited:
200man said:
I’m actually a little surprised how Fractal was fairly detailed in describing the targeted use of particular components wrt the converters in the new unit. A lot of companies will not walk down that path. Respect...
Click to expand...

Actual specs would be better though. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom