Re-amping Analog 96kHz

michaiel

Member
I was trying to answer another post about using Cab-Lab 3 Standalone in Pro Tools when I realized I wasn't re-amping at a true 96kHz and wanted to post a possible solution...
Since there won't be an AAX version for the plugin version AND we are fixed at 48kHz, I wanted to try re-amping "analog" with Cab-Lab 3 Standalone...IF this will even work...

Cab-Lab 3 Standalone Version
Enable Live Mode (Controlled and streaming audio via USB at I am assuming 48kHz)
Audio Setting > Select Axe Fx II+

CONNECTIONS:

1) Guitar > Axe Fx "INPUT 1"

2) Audio Interface Analog Output 3 (DAW) > Axe Fx "INPUT 2"

3) Axe Fx > I/O > "Main Input Source" = ANALOG (In 1)

4) Axe Fx OUTPUT 1 L/R > Audio Interface Analog Input 1 and 2 (DAW)

5) Axe Fx > I/O > Audio > Input 1 Left Select > Front

6) Axe Edit
a) Create a patch with a shunt with NO BLOCKS (blank) that go from the INPUT to OUTPUT
b) Create a separate signal path Fx Return (bypassed) > Amp > Cab.

7) Axe Edit, Pan the DI signal left 100% and the AMP signal right 100%

8) Pro Tools > "LOW LATENCY MONITORING" selected

9) Pro Tools > “AUTO MONITORING” selected

STEPS:

1) Set up 2 audio tracks in Pro Tools and label them DI and AMP.

DI Track

IN = Audio Interface Analog Input 1 (DAW)

OUT = Audio Interface Analog Output 3 (DAW)

AMP Track

IN = Audio Interface Analog Input 2 (DAW)

OUT = CH 1-2 (Your monitors)

2) Select "R" Record and "I" Input Enable DI track

3) Select "I" Input Monitor AMP track

4) Record DI track

5) Re-amp In Real Time

b) Axe Fx > I/O > Audio > Input 1 Left Select > Rear

b) Un mute DI track

c) Select "R" Record Enable and "I" Input Monitor AMP track and play back the region recorded

6) In Axe Edit, dial in your "amp"

8) In Cab-Lab, dial in your "cabinet"

9) Record your AMP track

NOTES

* Your DI track volume will be very low. This is normal and will raise when you feed it back into your AMP track.

Now that I have theoretically thought this out (I will be tracking again this weekend) I wanted everyone's input on this and offer a better solution to this if possible...
I will then report in next weekend and update this thread on the level of success....

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Why bother - All processing in AxeFX is 48kHz. If you really need the resulting file to be 96 kHz, you will most likely get a better result recording the 48 kHz file and upsample it rather than do an D/A conversion to the analog realm and then an A/D conversion. The latter process is likely to contribute with noise and signal distortion, and you will gain absolutely nothing. You are just recording a D/A converters representation of a 48 kHz signal.
 
I track the entire band at 96kHz because I can run at 32 samples for tracking...The 96kHz allows you to almost cut your latency in half and time delay effects such as reverb and delay are more detailed and translate better to final mixes.
It is a waste of studio time and hard drive space to save the session as a new file upsampled when we have the resources to do it at 96kHz...
 
But you are re-amping already. But you say it is not true 96k (not sure, what that means). You have planned a very elaborate scheme for re-amping. It does not look like a time saver to me, and you are not gaining anything.

I don't know protools, but in reaper, it would be the easiest thing in the world to change the sample rate to 48 k while re-amping. All the 96k files will playback perfectly fine. When re-amping is done, switch back to 96k. You can then either choose to upsample the 48k file once and for all or leave at 48k.

BTW: Did you ever try something like the tests here https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1ch ? I did yesterday, and my Focusrite 18i8 gen2 displays some pretty hefty intermodulation distortion at 96k and 192k, so I am probably never going there again.
 
But you are re-amping already. But you say it is not true 96k (not sure, what that means). You have planned a very elaborate scheme for re-amping. It does not look like a time saver to me, and you are not gaining anything.

This started to help out another member who also wanted an AAX version of Cab-Lab which Cliff has stated will not happen.

Now that I have theoretically thought this out (I will be tracking again this weekend) I wanted everyone's input on this and offer a better solution to this if possible...
I will then report in next weekend and update this thread on the level of success....

I appreciate you playing devils advocate, some methods are uneccessary, but my original question is I am looking for members who want to contribute to experimenting with the possibility of an alternative for re-amping while running higher sample rate recordings not questioning why it should be done at all. Maybe I should have been more specific and stated that first...sorry for the confusion....
 
I guess it depends on your DAW. Like Smittefar, I use Reaper. Reamping at 48K digital gives a superior result to analog, especially with high gain amp models. If your DAW can't do it, I guess your stuck with analog.
 
Reamping at 48K digital gives a superior result to analog, especially with high gain amp models.

If that were true then most producers would be running at 48kHz without any analog front or backend gear.
I personally don't know of any commercial studio(s) running without racks of analog gear...
48kHz is primarily for the film industry and that is going to 96kHz.

If your DAW can't do it, I guess your stuck with analog.

Every DAW out there can run at 48hHz...it is unnecessary for audio recording. You might as well run 44.1kHz.

44.1kHz is a dead man walking. It makes no sense to capture recording at that sample rate with today's technology...

We have our digital gear running thru RME converters...ie, Axe Fx at 48kHz fixed, converted to 96kHz for tracking, re-amping, etc...

Again I was merely trying to offer another member running Pro Tools an alternative for 96kHz.
Not everyone here has access to AES / S/PDIF conversion...

Again sorry for not clarifying my reasoning for why I am doing this...
 
I record everything at 96k. It just sounds way better. I don't care what anybody says. I have super high-end converters. Maybe that's the difference. I don't know any studios or producers who DON'T record at 96. I record Axe-Fx II analog into the converter and DAW at 96k. I haven't had a problem. I doesn't make any sense to record the guitar at 48 and upsample later, as all instruments are at 96. That'd mean I have to convert everything to 48 and back again. Even if I recorded a basic 2 track for recording guitar I'd end up with a hell of a lot of guitar tracks to upsample for no purpose.
 
If that were true then most producers would be running at 48kHz without any analog front or backend gear.
I personally don't know of any commercial studio(s) running without racks of analog gear...
48kHz is primarily for the film industry and that is going to 96kHz.



Every DAW out there can run at 48hHz...it is unnecessary for audio recording. You might as well run 44.1kHz.

44.1kHz is a dead man walking. It makes no sense to capture recording at that sample rate with today's technology...

We have our digital gear running thru RME converters...ie, Axe Fx at 48kHz fixed, converted to 96kHz for tracking, re-amping, etc...

Again I was merely trying to offer another member running Pro Tools an alternative for 96kHz.
Not everyone here has access to AES / S/PDIF conversion...

Again sorry for not clarifying my reasoning for why I am doing this...

I believe I also need to clarify. What I am saying is that digital reamping, even at 48K, will give a quieter signal than analog at any sample rate. Perhaps if you have the finest audio interface in existence... Still, high gain amp models turn even the best SNR into a wash of noise. I've tried analog reamping with good interfaces, and found it to be a light year behind digital when using high gain.

And I was referring to a DAW that allows you to mix sample rates, so you can record everything at 96k, change to 48K for reamp, then play back at 96K. The SRC conversion is done on the fly in software, and the original files are untouched. True, the Axe will be upconverted at the end, but IMO, it is still far better than analog.

Since you have good sample rate converters for the Axe, you're covered. And I understand your intentions. I hope it helps someone. But, for me, analog reamping is an absolute last resort. As a secondary point, Ciff once stated that software SRCs were far superior to hardware. I wonder if this is still the case.
 
I record everything at 96k. It just sounds way better. I don't care what anybody says. I have super high-end converters. Maybe that's the difference. I don't know any studios or producers who DON'T record at 96. I record Axe-Fx II analog into the converter and DAW at 96k. I haven't had a problem. I doesn't make any sense to record the guitar at 48 and upsample later, as all instruments are at 96. That'd mean I have to convert everything to 48 and back again. Even if I recorded a basic 2 track for recording guitar I'd end up with a hell of a lot of guitar tracks to upsample for no purpose.

I agree...ran into the same conclusion...
 
I record everything at 96k. It just sounds way better. I don't care what anybody says. I have super high-end converters. Maybe that's the difference. I don't know any studios or producers who DON'T record at 96.

Quality converters AND monitors...you can't fix it IF you can't hear it....
 
Certainly no harm in going with 96 kHz. More data to work with is pretty much never a bad thing as long as you've got the processing power and storage to handle it. That said, recording the Axe II's analog outputs at higher than 48 kHz will not really provide any additional source audio information. The Axe's output converters are not adding any new data to the source signal, so the analog wave will only contain so much information. You still end up with a 96 kHz representation of a 48 kHz source at that point. Not really any different than just resampling in the digital realm. You do end up with more samples to work with, but whether or not there is an audible difference at that point is doubtful unless the analog interfaces or converters involved are somehow coloring the signal.

It's sort of like watching a standard definition DVD on a 4K TV. There's only so much source image data to work with, no matter how much pixel interpolation and processing goes on.
 
I record everything at 96k. It just sounds way better.
If 96 KHz sounds way better, then something went wrong when you recorded at 48 KHz. The faster sampling rate only captures ultrasonic signals (and may introduce some subtle filter artifacts that are so high up in the audio spectrum that most people past puberty have lost the ability to hear them :)).
 
I'm a little lost on everything you mentioned but this is what I would do but you may not have all the same equipment. I do not have an axe but an ax8 instead. I would use my eleven rack to record dry why simultaneously recording a wet signal through the ax8. Ax8 out through xlr or 1/4 inch into line in or mic in on eleven. Then I would do a reamp just like a normal reamp but instead of using a mic it would be the xlr from the ax8 or 1/4 inch but leave cab and effects off. Then in pro tools get the blue cats patchwork vst wrapper to run cab lab or ditch cab lab for an aax ir loader. Cab lab has little to offer over other alternatives in my opinion. Mixir by redwirez is a great alternative.

With all that said I do think recording at 96k has no audible benefit and I think it is all hype to get us audiophiles to spend money. All new interfaces are at 192k now anyway which is totally unnecessary but if it gets new interfaces sold these companies can pay their CEOs. It also seems to me as pro level as the axe fx is it would have a 96k option if they felt like something was missing by recording lower. If a cheap audiobox can do 96k then it shouldn't be a cost factor for the axe to do it also but again they must feel it doesn't harm the audio quality.
 
If a cheap audiobox can do 96k then it shouldn't be a cost factor for the axe to do it also but again they must feel it doesn't harm the audio quality.
It really doesn't hurt the sound. With a good anti-aliasing filter (which Fractal uses), you get full fidelity out to 20 KHz.

There's another reason not to sample any more than you need to. 96 KHz produces twice as much data as 48 KHz. That means it takes twice as much processor to process it. And that means that your available horsepower is cut in half. There are things I'd rather spend CPU on than data that doesn't contribute to the sound. ;)
 
Rex brings up a great point about the filtering. The higher the sample rate the cheaper the filtering can be. It's really hard to evaluate a device spec' d for 96 or 192kHz at lower sample rate because the filters are typically optimized for the highest capbility....i.e., not as accurate or steep a cutoff. It's cheaper to increase the clock than it is to use better filters. Similar results in the end, but two different approaches. In my experience going with digital at 48kHz for the dry signal while reamping provides the best result. Even with high quality analog converters it is being converted several more times than necessary and the low levels of the dry signal do not provide a lot of SNR even with good quality balanced cables. The real easy way to judge this is to record both a wet and dry track at the same time, reamp it and then compare the two wet tracks. Do this in both analog and digital and I guarantee that the two tracks in digital will be indistinguishable. To me that equates to better.

Of course this is just my perspective, how your workflow is doesn't matter to me and how you get the job done is your business. I spent a lot of time trying to get beyond the 48kHz restriction and finally gave in because it was better.
 
If 96 KHz sounds way better, then something went wrong when you recorded at 48 KHz. The faster sampling rate only captures ultrasonic signals (and may introduce some subtle filter artifacts that are so high up in the audio spectrum that most people past puberty have lost the ability to hear them :)).

Again...this thread is about giving Pro Tools users an alternative to Cab-Lab as a stand alone (if it will work) for not only editing the cab in real time, but also allowing the user to record at 96kHz.
We are talking about patching 3 cords and setting up 2 channels...everyday duties at the studio...not difficult to do and once setup is stupid easy to duplicate...

Somehow this thread has been hijacked about cork sniffing the difference between the sample rate delusion...

96kHz gives you the ability to track at lower buffer settings (depending on the processing power of your computer)...64 as a minimum and optimally at 32
The other difference is the way time based effects are reproduced when mixing...major difference.

The only people dismissing 96Khz are the ones who are not spending the money on better a/d/a converters.
Most audio interfaces use consumer grade converters and limit what you end up hearing...this is the bottle neck...
Commercial studios that can afford this along with high end clocks for their clocks (yes beat the jitter down) are producing exceptional quality recordings.
Been there, heard the difference repeatedly...

"I spelled out instructions on how to do this to help other Pro Tools members...I will apply it in practice this weekend...I merely was asking if anyone sees why this will or will not work..."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom