• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

What is the base sampling rate?

prog_head

Member
I have become a hi-res junky, and my desire would be a minimum of 96kHz, but 192kHz would be even better. Did we make this leap with the III?
 

prog_head

Member
That is too bad if true. I rarely listen to < 88k anymore. I prefer real amps ever since I got used to hearing the clarity of higher resolutions. 192 and then 384 just sound amazing, not to mention DSD64 and up. That would be the final nail in the coffin if you mixed Cliff's algorithms with the clarity of higher resolutions. Until this happens (Boss just released one)... I think I will use my Ax8 live, probably sell my Axe-II and MFC, and continue recording my real amps.
 

Brian Dixon

Inspired
i really think the whole sampling rate thing is hype but I am surprised with even the cheapest of audio interfaces doing 192k that they did not upgrade this. Have they announced the price point for the iii. Honestly all I would care about is seamless switching and amp and effects being even more authentic. All the other stuff is kind of marketing hype in my opinion. No one needs 2000 cabs.
 

vangrieg

Power User
Whether it’s a thing or not, this fixed sample rate is an annoyance, for inconvenience reasons if not sound.

Some keyboards, for example, support only 44.1. Not to mention that projects are rarely done in 48 by anyone.
 

yek

Moderator
Moderator
It's not about using every cab.
It's about having access to a large library of cabs, to be able to select the one that matches with the amp model.
With the Axe-Fx III you'll get a fine selection from all Cab Packs, and more.
 

vangrieg

Power User
By the way, I’m not sure it’s not a thing.

I seriously doubt anyone can actually hear the difference between a 48 and a 192k file, but it may be a different story in a DAW project as it would oversample everything. Unless some specific plugins would downsample (like Helix Native does).

Just speculating here.
 

vangrieg

Power User
Given the option, how many of you would sacrifice half the units processing power in order to run 96k rather than 48k (it takes twice the power to process a 96k signal) ?

I sure wouldn't

I would expect there’s a lot of oversampling going on internally in the Axe FX.
 

prog_head

Member
I will say, the only people that say there is no difference are people that have not spent a little bit of time listening to it. Forget the B.S. arguments. Just listen. I have > 600 albums in hi-res. Can I still listen to others? sure. Of course I could still have my old Stella guitar instead of a Martin too... same thing, right? they both have wood and six-strings. 192kHz is like the difference of a cassette tape at 1-7/8 ips or a reel-to-reel at 15 ips. There absolutely was a difference then and there is one now. I have yet to not prove it even to the most skeptical if using decent equipment. The biggest proof was when I first recorded a drumset at 176k. I could not believe how awesome it sounded. It was astounding. Every nuance was clear and present.

Every little detail matters when you are wanting to do the best job, IMHO. Why spend money and then only get 80-85%?
 
Last edited:

prog_head

Member
In a way, this makes me happy. I'll save $2499! That is a killer new amp and I will be happy with my Ax-8 for playing live. Or even better, a new high-end acoustic(okay, half of one). That is really all I wanted to know. Thanks for the information.
 
Top Bottom