What The Hell?

Status
Not open for further replies.
shawnguess said:
and you will find that those arguments are with regard to recorded audio, not internal processing of vst effects and, more importantly, vst instruments -- where it is pretty well understood that there is a significant sonic benefit when the plugins in question are coded to take advantage of the higher rate.
Click to expand...

Is that significant Sonic effect still audible after the mastering is done in 44.1K?
 
shawnguess said:
my work is irrelevant to the topic, and im not at liberty to be posting files of my clients work. but if you need "credibility" or whatever: google jesse colin young, ive recorded and mastered some of his stuff. google adam cross, i recorded, produced, and mixed his debut album. google mike frost, i recorded, mixed, and mastered his last album.

THEDIGITALGOD - Recording Studio - Shawn Guess
Click to expand...

Google 'hubris' more like.

FWIW I also wish the Axe supported sample rates other than 48k (and the decision to lock its sampling rate mystifies me) but I was well aware of this before I bought it having done a modicum of research.

Most plug-ins worth their salt nowadays process with oversampling anyway, pretty much eliminating aliasing issues, so I am unconvinced of the necessity to run everything at 96k. My current projects run at 44k. I'll finish what I'm doing using the (great) analog outs on the Axe and then switch to 48k when I'm done. No biggie.
 
shawnguess said:
ah, theres that helpful courteousness i spoke about earlier.
Click to expand...

Already addressed and answered. And I was just using your very own words here to prove the point. Thank you for finally getting it! Kudos and goodnight to you sir!
 
wezx said:
Don't take offense, I meant in relation to high end interfaces. Shouldn't have worded it so disparagingly :)
Click to expand...
Offense? Why on Earth would I take offense? But the Sound Blaster was compared to the Apogee AD8000, which is high end enough at 48kHz. My only point was that people who don't have high end converters and interfaces shouldn't think they're missing out on some great tonal magic of their Axe-Fx when going analog. They probably would never notice the difference between a $25 and a $2500 interface anyway.

My Axe-Fx II doesn't sound or feel one bit different to me whether I'm going analog or digital, M-Audio Delta or Apogee. (All with Genelec monitoring.) The sound the Axe-Fx produces is what matters - all the rest with converters this and interfaces that is just minute differences that would have been impossible to even measure under the conditions most legendary rock sounds were put to analog tape. IMHO.

I'm open to being proven wrong on this. It would be extremely interesting to double-blind some truly great audio engineers in the 1968 control room at Record Plant Studios and A/B some Hendrix sounds played through the Axe-Fx, flipping between consumer / prosumer / high end converters and see if they can reliably spot which is which. I would bet some amount they wouldn't.
 
muleskinner said:
Google 'hubris' more like.

FWIW I also wish the Axe supported sample rates other than 48k (and the decision to lock its sampling rate mystifies me) but I was well aware of this before I bought it having done a modicum of research.

Most plug-ins worth their salt nowadays process with oversampling anyway, pretty much eliminating aliasing issues, so I am unconvinced of the necessity to run everything at 96k. My current projects run at 44k. I'll finish what I'm doing using the (great) analog outs on the Axe and then switch to 48k when I'm done. No biggie.
Click to expand...
and you could google "dick" if you like, that seems applicable in your case.

glad you like 44.1, stick with that if it works for you. i prefer 96.
 
"and you will find that those arguments are with regard to recorded audio"

Yes, I was speaking directly to recorded audio...I will put this out there. I was involved with a consortium a few years ago with some very respectable individuals...people with Gold records and Grammys. They used Benchmark, Apogee, Lavry, etc. as well as some lower end prosumer interfaces. Clips were cut at 48k and 96k through each interface and monitored back at the recorded frequency in a blind listen through the same Genelec monitoring system. This of course, negates any SRC effect. In the higher end processors, it was unbelieveably hard for anyone to definitively distingush between 48K and 96K, astonishly so. And as mentioned that was BEFORE any SRC down. In the lower end processors it was much easier to tell the difference (mainly in the high end) which is why I firmly believe that lower end processors cut corners on their slope at the upper end and thus they sound muddier with less defined highs at lower sample rates. I believe this is what Cliff was referring to about 64k being optimal. After this none of us were convinced that the lower plugin counts and other restrictions when running 96k were worth it...especially when using high end converters. Not to mention no one is listening to anything in the real world at 96k...CD's and even worse, mp3's! (shudder!)

People can and do go round and round with it...if you like 48k, use that...if you like 96k, use that. It's all good...can't we all just get along? ;-)
 
Beefcake said:
Offense? Why on Earth would I take offense? But the Sound Blaster was compared to the Apogee AD8000, which is high end enough at 48kHz. My only point was that people who don't have high end converters and interfaces shouldn't think they're missing out on some great tonal magic of their Axe-Fx when going analog. They probably would never notice the difference between a $25 and a $2500 interface anyway.

My Axe-Fx II doesn't sound or feel one bit different to me whether I'm going analog or digital, M-Audio Delta or Apogee. (All with Genelec monitoring.) The sound the Axe-Fx produces is what matters - all the rest with converters this and interfaces that is just minute differences that would have been impossible to even measure under the conditions most legendary rock sounds were put to analog tape. IMHO.

I'm open to being proven wrong on this. It would be extremely interesting to double-blind some truly great audio engineers in the 1968 control room at Record Plant Studios and A/B some Hendrix sounds played through the Axe-Fx, flipping between consumer / prosumer / high end converters and see if they can reliably spot which is which. I would bet some amount they wouldn't.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that you don't have to spend the price of a nice condo to get good quality converters. See my post above about listening tests...
 
wezx said:
"and you will find that those arguments are with regard to recorded audio"

Yes, I was speaking directly to recorded audio...I will put this out there. I was involved with a consortium a few years ago with some very respectable individuals...people with Gold records and Grammys. They used Benchmark, Apogee, Lavry, etc. as well as some lower end prosumer interfaces. Clips were cut at 48k and 96k through each interface and monitored back at the recorded frequency in a blind listen through the same Genelec monitoring system. This of course, negates any SRC effect. In the higher end processors, it was unbelieveably hard for anyone to definitively distingush between 48K and 96K, astonishly so. And as mentioned that was BEFORE any SRC down. In the lower end processors it was much easier to tell the difference (mainly in the high end) which is why I firmly believe that lower end processors cut corners on their slope at the upper end and thus they sound muddier with less defined highs at lower sample rates. I believe this is what Cliff was referring to about 64k being optimal. After this none of us were convinced that the lower plugin counts and other restrictions when running 96k were worth it...especially when using high end converters. Not to mention no one is listening to anything in the real world at 96k...CD's and even worse, mp3's! (shudder!)

People can and do go round and round with it...if you like 48k, use that...if you like 96k, use that. It's all good...can't we all just get along? ;-)
Click to expand...
even Lavry agrees that ~60khz is optimal, which of course is higher than 44.1 and 48. so, just for sake of argument, even with recorded audio (which is not really my contention because the difference is, as you stated, really slight on quality converters) 96 is superior in quality on capable converters. plugin counts and storage limits aside because we are quickly seeing that limitation disappear. my quad sandy bridge i7 never sees above about 70% usage in 96k projects with 50-60 tracks and tons of plugins. the limitations are near zero and the benefit, while certainly in the last few percent in the grand scheme, is present. we spend lots of time and money on quality for the rest of our chain, why not make that last small improvement for free.
 
"we are quickly seeing that limitation disappear."

Like I said, this was several years ago when it was more of an issue...computers for audio have definitely gotten to the point where it is VERY hard to max out a new properly setup system...it's nice! I started doing computer audio on Windows 95 (yikes) nearly impossible! and that was for paying corporate clients who didn't give a rat's patooty that your computer froze up 800 times! LOL
 
wezx said:
"we are quickly seeing that limitation disappear."

Like I said, this was several years ago when it was more of an issue...computers for audio have definitely gotten to the point where it is VERY hard to max out a new properly setup system...it's nice! I started doing computer audio on Windows 95 (yikes) nearly impossible! and that was for paying corporate clients who didn't give a rat's patooty that your computer froze up 800 times! LOL
Click to expand...
yup, same here. my first digital, and very meager, studio setup was based around windows 95 and it suuuuucked.
 
shawnguess said:
yup, same here. my first digital, and very meager, studio setup was based around windows 95 and it suuuuucked.
Click to expand...

LOL...BSOD's galore! I'll tell ya what though, you certainly learned your way around Windows doing audio on 95 or 98se!


...we're old. (sigh)
 
wezx said:
LOL...BSOD's galore! I'll tell ya what though, you certainly learned your way around Windows doing audio on 95 or 98se!


...we're old. (sigh)
Click to expand...
yeah, you had to know it inside and out. . . every day was a new exercise in troubleshooting. and i was the guy that just HAD to be on the bleeding edge and try anything new or different -- which meant that i completely killed the machine at least once a month and had to start from scratch. thatll make you really good really fast, lol. or really insane.
 
It sucks that it doesn't do what you want, hopefully you'll return it within the grace period and find something that better meets your needs.

Because the last thing this forum needs is another pompous know it all who would rather be right than helped...
 
Last edited:
Guys...please cool it with the name calling and rhetoric so we don't have to lock the thread.

Shawn: Please check out Yek's wiki link for a summary of this topic.
Connecting the Axe-Fx II: digital audio - Axe-Fx II Wiki

In summary, it comes down to the fact that adding a hardware SRC chip to the output adds cost that we didn't think would be worth it for MOST of our users. Especially when there are other workarounds that can result in equal or higher quality SRC.

That's really all it comes down to. If you disagree with our design decisions your opinion is respectfully noted and we'll consider our options for SRC on future revisions of hardware.

Thank you please come again.
 
Guys, please the rudeness is uncalled for. I say this in part as a preamble because I might get flamed myself. But I agree with Shawn almost entirely. I have an Ultra and the II is on its way. But 48k limit I have always felt is a major oversight today. And I've said it before.

I have a pretty high end studio and I regularly record at 96k. I'd love to be able to record digitally with the AXE, but I never have. I record analog and I'm very happy with the results. I've read yek regarding the limits and understand, to a degree, why it's only 48, BUT I don't know any other digital audio device, with a converter, today that doesn't AT LEAST also do 44, let alone 88.2 and 96. Even inexpensive devices do 96 these days.

Now we all know and appreciate Cliffs high end taste and know he'd never compromise on quality. Maybe that's the issue? But I would have thought II would have addressed this. Hey, I knew it didn't before I plunked my money down. But please folks, get off shawns back. Just because you haven't recorded a lot at 96 or even 192, doesn't mean A LOT of professionals don't. They do. And the Axe forces them into a certain workflow. That's all.

Don't get upset because someone may personally observe a dink in the armor. It's just possible the the Axe may not be for everybody and for the way they prefer to work. And that should be ok.
 
Last edited:
You could use Reason 6 for tracking, it's resolution independent.

From the Reason 6 manual:

Reason supports multiple sample rates in the same song!
Reason allows import (or recording) of audio of any sample rate. If the original sample rate of a recording is different
than the rate currently set for the audio card, Reason will automatically do a sample rate conversion.
 
Last edited:
henryrobinett said:
Guys, please the rudeness is uncalled for. I say this in part as a preamble because I might get flamed myself. But I agree with Shawn almost entirely. I have an Ultra and the II is on its way. But 48k limit I have always felt is a major oversight today. And I've said it before.

I have a pretty high end studio and I regularly record at 96k. I'd love to be able to record digitally with the AXE, but I never have. I record analog and I'm very happy with the results. I've read yek regarding the limits and understand, to a degree, why it's only 48, BUT I don't know any other digital audio device, with a converter, today that doesn't AT LEAST also do 44, let alone 88.2 and 96. Even inexpensive devices do 96 these days.

Now we all know and appreciate Cliffs high end taste and know he'd never compromise on quality. Maybe that's the issue? But I would have thought II would have addressed this. Hey, I knew it didn't before I plunked my money down. But please folks, get off shawns back. Just because you haven't record a lot at 96 or even 192, doesn't mean A LOT of professionals don't. They do. And the Axe forces them into a certain workflow. That's all.

Don't get upset because someone may personally observe a dink in the armor. It's just possible the the Axe may not be for everybody and for the way they prefer to work. And that should be ok.
Click to expand...

Some people, and I am speaking for myself, simply stated to Shawn that a post similar to yours would go a lot further than one with all the negative connotations. Especially so when it’s your very first post in a forum where trolling has become such an issue.

So when you say get off his back and stop being rude maybe you should go back and read his replies that reek of patronizing arrogance and consider that maybe people were on his back not for the subject matter at hand but simply the way he presented it.

Again, just my humble opinion....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom