.
Yes sure but ADAT is only useful at 44.1 or 48 KHz.
At 96 Khz or 192 KHz it’s not so useful, at least for multitracking, because of a very reduced channel count (4 or 2 channels only).
It is quite strange to see such a modern interface with modern Thunderbird computer connectivity that is using almost legacy digital I/O ports like ADAT.
Even at 96 KHz, the digital I/O connectivity is low, too low i feel for this price. So you need to buy two AXR4 units for multitracking at 96 KHz if you want a decent track count. The price of such a setup then become exaggerate.
The problem when cascading two units is that you need to use one ADAT port on each interface for low latency monitoring cascading. If not you loose low latency direct monitoring on the second interface… See the manual page 55
Monitoring when AXR4Ts are
connected in a stack
This is something that should have been done through a dedicated port, like this can be seen on Nuage interfaces that have dedicated ports fort that :
This problem do exist since the MR816 and UR824 interfaces and is still not addressed…
As opposite, a modern digital I/O port like AES50 would have given a good digital connectivity (24 Inputs and 24 outputs) at 96 KHz.
The AXR4, like its predecessors MR816CSX and UR824 has a great advantage, it is offering DSP effects for low latency monitoring, with full integration inside Nuendo / Cubase. No other interface brand do have this integration.
This mean that if you want something easy to use for multitracking, you have no other choice than Yamaha / Steinberg interfaces because they are the only ones to give an easy to use (and not confusing like other DSP mixer applications i did see) DSP mixer control from Cubase / Nuendo.
This is where the lack of a modern digital connectivity giving more I/O extension capability at 96 KHz is damaging to the interest of this interface, regarding its quite high price.
Now lets watch at the 384 KHz usefulness : it is quite reduced.The AXR4 does not have any digital I/O available at 352.8 or 384 KHz ! At this frequency neither ADAT neither AES are working (watch the manual page 78).
So you end up with analog I/O only at this frequency and there is no more DSP FX available, so no more direct monitoring with DSP reverb and hardware compression. Perhaps this can be used for some high end classical or jazz recordings with 2 or 4 mics, without need for DSP because here you don’t need performers monitoring, but not more.
Anyway i feel that 192 and 384 KHz is most of the time overkill.
48 KHz and 96 KHz are the way to go for 99% of the recording work; so interfaces should be designed with that in mind : they should give a good digital i/o connectivity at this frequency. This is not really the case unfortunately for the AXR4.
Hopefully we’ll see something better in this regard from Yamaha in the futur, eventually limited at 96 KHz, that is the maximum frequency used for 99 % of recordings. No need for 192 KHz or 384 KHz that are mainly for a very small niche market restricted to peoples who likes to buy speaker cables costing 1 K$ per meter or more and that do have platinum (for 192 KHz) or diamond (for 384 KHz) ears 
In the end because everybody has different needs, i feel that it would be better to have a modular system, similar as the Nuage one, using a modern digital I/O bus and monitoring cascading, but limited to 96 KHz / 48 I/O channels at a reduced price level compatible with the music market.
An interface with only AES50 connectivity and external I/O interfaces modules would be better i think than a fully integrated interface.
Then the development team goal would be met :
From the AXR4 manual :
The AXR4 is our flagship audio interface model, developed from the perspective of audio
engineers for use in professional music production.
