UA Apollo Gen 2

[Whizzinby]

Thoughts? New AD/DA converters, same DSP, auto gain, some sort of Sonarworks integration.

 

[LeftyLoungeLizard]

I'm sure it's cool and all, but I have the Apollo 6x (previous gen) and I don't see any reason for an upgrade any time soon.

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

I have Sonarworks integration in my RME UCX II. But while it's a great feature on paper, the implementation isn't that great in reality. The correction curve from the Sonarworks curve gets simplified for the 9 band EQ of RME TotalMix, but if the curves of the left and right channels differ slightly (which is normal), these differences suddenly become much more exaggerated due to this simplification. In other words: I don't really trust the whole thing. If I have understood correctly, the Sonarworks integration of UAudio is better because it simply uses the exact curve of the Sonarworks app via DSP, and not a simplification. I think this is a great feature, and it actually makes the UAudio interfaces very attractive to me.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I have Sonarworks integration in my RME UCX II. But while it's a great feature on paper, the implementation isn't that great in reality. The correction curve from the Sonarworks curve gets simplified for the 9 band EQ of RME TotalMix, but if the curves of the left and right channels differ slightly (which is normal), these differences suddenly become much more exaggerated due to this simplification. In other words: I don't really trust the whole thing. If I have understood correctly, the Sonarworks integration of UAudio is better because it simply uses the exact curve of the Sonarworks app via DSP, and not a simplification. I think this is a great feature, and it actually makes the UAudio interfaces very attractive to me.

This might not actually be the negative trade off that you think it is.

Sonarworks is using TONS of very narrow bands that absolutely batter the phase and time domain of your audio signal. Its also basically just brute forcing the response to give a flat frequency response, with no regard for anything else basically.

So while at your listening position, it might get towards a flatter frequency response, your phase and time domain may be getting much worse. and as soon as you move your head slightly, those "fixes" suddenly work in the opposite direction.

Similarly, when the EQ is doing very narrow boosts, you're sacrificing quite a lot of headroom from your speakers, and often for very little return to what you hear. Often there can be cancellations that EQ won't fix, and yet Sonarworks is trying to do it. So its boosting a narrow band, making things ringy and phasey, reducing the headroom of your speaker (or making it operate weirdly) and you're getting just as much of a dip in the room anyway.

There is ALWAYS a trade off with anything audio, there is no free lunches. The benefit of something like RME is you can actually adjust the bands yourself and do just the most effective moves with the least amount of trade offs. With less bands (and with wider Q) there is less phase and time domain distortions applied.

One other thing to think about is whether you ACTUALLY want a flat curve. Most of the time flat is not what people are trying to achieve when setting up a control room. The dolby curve (or something similar) in Sonarworks is a better target to aim for. You generally want a slight tilt downwards, so there is a bit more low end and less top end rather than ruler flat.

Other downsides to Sonarworks:

- its not doing phase alignment of drivers
- no bass management (adjusting crossovers, filters, phase)
- No time alignment
- IIR filters instead of FIR
- measurement process sucks ass
- Difficult to apply any of your own EQ (or adjust what Sonarworks has done)

I used Sonarworks (and the like) and it can be a helpful band-aid. But the best thing you can really do is minimise your dependence on it to basically zero, and to try and just do the least amount of correction you can, manually.

 

[contrario]

I used Sonarworks (and the like) and it can be a helpful band-aid. But the best thing you can really do is minimise your dependence on it to basically zero, and to try and just do the least amount of correction you can, manually.

Correcting the frequency response alone without phase alignment has never made sense to me. That's why I still don't get the idea of Sonarworks for speakers. It can be useful for headphones but I usually favor the Harman AE/OE 2018 target over Sonarwork's.

Have you ever tried Trinnov? I keep reading/hearing good things about it. It both corrects the frequency response and phase aligns speakers.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Correcting the frequency response alone without phase alignment has never made sense to me. That's why I still don't get the idea of Sonarworks for speakers. It can be useful for headphones but I usually favor the Harman AE/OE 2018 target over Sonarwork's.

Have you ever tried Trinnov? I keep reading/hearing good things about it. It both corrects the frequency response and phase aligns speakers.

I haven't used a Trinnov myself, I have some friends that use them and swear by them but even with correcting for phase and a smarter analysis, it still suffers from the same issues any automatic alignment process would. I've heard of several people getting rid of their Trinnovs after having their rooms set up professionally by someone who knows how to manually calibrate crossovers/phase etc.

There are some DSP powered speakers that do the phase correction for crossovers internally - the Neumann, PMC, Genelec, Ex Machina etc all have this in and IMO is a great way to go. Beyond that, I think manually adjusting the frequency response is always going to be preferable to something automatically handling it.

I believe Dirac Live can also do a pretty decent job at automatically aligning/correcting phase and setting up subwoofers.

Considering Trinnov costs £4000 and they sting you for additional channels/speakers if you need them, plus their remote is another £1000 I think its FAR FAR FAR better to invest the money in hiring someone who knows what they're doing and putting the rest of the money towards proper treatment. For under £2000 you can build very effective resonance based absorbers, clouds, deep panels, and still have money left over from the cost of a Trinnov to hire someone and buy some software to tweak things from there.

 

[Whizzinby]

I’m debating nabbing a “Heritage” Apollo x6 since they are being discounted with the Gen 2 arrivals.

#cheapskate

 

[laxu]

These have basically all the same issues as the previous gen, namely a pretty weakass set of I/O until you get to the rack units. My under 200 € Audient EVO8 has more inputs and outputs, has the autogain features but not the DSP. What's UA's excuse?

Sure, the A/D converters and mic pres are higher quality and all, but I feel like UA isn't really offering a good value here. Do we need DSP offloading when an average Mac is pretty damn powerful?

Sonarworks software was so buggy I requested a refund, while its developers don't bother adding any requested features. Just not impressed by the company at all.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

What's UA's excuse?

Sure, the A/D converters and mic pres are higher quality and all, but I feel like UA isn't really offering a good value here. Do we need DSP offloading when an average Mac is pretty damn powerful?

The main appeal of UAD’s DSP powered interfaces is the ease of tracking through their HW emulations. Honestly for tracking vocals it was awesome to slap an 1176 or distressor on the way in and have a decent vocal sound from the off before the signal hits the DAW. Having switched to RME it’s easily the thing I miss most, and I’m legit thinking about buying a nice HW compressor now (at much bigger expense than a UA interface) just to bring some of that workflow back.

The UA stuff isn’t necessarily top of the line with converters but the x series is a good step or 2 up from focusrite or audient etc. The preamps are fine, the unison stuff is quite nice to be able to drive the preamps and shape the tone of a sound on the way in like you would with nice analog mic pre’s.

There the standard in most production and writing rooms these days, mostly because you can record a vocal directly with autotune on and through a model of a 1073/1176/CL1B without having to think about latency. The Twin’s also function quite nicely as a monitor controller as part of a bigger setup and I know some people enjoy them in a portable rig just for some DSP on the go (as well as the interface features).

 

[Jarick]

It looks interesting, but with UAD plugins moving more towards Native, not sure about the benefits.

Apollo Twin X mk2 = $1200
- Two preamps
- DI out front
- Two sets of outputs
- ADAT input

Audient ID14 = $300
- Two preamps
- DI out front (JFET)
- Two sets of outputs
- ADAT input

You can get the Audient ID14 and the UAD bundle for half the price of just the Twin X mk2.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

It looks interesting, but with UAD plugins moving more towards Native, not sure about the benefits.

Apollo Twin X mk2 = $1200
- Two preamps
- DI out front
- Two sets of outputs
- ADAT input

Audient ID14 = $300
- Two preamps
- DI out front (JFET)
- Two sets of outputs
- ADAT input

You can get the Audient ID14 and the UAD bundle for half the price of just the Twin X mk2.

basically all of the specs of the UAD are better than the Audient, plus it has DSP, sonarworks built in, ability to record through plugins. Comparing features doesn’t really tell the story, neither device is really trying to offer anything else. A Lavry ADC costs like £10,000 and has even less features than these.

I don’t think anyone is really opting for an Apollo for any reason besides the whole “Console” experience for recording. That’s its main selling point. If it’s just a case of getting some I/O on the cheap and specs aren’t important Behringer stuff is cheaper still.

I’m not sure I’d recommend UAD interfaces to someone unless they want to record through UAD plugins on the way in. But they’re absolutely “better” than the other entry level stuff out there from Focusrite/Audient/MOTU/Behringer etc and a solid choice if you want to process stuff as you record.

 

[HotRats]

Correcting the frequency response alone without phase alignment has never made sense to me. That's why I still don't get the idea of Sonarworks for speakers. It can be useful for headphones but I usually favor the Harman AE/OE 2018 target over Sonarwork's.

Have you ever tried Trinnov? I keep reading/hearing good things about it. It both corrects the frequency response and phase aligns speakers.

While in theory you're right, my experience with sonarworks is actually excellent.

I mix daily in a treated but not perfect room with very good speakers (dynaudio core 7) and sonarworks simply made everything better.

The addition of a room correction software in the UA lineup is great value, imho

 

[Jarick]

basically all of the specs of the UAD are better than the Audient, plus it has DSP, sonarworks built in, ability to record through plugins. Comparing features doesn’t really tell the story, neither device is really trying to offer anything else. A Lavry ADC costs like £10,000 and has even less features than these.

I don’t think anyone is really opting for an Apollo for any reason besides the whole “Console” experience for recording. That’s its main selling point. If it’s just a case of getting some I/O on the cheap and specs aren’t important Behringer stuff is cheaper still.

I’m not sure I’d recommend UAD interfaces to someone unless they want to record through UAD plugins on the way in. But they’re absolutely “better” than the other entry level stuff out there from Focusrite/Audient/MOTU/Behringer etc and a solid choice if you want to process stuff as you record.

How's the user experience with the Apollo and the single knob? I'm half tempted to pick up a used Twin X locally just to see what it's all about.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

How's the user experience with the Apollo and the single knob? I'm half tempted to pick up a used Twin X locally just to see what it's all about.

I've never owned a Twin so I've only used other peoples (either in other studios or when people bring them here). I'm a massive fan of having a monitor controller within reach at all times, its just so handy to adjust volume and mute/dim etc. You basically click a button and it changes between input channels levels and monitoring out level. They also do some stuff with the unison plugins where the knob is basically controlling the level on the plugin.

I'd weigh up if you'll be happy with having cables running from your desk to your computer/monitors/gear etc. I personally prefer to get EVERYTHING I possibly can out of the way and just keep the desk area for essentials. So I have my interface/preamps/gear in racks to the side (out of the way of the monitoring path) and then a small remote with my mouse and keyboard and faders. Twin's make sense if you're on the go or for a fairly minimal setup.

ALL ABOUT looming up cables into these:

 

[Jarick]

Yeah I don't like cables across the desk, MOTU is pretty good there as most of it is on the back side. The preamps on the front are annoying but I ordered a set of right angle 1/4" plugs to try and work around.

One thing I saw digging around, is it possible to direct monitor without latency? I saw reports that you're always going to get 1-3 ms coming in. I'm a little concerned about all the different latencies building up across my system.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

One thing I saw digging around, is it possible to direct monitor without latency? I saw reports that you're always going to get 1-3 ms coming in. I'm a little concerned about all the different latencies building up across my system.

UAD is kind of geared around using their DSP and monitoring through their plugins in Console. When monitoring in a DAW the latency is slightly worse but I used one for about 10 years and never had any issues with latency. Its a solved problem as far as I'm concerned.

Caveat that I'm on Mac, no idea what windows is like but I'd imagine there's no issues there either.

Where might your sources of latency be?

 

[Jarick]

UAD is kind of geared around using their DSP and monitoring through their plugins in Console. When monitoring in a DAW the latency is slightly worse but I used one for about 10 years and never had any issues with latency. Its a solved problem as far as I'm concerned.

Caveat that I'm on Mac, no idea what windows is like but I'd imagine there's no issues there either.

Where might your sources of latency be?

It's little things here and there...Axe FX 3 has a couple ms, wireless has a couple ms, adding a couple more ms will start to push in the "noticeable latency" area.

Thinking a bit more, smart money is just to hang tight and maybe get a trial of UAD plugins to see how I like those. Nothing wrong at all with my current setup.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

It's little things here and there...Axe FX 3 has a couple ms, wireless has a couple ms, adding a couple more ms will start to push in the "noticeable latency" area.

Thinking a bit more, smart money is just to hang tight and maybe get a trial of UAD plugins to see how I like those. Nothing wrong at all with my current setup.

Yeah, probably more of a sideways step than offering you anything of note. I never noticed any latency when running my Axe FX into the Apollo and I was always doing it via analog I/O. Not sure how much a wireless unit adds though (but also not sure how essential that is for home use?).

If the AxeFX is a permanent part of your rig and getting latency down is important, I'd try and use the digital I/O of the AxeFX and interface. Just removes some unnecessary stages of conversion

 

[Jarick]

Yeah, probably more of a sideways step than offering you anything of note. I never noticed any latency when running my Axe FX into the Apollo and I was always doing it via analog I/O. Not sure how much a wireless unit adds though (but also not sure how essential that is for home use?).

If the AxeFX is a permanent part of your rig and getting latency down is important, I'd try and use the digital I/O of the AxeFX and interface. Just removes some unnecessary stages of conversion

Wireless is just a nice to have for sure.

Have you used the Axe FX digital out into the Apollo? That was another thing I was curious about.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Have you used the Axe FX digital out into the Apollo? That was another thing I was curious about.

I was using other gear on the digital I/O so I never did that. The Twin's only have ADAT, so for those you'd need an SPDIF->ADAT adapter. Most of the rack units have SPDIF and ADAT (check because they vary though). and the x16 only has AES/EBU. I'd tested it via SPDIF before and it worked as expected.