Universal Audio Apollo Audio Interface + UAD 2 DSP

[Sonic_Liberator]

Here is what I meant:
Live show scenario:

1. Vocal chain : Mic --->Apollo preamp---> UAD1176---->UADLA2A---->UAD Roland Tape Echo,---->UAD 224 Reverb------> Samplitude IR reverb-------Apollo out.

2. Acoustic Guitar chain :The same as above

3. VSTi instruments: MIDI controller into MIDI IN Apollo --->Samplitude as a VSTi host----->Kontakt----->Apollo out

4. Also, I'd need 8 streams of playback from Samplitude that has its own plugins running in real time ( not printed) such as IR reverbs, Tempo delays, compressors etc

5. I will need a separate in ear click track.

Basically, I want to integrate Apollo processing and Samplitude (or Reaper) vst processing in live shows with the above requirements.

I hope my description is a bit clearer.

Thank you

[Anderton]

Correction to post #5: The DA converters are Cirrus CS4398 ICs for the main outs, and AKM 4480 ICs for the headphone outs. I originally mentioned only the AKM 4480. The post has been edited to reflect these changes.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Unless Universal Audio is hiding something from me, you need to use Apollo in conjunction with an audio recording application if you want to record audio.

UA confirmed that Apollo's intended use for recording is with a suitable software program.

However, you could always just send Apollo's hardware outputs to a field recorder or equivalent external device.

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by Anderton

I'm still somewhat surprised there are no inserts to put plug-ins on the master output, but I assume UA had their reasons.

 

...and I found out what those reasons were: putting effects inserts in the master outs would have caused issues with latency. They recommend adding any UAD plug-ins you want to use for overall processing in your DAW's master outs.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Craig (or Lev), I have a quick question. In an earlier post, you mentioned the issue with your Mac Pro's FW800 interface, and that it doesn't quite measure up, so the interface instead runs at FW400 speeds.

I just purchased a Macbook Pro - not the new one with the retina display that was just introduced on Monday - the previous generation (released October 2011) with the quad core 2.2 GHz i7. My question is this: Does the FW800 port speed issue affect all Macs with FW800 ports, or just the Mac Pro?

A follow up question - how does running the Apollo at FW400 speeds affect the channel count?

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by Phil O'Keefe

Craig (or Lev), I have a quick question. In an earlier post, you mentioned the issue with your Mac Pro's FW800 interface, and that it doesn't quite measure up, so the interface instead runs at FW400 speeds.

I just purchased a Macbook Pro - not the new one with the retina display that was just introduced on Monday - the previous generation (released October 2011) with the quad core 2.2 GHz i7. My question is this: Does the FW800 port speed issue affect all Macs with FW800 ports, or just the Mac Pro?

Go to the Apollo support section and scroll down to the section called System Compatibility. It tells how to find your Mac Model Identifier, then from there, check it against the list of Macs that work only at FW400 speeds even though they have FW800 ports.

But that does not mean you're hosed. You can add an ExpressCard34-to-FireWire adapter, assuming your laptop has an ExpressCard slot. For desktops, you can add a PCIe-to-FireWire card; in both cases, UA recommends particular models in what is actually a pretty comprehensive support section, and recommends against others.

A follow up question - how does running the Apollo at FW400 speeds affect the channel count?

I haven't red-lined it yet...I've been poking around learning about it; I've done some recording in the process of testing, but haven't done a full project yet that really pushes it. But I will I guess I'll need to get a PCIe card at some point, but it works well enough to test for now.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Thanks Craig!

[Phil O'Keefe]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Go to the Apollo support section and scroll down to the section called System Compatibility. It tells how to find your Mac Model Identifier, then from there, check it against the list of Macs that work only at FW400 speeds even though they have FW800 ports.

That's very helpful. I always appreciate good and thorough system requirement lists and compatibility information. And best of all, it looks like I'm in luck, and my MBP will run at FW800 speed.

Thanks again Craig!

[Anderton]

One of Apollo's key features is the mic preamps, so I thought I'd try to do an A-B comparison. I had done some informal comparisons, and found that the main difference in the Apollo mic preamps is the high end, which seems a bit more "objective" and "neutral" than other mic pres.

For comparison, I recorded a Gibson J-45 acoustic guitar using an Audio-Technica AT-3035. The "control" preamp was a Roland Octa-Capture. Now, you might think that's a totally unfair comparison, because the Roland is far less expensive and intended as more of an "upper middle class" interface. But that's why I chose it. First of all, as you listen to the Roland, it doesn't need to make any apologies, especially given the cost.

I could make the Octa-Capture sound more like Apollo by adding a -3dB notch, with a Q of about 5, around 1,250 Hz - interesting, as that was the main frequency response variation.

Second of all, it's instructive to see the sonic difference that extra $$ buys you. There are sometimes opposing schools of thought on this - one being that there isn't that much difference among preamps past a certain point, and the other that high-end preamps sound better. Actually, they're both right. There isn't a night and day difference, but there is definitely a difference. Bear in mind that it's also impossible to play the EXACT same part in the EXACT same way while sitting in the EXACT same spot; such are vagaries of A-B testing in this case.

But this little example also shows why people have certain preferences in preamps. There are some situations where someone who's not really that hip to doing comparisons and making subtle EQ changes might prefer the OCta-Capture's teeny bit of "punch." But also remember, any differences are cumulative. So if you record a lot of tracks with preamps as neutral as Apollo's, that gives you more flexibility while mixing but even more so, while mastering as any frequency response anomalies will not add up.

For example if you recorded a vocal with the Octa-Capture and it sat in the middle of a mix, or recorded the same vocal through an Apollo, there probably wouldn't be that obvious a difference when all was said and done. But if you recorded an acoustic ensemble with Apollo with multiple instruments compared to recording the same ensemble with the Octa-Capture, you probably would notice a difference.

So the bottom line is the Apollo mic preamps do indeed have a beautiful clarity and neutrality - no question about that. If you want coloration, you'll need to look elsewhere. I also noticed the clarity on my voice while recording narration the other day, although the difference i more subtle than with acoustic guitar.

Now, about the audio examples. This BBS is not set up to attach WAV files, and a ZIP version would be too big for the allowable file size. However, it is possible to upload decent-sized movie files, and the MOV (QuickTime) format can provide a "container" for uncompressed audio files. So using Sony Vegas, I rendered the audio as MOV files, but without including video. You can either play these files using a QuickTime player, or change the file extension to WAV and they'll open in any audio editor or DAW on Mac or Windows.

[poserp]

Originally Posted by Anderton

UA confirmed that Apollo's intended use for recording is with a suitable software program.

However, you could always just send Apollo's hardware outputs to a field recorder or equivalent external device.

Cool, thanks for asking. With the nice mixer they have built-in it'd be cool to go straight to WAV without firing up a DAW. But, as you suggest, a digital recorder of some kind would work just as well.

[JCSoundSystem]

Hello there, i'm just about to purchase an Apollo Quad. The only thing i really want to know, how is the software latency when using software monitoring through logic? I am aware that computer specs, buffersize and plugin chain have a dramatic impact; but it is crucial for me to be able to make use of some of my third-party AU-based plugins in logic whilst tracking/ jamming live. Or is a RME UFX better suited for this - hence the apollo has its own high-quality DSPs? It's all quite confusing, but i have seen an old iMac run a mediocre PreSonus Interface (an older version of the FireStudio I believe) with no noticable latency whilst software monitoring thorugh logic in a project with eq's, compressors, and a harmonizer. Thanks, looking forward to this interface a lot!

[JCSoundSystem]

Also, could you possibly take a screenshot of the available ins/outs that are presented within a DAW? Thank you very much

[UniversalAudio]

Hi Craig — Thanks for the sound examples. Just a bit of background on the preamps — Not only does Apollo's pres have the lowest THD (–110 dB) and highest dynamic range (118 dB (A–weighting)) in its class, as you've discovered Apollo's pres are transparent with no coloration. They're designed for exactly that purpose. This allows you to record with a clean signal if you desire, or, for example, add the coloration of a Neve or a SSL console on input with our UAD Powered Plug-Ins. That way, you get the best of both worlds.

-Lev

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by UniversalAudio

Hi Craig — Thanks for the sound examples. Just a bit of background on the preamps — Not only does Apollo's pres have the lowest THD (–110 dB) and highest dynamic range (118 dB (A–weighting)) in its class'

Thanks for that. All my test software for measuring this type of thing is for Windows, so I can't run my usual cool-looking graphs. However Hugh Robjohns from Sound on Sound magazine tested Apollo, and said that he pretty much confirmed the specs posted on the UA web site. So if anyone wants to know the specs...look on the UA web site

As you've discovered Apollo's pres are transparent with no coloration. They're designed for exactly that purpose. This allows you to record with a clean signal if you desire, or, for example, add the coloration of a Neve or a SSL console on input with our UAD Powered Plug-Ins. That way, you get the best of both worlds.

That seems obvious, but it's a point worth re-iterating...in the example I gave of recording multiple tracks or doing mastering, the more neutral/accurate the response, the more flexibility you have when mixing or mastering, regardless of whether or not you use additional plug-ins.

Frankly, I didn't mention the "using plug-ins for coloration" aspect because I'm most interested in neutrality and accuracy, so I tend not to use channel strip plug-ins and such for any inherent sound, but whether they can fulfill a specific musical purpose...for example I wouldn't use an SSL channel strip plug-in because I wanted an SSL character, but if there was a specific sound I could get on a specific track, sure - that EQ bell response on drums has its merits!

I think the "no coloration" aspect of the Apollo preamp that impressed me the most was the even frequency response. I went back and listened to a few other mic pres on a more informal basis (i.e., I wasn't so fickle about getting the mic position and picking gestures exactly the same), yet it was close enough to notice that many mic pres emphasize certain frequencies, albeit like the Roland, generally subtly. This is not something that could be chalked up to loading of a dynamic mic, as the 3035 is a condenser.

But ultimately, the audio examples do speak for themselves, don't they? One thing's for sure: As long as Apollo is sitting here for the pro review, the mic pres will be the "reference" for comparing to other pres. There's nothing in my collection of mic pres that matches Apollo's for accuracy, and obviously, it's a difference you can hear.

[FYI - I'll be out of town for the next several days, returning on a Monday, so I won't be able to work with any hardware although I'll be monitoring the thread for questions/comments.]

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by JCSoundSystem

Hello there, i'm just about to purchase an Apollo Quad. The only thing i really want to know, how is the software latency when using software monitoring through logic? I am aware that computer specs, buffersize and plugin chain have a dramatic impact; but it is crucial for me to be able to make use of some of my third-party AU-based plugins in logic whilst tracking/ jamming live. Or is a RME UFX better suited for this - hence the apollo has its own high-quality DSPs? It's all quite confusing, but i have seen an old iMac run a mediocre PreSonus Interface (an older version of the FireStudio I believe) with no noticable latency whilst software monitoring thorugh logic in a project with eq's, compressors, and a harmonizer. Thanks, looking forward to this interface a lot!

First, it's good to be back. Man, it's been a couple of crazy weeks.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Using AU plug-ins in Logic has very little to do with the interface you use unless it has really horribly written drivers, and that's not something you need to worry about with UA

The ability to run those AU plug-ins with minimum latency depends primarily on the speed of your computer. Apollo won't make your computer run faster or slower, in fact it has very little impact on your computer because that's the whole point of having DSP onboard. However, it can indirectly let your computer run more efficiently by offloading some processing tasks from the computer. It's like if someone is carrying two heavy suitcases and you offer to carry one, the other person doesn't get any stronger - it just seems that way because he doesn't have to carry the other suitcase any more.

In fact it might be worth taking a little detour to talk about the significance of DSP. Two early companies to supplement the computer with DSP were Digidesign, who came up with Sound Tools, and Creamware, whose SCOPE system packed a ton of SHARC DSP chips (made by Analog Devices) on a card. These were distinctly "non-native" solutions where the hardware DSP took care of handling the audio and in the case of SCOPE, virtual instruments and effects. No computer at that time (we're talking the days of Windows 98 and Pentium I processors!) could handle that kind of load. What made it possible for these devices to handle the load was that they used microprocessors that were optimized specifically for handling audio, and didn't have to do anything else (unlike the CPUs in computers).

When the UAD-1 came out, matters had improved somewhat but computers were nowhere near as powerful as they are now. By having a dedicated DSP card, Universal Audio could throw processing cycles at it and not have to compromise their plug-ins, which would otherwise be drawing from the same CPU as the DAW software that was running tracks, following automation, feeding soft synths, and also doing housekeeping like scanning the keyboard and mouse, communicating with hard drives, etc. etc. The UAD-1 gave a welcome hardware assist that not only provided good-sounding plug-ins, but allowed the computer to run more efficiently because it didn't have to work so hard.

A more subtle advantage was that the amount of DSP in a UAD-1 was a known quantity. If you were running it at 99% capacity, it would work and wouldn't crash. With native processing on your computer, capacity was always a moving target. When you first started a project, you might be able to get very low latency with several plug-ins. As you added more virtual instruments and effects, the computer would have to work harder, but the load on the computer would fluctuate. You might be using 60% of your CPU power on average, but it would spike up to over 100% occasionally when too many things decided to happen at the same time, and crash. So you did track freezes, or bounced tracks, or removed plug-ins, or whatever it took. Companies tried to produce plug-ins that were CPU-friendly, but the compromise was that they had to scale back on how deep they could get with the sound quality.

As processors became more powerful, many people (however, not including me) predicted that products like UA's DSP cards would become obsolete because eventually, it would all be done inside the computer. And in many ways, you CAN do it all inside the computer; yet UA is doing better than ever. Why?

Simple: because you can always exploit whatever technology is available. More powerful processors gave companies like Native Instruments the option to create software synths like Massive, which sounds absolutely amazing but the cost is that it uses a lot of CPU power. Really detailed algorithms need more power, and companies are more than happy to improve the sound of their plug-ins and processors by using more of the available power. So even with today's computers, we're STILL "red-lining" them a lot because the tools we run on those computers have become more sophisticated.

(continued)

[Anderton]

But there's a corollary: The DSP chips companies like UA use have become more powerful as well. The "who-knows-what-generation-they-are-at-this-point" SHARC chips in a UAD-2 card are light years ahead of the ones used in the UAD-1. So as computers have become more powerful, the amount of hardware assist the UAD card can provide has become more powerful, thereby continuing to leverage an advantage compared to not using DSP.

Back in 2008, I was one of the very first people to review the UAD-2 Quad. In an article for Keyboard magazine, I mentioned that it could run 128 instances of a mono Neve channel strip plug-in. The magazine's editor wasn't as familiar with the UAD-2, so he wanted me to give a "real-world" figure. I explained that it didn't matter if you were running a multicore computer with terabytes of RAM or a laptop, the card was providing the 128 processors, not the computer. Now, whether your computer could run the 128 tracks needed to take advantage of those channel strips was another story altogether, but actually many computers and DAWs have no problems running over 100 tracks these days - although they would if you were trying to also run 100 native plug-in channel strips at the same time.

And again, it's no secret that aficionados feel that UA's plug-ins have really superb sound quality (you can count me in on that; check out the companion thread on UA's Powered Plug-Ins that includes audio examples of some of their plugs). I don't think they would have been able to pull off plug-ins like their tape emulators or the Manley Massive Passive on a UAD-1 card. While obviously a huge part of the quality is that they have engineers who know how to accurately analyze what makes gear sound good and write algorithms that capture those inherent characteristics, the fact is that would all be for nothing if they didn't have the horsepower to implement those algorithms.

Now, to loop back to your original question (ha! you thought I'd forgotten!). Prior to Apollo, you pretty much had to monitor the UA plug-ins through your computer, which meant they were subject to the same kind of latency issues as AU, VST, or RTAS plug-ins, because they had to be hosted by your DAW. What makes Apollo different is that it has a UAD-2 card inside it, so it provides it own hosting that has no significant latency (there's always several hundred microseconds of latency from A/D conversion, but it's really not a consideration). So this means you can plug into Apollo and process through Apollo without any distracting latency issues; think of it in the context of a guitar multieffects. You plug your guitar into the multieffects and into the computer to record its sound, but if you listen to the multieffects, you won't hear any latency. This principle is similar to interfaces that offer "Zero-latency monitoring." Most of the time this simply means that there's a little mixer inside the interface, controlled by an application, that patches an input directly to an output for monitoring without going through the computer first - hence no latency. As long as plug-ins aren't a part of your sound, you're set - you record what you're hearing.

But, processors usually are a part of your sound. Think of how many bass players record with a bass rig that includes compression and EQ, Even if you don't record with processing but are monitoring, think of all the vocalists who want to hear reverb in their headphones when they sing. With Apollo, you can apply the UA processors to signals you're recording and monitor the effects of that processing without latency, or if you don't want to commit to recording with a processed sound, you can monitor with the processed sound but record with the dry sound, then use the UAD-2 plug-ins within the host on mixdown, set for the processing you used. (Remember, any UAD-2 plug-ins available to Apollo can also function as standard VST, AU, or RTAS plug-ins too - kind of a two-for-one deal.)

With me so far? Good.

Now we get to why I think Apollo is so cool for live performance. I do performances with Ableton Live running on a laptop, using a PreSonus FireStudio Mobile interface so I can also feed in vocals, guitar, and other sound sources. These are processed within Ableton live, which because it's working really hard, limits what I can do.

Now imagine if I was using Apollo as an interface. I could be running the mic, guitar, and other instruments through Apollo and have real-time, high-quality processing going into Ableton Live without having to load down Live with processors. I could patch the outputs to a monitor system but also patch them back to two unused tracks in Live to record the stereo mix (yes, I know that Live can record its own mix; however it doesn't record solo button presses, which are a vital part of my remixing/fader-slamming act). And of course, all of this would be happening without stressing out the computer. And the mic pres sound sooooo good, too

(continued)

[Anderton]

I'm going to close out this essay (weren't expecting that, were you?!?) by reprinting an article I wrote for EQ magazine in 2008 that was not a review of the UAD-2, but more about analysis. I felt that by having that kind of hardware power on a chip and being able to run so many processors, we were sort of being taken "back to the future." Here's the article.

Sometimes a review that covers only specs, pricing, and the reviewer’s reactions misses the point, because a product has a backstory with deeper implications. At first glance, the UAD-2 DSP card might not seem that novel: Offloading processing from your computer’s CPU to special-purpose DSP-based hardware dates back many years, and in some ways, it’s easy to see the UAD-2 as simply a “more/better/faster” version of the UAD-1. Fair enough. But scratch beneath the surface . . .

AN INTRODUCTION

For those unfamiliar with the UAD-1, it was introduced in 2001, back when computers had a hard time keeping up with native processing. Yet even as computers became more powerful, the UAD-1 remained relevant because all DSP power is not the same. In a computer, the amount of power being drawn from the CPU is in constant flux as various processes engage and disengage. With DSP on a card, the power being drawn from that DSP is relatively constant. You can often “red-line” a DSP card with no problems, whereas trying that with a computer begs for trouble.

However, it wasn’t just the CPU angle that hooked people; it was the strikingly realistic, and musical, emulations of vintage (and not so vintage) gear. I knew a studio owner who had scored a vintage compressor on eBay, and set up a blind A/B test with the UAD-1 version so he could prove to himself once and for all that no matter how good emulations were, they couldn’t really outdo hardware. Surprise: Shortly thereafter, the compressor ended up back on eBay.

BACK TO THE FUTURE?

Which brings us to the UAD-2. Probably not that many EQ readers were recording when a typical studio was an MCI (or equivalent) 24-track tape recorder, a big mixer, and a rack of outboard gear. Sure, the mixer had EQ; but there were times you wanted that gentle, strange curve that only an old Pultec could deliver, or a beat-up limiter with an optical response—hence the rack o’ gear.

The UAD-2 (especially the Quad version, with four Analog Devices SHARC 21369 DSP chips) is much more powerful than the original UAD-1. Because of this, the UAD concept is no longer to replace a few cool pieces of gear, but to be the 21st century equivalent of that rack of special-purpose processors . . . or maybe even an entire mixer.

For example, the UAD-2 Nevana 128 bundle (based on the Quad card) can instantiate 128 mono instances of the Neve 88RS channel strip plug-in in 44.1kHz/24-bit projects with full EQ and filtering, and either the Gate/Expander or Compressor/Limiter engaged for each instance. Consider the implications: You’re getting the heart of a Neve 88 console for a whole lot less than a Neve console. And of course, you can run other UAD-compatible plugs, including esoterica like the Roland CE-1 and Dimension D. Perhaps more significantly, those who are wary of “mixing in the box” can use the UAD-2 DSP card to fold in processors that are not constrained by the computer’s limits.

Bottom line: Slowly but surely, we’re returning to the traditional studio paradigm—except that the computer is the multitrack recorder, sophisticated control surfaces provide the “hands-on” feel of traditional mixers, and DSP-driven devices replace racks of outboard gear. The end result is better workflow, fewer computer-related issues, and ultimately, a more musical recording experience—which suits me just fine.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by JCSoundSystem

Also, could you possibly take a screenshot of the available ins/outs that are presented within a DAW? Thank you very much

That's next. I took some screen shots tonight, but I'm heading off to bed...gotta feed some horses in the morning. I'll post them soon.

I'm also going to ask someone at UA to "fact-check" what I wrote to make sure I got all my facts right.

[Syncamorea]

I appreciate the perspectives you are bringing into this review and as I also enjoy recording live performances and bands playing live in the studio, I can relate to aspects of the Apollo that you've highlighted. I'm interested to see more clarification of the performance of the Apollo as a function of specific usage. For example, let's assume that no plugs are used when recording - what is the lowest buffer setting that is stable for 18 simultaneous inputs at 44.1 and 96K? What does that equate to in terms of latency? I sometimes use a hardware reverb for the vocalist on their headphone monitor and have no problem continuing to do so if it reduces latency. I'm assuming that as more resources are required in terms of # of tracks, # of plugs and how much of a processor hog the plugs are, latency will be affected?

The Apollo has its detractors and that's common for new devices, especially in this price range. As you spend more time with it, I'd appreciate any comments you have about conversion quality. Thanks for the discussion about the Apollo's mic pres - I don't find your praises shocking but certainly they are reassuring and corroborate what other Apollo users are reporting. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an Apollo with 8 mic pres, four of them of the 4-710d spec (including the available compression) as I'm unafraid of recording some instruments and voices with compression, tube mic pre color, etc. - especially live but also when the musicians have heard all of the available trade-offs and have preferences for color and compression.

I'm impatiently awaiting delivery of an Apollo. I have been a user since the UAD-1 days, and have a huge investment in UA plugs - because I hear them as "more music" knobs. That doesn't mean I use them exclusively because I also use native plugs but I normally find the UA plugs to be the ones that bring the smiles and help people get the rhythm and soul of the song. I'll sprinkle cow patties across the stage and dance in my grandma's apron if that makes my recordings better, so UAD is a slam dunk and I don't care if I'm called a UAD homer in the process. So bottom line, I hope the scope of your review continues to grow as you get to know the Apollo better.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by Syncamorea

I appreciate the perspectives you are bringing into this review and as I also enjoy recording live performances and bands playing live in the studio, I can relate to aspects of the Apollo that you've highlighted. I'm interested to see more clarification of the performance of the Apollo as a function of specific usage. For example, let's assume that no plugs are used when recording - what is the lowest buffer setting that is stable for 18 simultaneous inputs at 44.1 and 96K?

Well, we do take requests! I can only tell you what it is on my Mac, which is a quad core Xeon-based machine. Performance will differ on different machines, but I went ahead and ran your suggested experiment...and was very surprised.

I set up to record 18 simultaneous inputs in Logic, running at 96kHz. I optimistically set it to a 128 sample buffer...it worked just fine, so I tried 64 samples. It worked too. So then I tried 32 samples, which is the lowest possible setting I could set in Logic's preferences. It worked too, with a quoted round-trip latency of 10.9 ms. The audio recorded and played back perfectly.

What's more interesting, though, is that I have one of those Macs which purports to do FW800, but only does FW400. So, it's running at a definite disadvantage.

I guess there's your answer

Speaking of running at a disadvantage, although I use Mac and Windows pretty much equally, I use the Windows machine more for audio/video work, and it's much more tricked out in terms of being able to test software. So, I don't have access to my usual suite for measuring signal-to-noise, THD, IM, crosstalk, etc. etc. When Windows drivers appear, I'll switch over and do those tests, as well as invest in a FW800 card so I can run Apollo at full throttle.

I sometimes use a hardware reverb for the vocalist on their headphone monitor and have no problem continuing to do so if it reduces latency. I'm assuming that as more resources are required in terms of # of tracks, # of plugs and how much of a processor hog the plugs are, latency will be affected?

Yes and no. If you're using plugs within the DAW itself (e.g., AU plugs, or running the UA plugs as AU inserts in the DAW), you're going to experience the latency of monitoring through a computer. BUT, remember that the UA plugs are running on their own hardware, so they're not going to stress out your computer the same way native plugs would, which would postpone hitting CPU limits that would force you to increase latency.

The Apollo has its detractors and that's common for new devices, especially in this price range.

Could you summarize what kind of problems people have with it? I'll dive into those elements further to check their validity.

As to price, remember that in addition to a pretty first-class interface you're getting the equivalent of a UAD-2 card too, so that needs to be taken into account. However, I realize you said you already have a substantial investment in UA plug-ins, but for those who don't, they need to take into account that additional plug-ins are optional at extra cost. This runs up the tab for those who want to populate a computer with more UA plugs.

As you spend more time with it, I'd appreciate any comments you have about conversion quality. Thanks for the discussion about the Apollo's mic pres - I don't find your praises shocking but certainly they are reassuring and corroborate what other Apollo users are reporting.

I can't separate conversion quality from preamp quality, because by definition, the preamps are going through conversion before I hear them. But, there's no doubt that of all the mic pres in my studio, the Apollo ones are closest to "straight wire with gain."

I'm impatiently awaiting delivery of an Apollo. I have been a user since the UAD-1 days, and have a huge investment in UA plugs - because I hear them as "more music" knobs. That doesn't mean I use them exclusively because I also use native plugs but I normally find the UA plugs to be the ones that bring the smiles and help people get the rhythm and soul of the song.

Yeah, they do have their own mojo.

I hope the scope of your review continues to grow as you get to know the Apollo better.

It will, I'm using Apollo exclusively with Mac projects - although at some point I do want to check out if I can aggregate it with other interfaces.

[Syncamorea]

Originally Posted by Anderton

I set up to record 18 simultaneous inputs in Logic, running at 96kHz. I optimistically set it to a 128 sample buffer...it worked just fine, so I tried 64 samples. It worked too. So then I tried 32 samples, which is the lowest possible setting I could set in Logic's preferences. It worked too, with a quoted round-trip latency of 10.9 ms. The audio recorded and played back perfectly.

Thanks! That was fast.

Originally Posted by Anderton

Could you summarize what kind of problems people have with it? I'll dive into those elements further to check their validity.

I haven't seen much in the way of operational problems other than the little setup issues that are easily solved. People in the GS "converter transparency loopback" thread claim their test proves that the Apollo's converters have poor performance relative to the best available. My ears tell me that the Apollo is pretty dang good, although I realize that some tests may outperform my ears. Others make the typical "overpriced dongle" argument and sorry, I'm just not buying that line. I already bought two UAD-1's, a UAD-2 Duo and a UAD-2 Quad, so the price of an Apollo quad did not send me into sticker shock.

Originally Posted by Anderton

I can't separate conversion quality from preamp quality, because by definition, the preamps are going through conversion before I hear them. But, there's no doubt that of all the mic pres in my studio, the Apollo ones are closest to "straight wire with gain."

Point taken.

Thanks and keep up the great work!

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by Syncamorea

People in the GS "converter transparency loopback" thread claim their test proves that the Apollo's converters have poor performance relative to the best available. My ears tell me that the Apollo is pretty dang good, although I realize that some tests may outperform my ears.

Well, I checked out the thread and all I can say is that the converters in a Lavry stereo unit costing $7,500 had better test out better! I also noticed a lot of controversy about testing, whether passing something through converters multiple times is valid, how some units (not the Apollo) sounded better/worse despite faring better/worse with specs, etc. etc.

I think the bottom line is this: Apollo Quad streets for $2,500. The UAD-2 Quad streets for $1,500, so you're paying $1,000 for an interface with four mic pres and of course, a bunch of other interfacing. That's essentially the same price as an Mbox Pro, which is at the higher end of interfaces and priced relatively competitively. Given what I've experienced with Apollo, I think there's no question you're getting value received. As to whether it equals units costing several times as much...well I don't have units costing several times as much to test, but common sense would indicate that if Apollo is in the same ballpark, that's quite an accomplishment.

Others make the typical "overpriced dongle" argument and sorry, I'm just not buying that line.

Me neither. Using DSP is what allows UA to throw processing cycles at their effects without bringing your computer to its knees.

[UniversalAudio]

Originally Posted by Anderton

With Apollo, you can apply the UA processors to signals you're recording and monitor the effects of that processing without latency, or if you don't want to commit to recording with a processed sound, you can monitor with the processed sound but record with the dry sound, then use the UAD-2 plug-ins within the host on mixdown, set for the processing you used. (Remember, any UAD-2 plug-ins available to Apollo can also function as standard VST, AU, or RTAS plug-ins too - kind of a two-for-one deal.)

With me so far? Good.

Now we get to why I think Apollo is so cool for live performance. I do performances with Ableton Live running on a laptop, using a PreSonus FireStudio Mobile interface so I can also feed in vocals, guitar, and other sound sources. These are processed within Ableton live, which because it's working really hard, limits what I can do.

Now imagine if I was using Apollo as an interface. I could be running the mic, guitar, and other instruments through Apollo and have real-time, high-quality processing going into Ableton Live without having to load down Live with processors. I could patch the outputs to a monitor system but also patch them back to two unused tracks in Live to record the stereo mix (yes, I know that Live can record its own mix; however it doesn't record solo button presses, which are a vital part of my remixing/fader-slamming act). And of course, all of this would be happening without stressing out the computer. And the mic pres sound sooooo good, too

(continued)

Hey Craig,

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. The UAD Powered Plug-Ins platform has gone through a few iterations over the years — the current UAD-2 is incredibly robust and is a great platform for us to complete complicated and resource-hungry projects — including faithful emulations of the Studer A800 Multichannel Tape Recorder and Manley Massive Passive. As you mentioned, with Apollo you can use UAD-2 plug-ins in realtime via the included Console application or just as a regular VST, AU, or RTAS plug-in in your DAW. The flexibility of onboard UAD-2 DSP lets you print up to four effects on the way into your DAW, saving room for more UAD Processing in the mixing and mastering stages.

In regards to the live sound applications of Apollo, there are a lot of great usage scenarios. The one you described for your Ableton rig would work great. There are two stereo auxiliary busses in the Console application that can be routed to any output. For example, you could have one channel with keyboard playing through an MXR Flanger/Doubler plug-in and another channel with a vocalist singing through a Lexicon 224 Reverb at the same time. Both signals could be fed into a main FOH mixer and can be recording into your DAW simultaneously.

Apollo is, first and foremost, an interface for recording audio. For really nitty-gritty FOH guys who need a ton of I/O and a Pandora's box of flexibility, this might not be right tool. That said, we've found Apollo's realtime processing to be a really useful addition for simple live sound applications.

-Lev

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by UniversalAudio

Hey Craig,

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. The UAD Powered Plug-Ins platform has gone through a few iterations over the years — the current UAD-2 is incredibly robust and is a great platform for us to complete complicated and resource-hungry projects — including faithful emulations of the Studer A800 Multichannel Tape Recorder and Manley Massive Passive. As you mentioned, with Apollo you can use UAD-2 plug-ins in realtime via the included Console application or just as a regular VST, AU, or RTAS plug-in in your DAW. The flexibility of onboard UAD-2 DSP lets you print up to four effects on the way into your DAW, saving room for more UAD Processing in the mixing and mastering stages.

Thanks for chiming in, Lev. Regarding the part I bolded, that's a very good point and one I've overlooked. I tend to go for more minimal projects (except when remixing, and people throw me stuff with lots of tracks), and while I've come very close to red-lining the UAD-2 Quad, I've never really run out of resources (then again, I don't try to put a Massive Passive on every channel ). But I know very few bassists, for example, who don't use compression and if you can add that "lift" on the way in using the UA plugs, it's almost certainly a better option than some stompbox compressor.

Incidentally, I've run into my first "weirdness" with Apollo. Sometimes the outs will show up as being available, but not the ins. The fix is always just to turn it off and turn it on again so it's not a problem...but I just wondered if there was some protocol I should know about, like "wait 10 seconds after Apollo has connected before opening a DAW" or something like that.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by UniversalAudio

Hey Craig,

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. The UAD Powered Plug-Ins platform has gone through a few iterations over the years — the current UAD-2 is incredibly robust and is a great platform for us to complete complicated and resource-hungry projects — including faithful emulations of the Studer A800 Multichannel Tape Recorder and Manley Massive Passive. As you mentioned, with Apollo you can use UAD-2 plug-ins in realtime via the included Console application or just as a regular VST, AU, or RTAS plug-in in your DAW. The flexibility of onboard UAD-2 DSP lets you print up to four effects on the way into your DAW, saving room for more UAD Processing in the mixing and mastering stages.

Thanks for chiming in, Lev. Regarding the part I bolded, that's a very good point and one I've overlooked. I tend to go for more minimal projects (except when remixing, and people throw me stuff with lots of tracks), and while I've come very close to red-lining the UAD-2 Quad, I've never really run out of resources (then again, I don't try to put a Massive Passive on every channel ). But I know very few bassists, for example, who don't use compression and if you can add that "lift" on the way in using the UA plugs, it's almost certainly a better option than some stompbox compressor.

Incidentally, I've run into my first "weirdness" with Apollo. Sometimes the outs will show up as being available, but not the ins. The fix is always just to turn it off and turn it on again so it's not a problem...but I just wondered if there was some protocol I should know about, like "wait 10 seconds after Apollo has connected before opening a DAW" or something like that.