Hi People

I'm toying with the idea of getting a UAD apollo Twin Usb interface. As an upgrade from my Focusrite 2i2.

Two reasons. I have some fairly decent monitors(Focal Cms 65's)and was assuming i'd hear an improvement if slight in quality of sound. And also to dip my toe into the waters of UAD plug ins. Again they seem popular but could maybe be over rated?

I use mostly Fab Filter and Waves stuff at the mo.Happy enough using these but like anything always nice to have something shiny and new

The long short of it is, Am i wasting best part of 700 notes if i went and purchased this? Does the Focusrite hold it's own against the Apollo? And are the UAD plug ins generally significantly better in general terms or not?

Anyone with experience of both and happy to share then that'd be great.

Regards

 

if you understand german u might like this video

to sum up everything, the guy tries to find out what would be the difference abt the "special" feature of using integrated plugings and they way they are "handled" because they dont need ASIO. just watch and u might understand what he is talking abt.
He is very happy with his Apollo for LIVE recording with integrated plugs ( 3-6ms latency max!).

Here the new version of Apollo Twin Mk2 :

 

Last edited: Feb 3, 2017

I haven't got either of the interfaces, however I've used them extensively.
I think it's honestly going to be really hard noticing any difference between both when it comes to quality.

I know the Apollo will be better overall for processing more audio and such but that will only come in handy when using a lot of tracks in a project and plugins and such beyond normal or even high use. But the 2i2 is still incredible and handles anything fine.

I honestly don't think the money to switch to Apollo is worth it. But if you have a budget that allows it, i'd go for it. I'm currently using my old M-Audio Fasttrack pro that i've had for 6 years but with average monitors. With HS7/HS8s in the near future I'll think about getting an Apollo Twin.

The UAD plugins really are amazing but i only use a few of them when I have them available. How the Apollo monitors and handles it's own plugins means lower latency recording with FX on channels and such (DSP), however that alone doesn't warrant the price tag in my opinion.

Overall, I'd go with the Apollo if you have the money to splash on it and want to use UAD plugins with low latency so you can record more efficiently and record live instruments more accurately, but the 2i2 is more than fine to do anything you need, and you won't hear a difference in quality really at all.

 

once you go UAD you will never look back everything sounds like cheap junk next to it i have owned everything at one time or another and UAD rules the roost of course your going to get those guys saying .. i have a rme this and that but hey what else do they do ? do they have the sound of NEVE or API can they have a manley or a real 1176 hell no .... be sure to get the manley VOX the 88RS and the la2a the 33609

 

Last edited: Feb 3, 2017

Tested an apollo twin as i wanted to upgrade my interface .

I did not buy it. The preamps and the converters are nothing special. Every interface of the common known brands is on par with the apolo. If you dont want to track with the plugins, it is not worth it.

I went with an RME interface and an UAD 2 PCIe. The RME is definatly an updrade to the apollo or common brands in terms of drivers.

And at the moment i m not even impressed anymore by the UAD plugins. At the moment i use acustica audio acqua plugins way more often. And the UAD i use, i use them cause i got them. And because the plugins dont use cpu power. Not because i like the sound so much...

 

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2017

Little story thats fun... about UAD Plugins ...
Watch this video a well respected and well known channel on youtube.
Thats where the UAD hype mainly comes from biased tests.
Listen to the test than read the comments.
Make your own tests.

 

hi ! i've buy a UAD twin last year, and i confess that i was stuned by the difference with my old M-audio FW 410...
especially with my voices and guitars tracks , i was searching for this big wide disto-guitars sound or for many years ... trying all amp simulations but a was stucking in my mixes ...and it put my voices records to a new level ... (my mic is a BlueBird ...low price , middle class mic...)
the unison technology is amazing , often they offer promotions and coupons and plugins sometimes .... for guitars RAW plug is great (i using waves GTR only for cabs) , Fender 55' too ....for voices and analog recording Unison Channel strip are ... most of plugs are good.
if you want to record analog instruments or voices this is one of the best choice ...
the benefits of DSP (your PC-CPU is "not" solicited by the UAD plug ) is also a limitation : you can't load with an UAD duo many plugs instances....
take a look at UAD CPU instances charts :
https://help.uaudio.com/hc/en-us/articles/215262223-UAD-2-Instance-Chart
There"s also Slate Digital who wants to hunt on UAD territory with their new VRS-8 and their amazing mics ...
the great point is that there is no ext DSP , the limit is your computer CPU....
VRS-8 at NAMM 2017 presented by Steve Job slate lol :

PS: the bad thing about slate ?
They sell only in places where you can not pay in 3/4 or 10 times (in EU) .
UAD in collaboration with townsend-labs-sphere also wants to hunt on Slate territory with their new mic and plug :
http://www.uaudio.com/uad-plugins/special-processing/townsend-labs-sphere.html
hope it helps ....

 

Last edited: Feb 3, 2017

I own a Twin. I love it. Does it sound far superior than any Focusrite interface? Not really. Indeed, the preamps on the Twin without UAD plugs are rather boring, which is good because all the character comes from the UAD processing and variable voltage bias from UNISON technology. In fact, I tested the same source through Apollo Twin, Allen & Heath Qu-16, and UA 4-710d preamps. The 4-710 had mind-blowing tone, the Qu-16 had the most pristine transient response (great for recording drums), and the Twin yielded the most boring performance. That's good, though, for its intended use.

One thing about preamps is headroom, which is actually what helps you preserve transients when recording and capture soft sounds without picking a lot of noise.

Her are the specs of the mic pres of the Apollo:

Dynamic Range 118 dB (A–weighting)
Signal-to-Noise Ratio 118 dB (A–weighting)
Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise –110 dBFS
Gain Range +10 dB to +65 dB

And here are the preamp specs of the 2i2:

Dynamic Range 105 dB (A–weighting)
Signal-to-Noise Ratio 100dB
Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise -100dB
Gain Range -4dB to +46dB

The Twin's preamps have better specs. Of course, it's unlikely that normal recording situations will push a preamp to its limit, so in practice those specs don't mean much. However, it is worth knowing where the price difference goes. Besides, AD/DA conversion of the Apollo is top notch, as is Apogee, RME, and other manufacturers in the expensive spectrum of the price range. I have no experience with the 2i2, but I doubt they pack comparable conversion quality.

UAD plugins are great quality. The bundled plugins are just as good as any Waves plug, and they are very light on CPU use. They could be all you'd ever need. However, the real gems are the emulation of exotic or iconic pieces of hardware, which are usually not emulated by anyone else, which makes them very sought after. Hardware owners of such emulations mostly claim that the difference between hardware and software is negligible in a real-life mixing situation, and big names like Fab Dupont or Dave Pensado use them on a daily basis. Plugins like a Manley Vox-Box preamp, a Neve 33609 compressor, or a Culture Vulture saturator are expensive in the UAD catalog. An alternative to UAD plugs is the Acqua and Nebula plugins by Acustica Audio. Some people even swear they are better than UAD. Anyway, they are some of the best stuff around.

I hope this helps.

 

For 4 years, I have been owning 5 different brands. I have been struggling to get a pro sound in my raw recordings (no plug-ins).

So I finally invested in aa Apollo Twin and at the same time in Focal Solo 6 Beryllium monitors (an upgrade to your CMS65).
Because I wanted to hear a setup that is kind of an industry standard especially in the US.

I can tell you that I will probably never buy any other brand (both for interface and monitors actually).

My recordings with the UAD preamps sound extremely natural like never before (no coloration anywhere in the frequencies).
And for the monitoring I can hear extremely well the difference in ambience between different takes (although I think it's more about the Focals than the Apollo). Very helpful if you do some comping.

For the plug-ins, well, there's latency obviously, but otherwise in terms of sound, there are lots of excellent plug-ins elsewhere including Waves. For example I replaced the use of the classic UAD Pultec with Eiosis Air EQ.

 

you want that setup ?? (and sound)

me too, but I need a couple thousand dollars for brick walls and a nice Telefunken

 

Thanks for response guys. Loads of useful information. I think I may take the plunge and purchase. I'll use the Focusrite simply for my laptop and keep the twin a permanent part of my studio.

It's probably a bit of overkill. I'm a bit of a House head. No guitars or mics. I have a Bass Station 2 and Roland Jx 03 only for hardware.

But after this I'd like to think I'm pretty much there with what I've got.

Thanks for advice again.

 

I have both UAD and Waves Plugs and always end up using the UAD version. They just sound better and (for the ones where I know the original) are much closer to the hardware. But your so right with your last sentence. Everyone needs to check out with their own pair of ears

 

Yes I'd definitely like to hear if there's any difference. Not sure if it's poss without buying it though. Maybe demo in a shop but chances are the monitors will be different and in a completely different environment.

You only live once. I'm leaning towards taking the plunge!

 

If you can take the plunge and pay the price, you can't go wrong with it. It's a solid piece of gear.

 

I purchased an Apollo Twin USB as soon as it came out last year and Ive owned UAD systems since they were initially released by Mackie way back in the early 2000's. I'll try to give you my two cents on both their plugins and hardware, but before I do that, I should mention that UAD is a closed system. That means that once you invest in it, you're committed to it. Sometimes that comes with its own set of issues, particularly when upgrading. If your computer isn't capable of supporting an update, you might end up having to wait for support... sometimes that can be YEARS, as was the case with me and thousands of UAD/Windows users. Luckily, those days are past and it looks like UAD is now seriously committed to making sure they provide support not just for mac users, but for pc users as well.

As far as plugins go, UAD has always set a really high bar when it comes to quality. Their plugins have always been fantastic and continue to be. However, there's not much in terms of native plugin development these days that cant cover what UAD plugins provide. As someone who owns the majority of the UAD plugin library AND a large portion of the most popular plugins developed by third parties, I can say with confidence UAD is not a "holy grail". Do they make great plugins? Yes. Will they help you achieve better results than alternatives? Not really... at least not as far as I'm concerned. If you have the money to invest in UAD, I could point you to a dozen alternatives that will provide you equal or comparable results that are less expensive and not locked to a closed system. But at the end of the day, its a subjective discussion and really boils down to what you're willing to convince yourself in believing.

Regarding their hardware, I can tell you that UAD excels in this department as much as they do in plugin development. From their initial DSP offerings to their modern audio interface solutions, they really do make fantastic hardware. The Apollo Twin has been hands down one of the best investment Ive ever made in terms of audio interfaces (although again keep in mind that I have spent thousands of dollars purchasing plugins and DSP from UAD so if I want to continue using what Ive purchased, I don't have much of a choice). Personally, I don't mind investing in a closed architecture so long as it does what its supposed to. Ive owned my Apollo almost a year now and I haven't had a single issue with it. From build quality to performance, its rock solid. It would be a phenomenal interface even without the ability to run plugins. But again, outside of the built in DSP to run its plugins, there are dozens of audio interfaces which hold their own against it or even surpass it in audio quality... some even at a significantly reduced cost. For instance, I owned an Audient iD22 which I preferred in terms of audio quality over the Apollo, but I chose the Apollo only because I couldn't run my UAD plugins without it.

You may find this interesting as well... this is a list interface shootout videos by Focusrite... take them with a grain of salt. As with any large investment, I would do a personal comparison and evaluation before committing to purchasing an audio interface, but you might find the results presented here compelling:

 

Last edited: Feb 3, 2017

Thanks for taking time to respond. Some sound advice. I'm going to have a sleep on it.

 

The Apollo Twin is expensive, I wouldn't sleep on it... however it is steady .