Presonus Quantum VS UA Apollo x8p

WiresDreamDisasters

Hey gang,

I currently have an Apollo x8p from Universal Audio. I've had it since 2018. I've mainly been using the 1073 preamp model, the Distressor compressor, the 1073 EQ very occasionally, but for the most part have been recording completely raw.

I record acoustic drums, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, and vocals. Everything else is in the box.

Typically at home I need 2-4 inputs. In the studio we have an AMEK Angela console patched into an Antelope Audio Orion 32+ and what I've done in the past when I needed to track 16 channels of drums was send the audio straight back out of the Orion into the ADAT inputs on the Apollo x8p, giving me the 8 built in preamps as well as the desk preamps (usually the first 8).

But the majority of my recording is done in my home studio. I'd say 80/20 split.

So I'm contemplating moving to the Presonus Quantum. I like the idea of lower latencies for using soft-synths, amp simulators, and I like the idea of doing everything within the DAW and not using a separate mixing application. I also like the idea of reselling my Apollo and using some of the money on the Quantum and some of the money on a Kemper Stage profiling amp.

Has anyone done this move? Pros and cons? What do I need to be thinking about?

Stuckfast

I'd say that if you can live without the UAD plug-ins, there isn't really any other reason to prefer the Apollo over the Quantum, unless you want to leave line inputs permanently plugged in on separate jacks.

WiresDreamDisasters

Stuckfast said: I'd say that if you can live without the UAD plug-ins, there isn't really any other reason to prefer the Apollo over the Quantum, unless you want to leave line inputs permanently plugged in on separate jacks.

I tend to feel the same way. I can live without UAD plugins. I can't live without zero or near zero latency. Both cards give me that, just in different ways. Really what appeals to me about this is being able to reinvest some of the cash in other gear!

@octatonic thoughts?

octatonic

Yes, the eternal question and IMHO all roads lead to ProTools HDX here, at least for me.

Quantum is a great product but eventually you will pile on plugins and end up with latency.

Sure the latency is around HDX with a bare mixer but get 90% through a mix and then have to overdub and you'll be back doing the 'disable plugins' fandango again.
This is why dual mixer architectures (one for the front end, one for the DAW) still dominate all non DSP solutions.

If you ever want to use UA plugins with the Quantum then you will only ever be able to mix with them- forget tracking through them.

I don't want to have HDX- it is a 10 year old solution that is very expensive and will eventually be replaced by AVID, probably in 2-3 years if the lifecycle of TDM and HD is the same for HDX but it is just better than anything else for large sessions, especially when tracking bands.

In your situation I wouldn't change- I'd live with the short comings of there UA two mixer thing because the plugins sound so good.

I'm using the Focusrite Red series interfaces because it has low thunderbolt latency, a generous amount of hardware monitoring (30 stereo pairs) and speaks HDX for when I am tracking.
If I wasn't using these I'd have 2 x UA Apollo X16's and an Apollo X 8p.

If Avid remove the 32 channel limit for 3rd party interfaces then I'd probably sell my existing system and get those straight away.

I have more to say but I am teaching in a few minutes- I'll say more later.

Stuckfast

Of course one other option might be to wait for UA's Luna to be available, if you don't mind learning another DAW. That looks to be similar in concept to Pro Tools HDX except using the UA mixer and plug-ins. Not sure what sort of latency you'd get from AU instruments and amp sims though.

octatonic

Stuckfast said:

Of course one other option might be to wait for UA's Luna to be available, if you don't mind learning another DAW. That looks to be similar in concept to Pro Tools HDX except using the UA mixer and plug-ins. Not sure what sort of latency you'd get from AU instruments and amp sims though.

If you look under the hood of Luna some of the architecture is actually native.

Stuckfast

octatonic said:If you look under the hood of Luna some of the architecture is actually native.

I think it's exactly the same as HDX in that respect -- there's nothing in HDX to stop you from running AAX Native plug-ins alongside AAX DSP ones, but you incur a bit of a latency penalty if you do.

octatonic

Stuckfast said:

octatonic said:If you look under the hood of Luna some of the architecture is actually native.

I think it's exactly the same as HDX in that respect -- there's nothing in HDX to stop you from running AAX Native plug-ins alongside AAX DSP ones, but you incur a bit of a latency penalty if you do.

That isn’t the same though.
Some of Luna’s architecture is only native.
With HDX you can run an entire mix with DSP.
3 HDX cards is usually required to do that (so a 10k solution).
With Luna you have some components that are native only.

Have a look at the Gearslutz Luna thread, the UA guys go into specifics.

octatonic

From that thread, comment from UA:

“Luna is native as are Luna Extensions and Luna Instruments. 

All UAD plugins are DSP.”

WiresDreamDisasters

octatonic said:

Yes, the eternal question and IMHO all roads lead to ProTools HDX here, at least for me.

Quantum is a great product but eventually you will pile on plugins and end up with latency.

Sure the latency is around HDX with a bare mixer but get 90% through a mix and then have to overdub and you'll be back doing the 'disable plugins' fandango again.
This is why dual mixer architectures (one for the front end, one for the DAW) still dominate all non DSP solutions.

If you ever want to use UA plugins with the Quantum then you will only ever be able to mix with them- forget tracking through them.

I don't want to have HDX- it is a 10 year old solution that is very expensive and will eventually be replaced by AVID, probably in 2-3 years if the lifecycle of TDM and HD is the same for HDX but it is just better than anything else for large sessions, especially when tracking bands.

In your situation I wouldn't change- I'd live with the short comings of there UA two mixer thing because the plugins sound so good.

I'm using the Focusrite Red series interfaces because it has low thunderbolt latency, a generous amount of hardware monitoring (30 stereo pairs) and speaks HDX for when I am tracking.
If I wasn't using these I'd have 2 x UA Apollo X16's and an Apollo X 8p.

If Avid remove the 32 channel limit for 3rd party interfaces then I'd probably sell my existing system and get those straight away.

I have more to say but I am teaching in a few minutes- I'll say more later.

I'm really not hugely fussed about using UAD plugins to be honest. I have perfectly decent VST solutions and I have some outboard compressors I could cheekily pilfer from the studio.

Really it's about how much money is tied up in the Apollo hardware versus what I could get for less money - on paper the Quantum matches the Apollo in quality. For instance, the Quantum is £799 and the new Quantum 2626 is £509 at launch. So selling my Apollo and getting one of those devices could get me enough scratch together for a Kemper Stage.

So basically the entire thrust of this is MOOOARRR GEEEAARRRRRR

I know what you're saying about the overdub situation. It can happen for sure. I'm happy to accept that as a compromise (bypass all my plugins for the overdub, re-enable them after I've tracked the extra)

Typically I do track with minimal plugins in the DAW. Only getting super heavy with them once 95% of the material is tracked.

octatonic

OK that makes sense, I probably still wouldn't do it but YMMV.
Presonus are a good company to be tied to but the conversion quality in the Apollo X's is really good and the plugins sound excellent.

Stuckfast

octatonic said:

From that thread, comment from UA:

“Luna is native as are Luna Extensions and Luna Instruments. 

All UAD plugins are DSP.”

Hmmm... I'm not sure that's so different from HDX, is it? In both cases you have a recording program that runs natively and writes its data to the host machine's RAM and hard drives. What isn't clear to me is whether the Luna mixer is running on the DSP cards like the HDX mixer, or whether it's native code that sends data to and from the DSP for plug-in processing. I had assumed it must be the former because otherwise I don't see how they can get round the latency issue.

Is HEAT in Pro Tools HDX systems a native or a DSP thing?

octatonic

Stuckfast said:

octatonic said:

From that thread, comment from UA:

“Luna is native as are Luna Extensions and Luna Instruments. 

All UAD plugins are DSP.”

Hmmm... I'm not sure that's so different from HDX, is it? In both cases you have a recording program that runs natively and writes its data to the host machine's RAM and hard drives. What isn't clear to me is whether the Luna mixer is running on the DSP cards like the HDX mixer, or whether it's native code that sends data to and from the DSP for plug-in processing. I had assumed it must be the former because otherwise I don't see how they can get round the latency issue.

Is HEAT in Pro Tools HDX systems a native or a DSP thing?

It is quite different.
You can mix entirely in DSP with HDX, you can’t do that with Luna.

Luna is native, the only things that are DSP based are the plugins.
UA have basically bolted a DAW onto the console.
The DAW and the extensions/instruments are all native.

Heat used to be DSP only it can be DSP or native now.
I actually don’t use it, Crane Song Phoenix is my go to DSP grunge maker.
It is amazing.

Stuckfast

So is the Luna mixer not hosted on the UAD cards? I think the UA Console is DSP rather than native, so if they've just basically bolted a DAW onto that, it would be pretty similar to HDX.

octatonic

Stuckfast said:

So is the Luna mixer not hosted on the UAD cards? I think the UA Console is DSP rather than native, so if they've just basically bolted a DAW onto that, it would be pretty similar to HDX.

As I said Luna is native, it isn’t DSP.
This has been confirmed by UA.
The only things that are DSP are the plugins.

WiresDreamDisasters

I'm fairly sure my mind is made up. I'm gonna sell the UA and get the Presonus so I can then get a Kemper Stage with the extra cash.

EDIT: Or not. LOL. Guess my mind isn't made up!