UAD Apollo Twin ??? - School Me All About It

Wazmeister

Like a lot of us, Im now looking at my home recording options...

iMac 27" - and simpler the better.

Logic or Garageband will be my preference.

So, how good are the UAD Apollo twins ? 

Duo or quad ? The new X model ?

Are they that superior to the Apogee Duet ?

Thanks in advance.

PS - my only UAD experience was the OX, and I absolutely loved the software on that.

octatonic

The hardware is very good but to go all in with the plugins is several thousand pounds.

I would get a Quad at a minimum and the new X models, especially the 16, sound better than most hardware out there, except the very high end.
I don't like the two mixer topology after using HDX for so long, which is why I only use the UA interfaces for mobile recording.
For most people it will be fine.

lukedlb

I'm finding Garageband a nice entry level DAW. Extra fun is being had with midi controlling all the sounds from every dance record of the 80s and 90s.

Wazmeister

lukedlb said:

I'm finding Garageband a nice entry level DAW. Extra fun is being had with midi controlling all the sounds from every dance record of the 80s and 90s.

Had a little play with Garageband today, for the first time in years. Very impressive, and simple to use.

Wazmeister

octatonic said:

The hardware is very good but to go all in with the plugins is several thousand pounds.

I would get a Quad at a minimum and the new X models, especially the 16, sound better than most hardware out there, except the very high end.
I don't like the two mixer topology after using HDX for so long, which is why I only use the UA interfaces for mobile recording.
For most people it will be fine.

Thanks for the info, appreciate it.

For small number of tracks, would duo vs wuad make much difference ?

octatonic

Wazmeister said:

octatonic said:

The hardware is very good but to go all in with the plugins is several thousand pounds.

I would get a Quad at a minimum and the new X models, especially the 16, sound better than most hardware out there, except the very high end.
I don't like the two mixer topology after using HDX for so long, which is why I only use the UA interfaces for mobile recording.
For most people it will be fine.

Thanks for the info, appreciate it.

For small number of tracks, would duo vs wuad make much difference ?

How many tracks are we talking?

Wazmeister

@octatonic - probably my own demos, so 6 or 7

octatonic

Always better to have too much DSP than too little but you might be OK.

duotone

Was seriously thinking about getting one last Autumn. Watched a good few videos and saw one on YouTube where they compared a budget & expensive interface. With a band recording on a Focusrite v the Apollo Twin, after listening to that I decided to stick with my £100 Presonus Audiobox I-Two.

Stuckfast

Do get the Quad if you get a Twin -- you will definitely run out of DSP power even on a small mix otherwise.

octatonic

Stuckfast said:

Do get the Quad if you get a Twin -- you will definitely run out of DSP power even on a small mix otherwise.

Worth noting that you can use a combination of UAD and native plugins at the mix stage.
I find myself using the UAD plugins to track through (with a UA interface) in the console, then shift the necessary plugins from Console to the Logic/Pro Tools/Studio One mixer and you can then add in other non-UA plugins to your hearts content.

I know you know this but it might not be apparent to those who have not used the hardware.

Stuckfast

That's all true but I think you have to be pretty confident and experienced with recording to do that. These days I'm happy to track through compression and EQ and so on, but it took me a while to get to that stage.

octatonic

Stuckfast said:

That's all true but I think you have to be pretty confident and experienced with recording to do that. These days I'm happy to track through compression and EQ and so on, but it took me a while to get to that stage.

What I mean is you can monitor through them (recording dry, but monitoring the wet signal) and then shift the plugin to the DAW mixer.
You don't have to print the wet signal- that is part of the advantage of the UA system.

Stuckfast

Yes that's cool, but if you don't print the effect then you have to use up DSP resources recreating it in the mix. Some of those UAD plug-ins like the Neve 1073 are really intensive. I have a Twin Quad here and I can easily max it out on a mix with less than 10 tracks!

Wazmeister

octatonic said:

The hardware is very good but to go all in with the plugins is several thousand pounds.

I would get a Quad at a minimum and the new X models, especially the 16, sound better than most hardware out there, except the very high end.
I don't like the two mixer topology after using HDX for so long, which is why I only use the UA interfaces for mobile recording.
For most people it will be fine.

Sadly, its looking like the Quad !!

Appreciate your input James; have you tried Luna yet ?

octatonic

Stuckfast said:

Yes that's cool, but if you don't print the effect then you have to use up DSP resources recreating it in the mix. Some of those UAD plug-ins like the Neve 1073 are really intensive. I have a Twin Quad here and I can easily max it out on a mix with less than 10 tracks!

So the way we have always managed that with HDX and other DSP system is printing effects after you have tracked.

Until very recently it has not been possible for an entire mix to be run 'live'.
In my old HDX workflow I would do this.
Track with plugins instantiated but record the dry signal.
Then print a couple of copies of the plugin with different settings.
Then mute/hide the original (mute/make inactive in PT) and work with the copy.
If I needed to make any drastic changes to the plugin then I still have the original to work with- just unhide/make active and print the effect again.
It is the same way you work with analogue outboard, incidentally.

It is a good way to work, actually- printing effects makes you get through a couple of layers of decision making pretty quickly.
It isn't really necessary to endlessly tweak, for example, preamp settings in the DAW.
Having it committed forces you to work with what you have but you have a safety net of having the original audio.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy as much DSP as you can afford- by all means do, but there are well established workarounds.
People made records with PT Mix 24 systems and they have a pitiful amount of DSP my modern standards.

It is really only in the last 5 years or so that you've been able to have an entire session live without printed effects and I am somewhat an advocate for committing to a sound early on, but preserving the original recording too.

From my time working for a company he owned I have a few Peter Gabriel multitracks and the amount they committed to tape/disk is actually incredible.
Those guys made decisions and the records sound incredible for it.

Jonathanthomas83

Personally, I wouldn't get drawn into the ecosystem. I use Reaper, an RME interface and plugins. Not saying it's better, but it's certainly cheaper and does a superb job.

digitalkettle

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Personally, I wouldn't get drawn into the ecosystem. I use Reaper, an RME interface and plugins. Not saying it's better, but it's certainly cheaper and does a superb job.

You get a free DAW from UA these days!

octatonic

digitalkettle said:

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Personally, I wouldn't get drawn into the ecosystem. I use Reaper, an RME interface and plugins. Not saying it's better, but it's certainly cheaper and does a superb job.

You get a free DAW from UA these days!

Only if you have a modern interface, and own a Mac.

octatonic

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Personally, I wouldn't get drawn into the ecosystem. I use Reaper, an RME interface and plugins. Not saying it's better, but it's certainly cheaper and does a superb job.

Are you able to track with plugins instantiated with low latency?

WiresDreamDisasters

I can load up 17 UAD Distressors on my Apollo x8p before it maxes out. That's a lot of compression!