UA Apollo vs RME UFX blind test

[KBOY]

Originally Posted by euphoria89

If you are using both, but the rme as the primary, you prob won't be able to monitor through the console of the Apollo, or use its uad2 capabilities as far as I am aware, especially not if you are simply going digitally out from the unit. Not sure if setting up an aggregate device would alleviate this issue or not.

Well, I'm assuming that I can use the Apollo with inserted plugins and route them through the ADAT ports and over to the RME. Will this not work?

I was running a session today with it. I had a couple AU UA plugins going with a few on channels in the console. There didn't seem to be any issues.

RME connected via firewire
Apollo connected via Thunderbolt (which should be out by tax time)

Or am I misunderstanding you

[neirbod]

Originally Posted by KBOY

Rme as the main interface, monitor control/routing and of course it's best in class drivers. I also want to use it for on location ambisonic recording.

Given what you stated you find important about the RME, I suggest you check out the Babyface, FF400, or UCX. They may do everything you want, be more portable for location work, and cost less. UFX seems like overkill.

[KBOY]

Originally Posted by neirbod

Given what you stated you find important about the RME, I suggest you check out the Babyface, FF400, or UCX. They may do everything you want, be more portable for location work, and cost less. UFX seems like overkill.

Not really overkill at all. 4 clean pres for the sps200, on board usb recording. No noisy computer, no additional recorders needed. Unless of course I'm recording somewhere without power. Plenty of optical to run into the ADI at high sample rates to feed my monitors AES. Plenty of optical to feed the Apollo into at high sample rates.

The babyface has never appealed to me.

The only thing about the UCX that has caught my eye is the fact that you can use it with an ipad.

This has been an on going battle in my head for the last many months. And I felt a great relief when I let go and chose both.

Thanks

[euphoria89]

Originally Posted by KBOY

Well, I'm assuming that I can use the Apollo with inserted plugins and route them through the ADAT ports and over to the RME. Will this not work?

I was running a session today with it. I had a couple AU UA plugins going with a few on channels in the console. There didn't seem to be any issues.

RME connected via firewire
Apollo connected via Thunderbolt (which should be out by tax time)

Or am I misunderstanding you

I'm not sure how you are planning to use both the thunderbolt and firewire options together.

As far as i am aware, you can only have one primary sound driver in the O/S. This being either the RME or the Apollo.

If you have the Apollo as the driver, you will be allowed access to the console, plugins and all the features you would normally have access to.

However, if you use the RME, then you wont be able to load up the Apollo console without it being connected. You save save the Apollo console as a standalone snapshot, with routing (and presumably FX), but you shouldn't be able to edit them unless you re-connect the Apollo as the console doesnt start if it isnt detected. You should have no problems routing the inputs to the digital outputs and feeding them into the RME as long as you choose one or the other as the master clock.

If it were me, i'd be doing it the opposite way around and having the apollo as the primary interface and feed more inputs from the RME, but thats just me. That way, once thunderbolt arrives, you can chain the devices through it and have full bandwidth for all devices.

[KBOY]

UFX as main on FireWire. Apollo on thunderbolt. Routed into the UFX through optical.

Again, UFX for its drivers and monitor control. I'm working in 5.1. And Apollo for its front end and plugins.

U can have 2 devices connected at the same time while only using one of the as the interface. with this u can still operate the console in the Apollo.

I'm very well aware of how this all works.

[cowboycoalminer]

Originally Posted by KBOY

UFX as main on FireWire. Apollo on thunderbolt. Routed into the UFX through optical.

Again, UFX for its drivers and monitor control. I'm working in 5.1. And Apollo for its front end and plugins.

U can have 2 devices connected at the same time while only using one of the as the interface. with this u can still operate the console in the Apollo.

I'm very well aware of how this all works.

I have found that the Apollo and USB devices don't play nice with each other. Cant seem to figure out how to aggregate them

[Daci_MVRL]

I just came across this thread, and did the test. I have used neither interfaces, but I have had some experiences with older RME gear. Thus, I presumed that A would be the RME, and B, which sounds more pleasing to my ears, would be the Apollo.

It was a surprise to me, that A is actually the Apollo while B is the UFX, because I found A to be more accurate, but not as rounded as B (lacks a bit of warmth?). Another thing that bothers me quite a bit about A is that the M~HF sound a bit choking and nasal compared to B.

Thanks to Jemu

[digiot]

So I have been trying to find any comparisons with the USB-Drivers.
I have used the UFX to track drums(16-inputs) in to Protools 10 with the buffer set to 32K!! Also monitoring through Protools Software.
Afterwards overdubbed Guitars Bass and Vocals and it wasn't till I started mixing that I realized I was still at the 32K buffer!!
As far as I am concerned nobody beats RME when it comes to solid drivers!!

I will be doing a similar session (live drums) next week with an Apollo, lets see it it can keep up!

[nms]

Originally Posted by KBOY

UFX as main on FireWire. Apollo on thunderbolt. Routed into the UFX through optical.

If the Apollo is only feeding into the UFX via optical there's no point in the thunderbolt whatsoever. You're going to pay for the latest fastest connectivity and then only use it for control panel adjustments?

[pointsource]

How you guys (the owners) feel about UFX being on the bottom of the AD/DA loop shootout thread??

[didier.brest]

I don't care so much because it sounds good. The Babyface too. I replaced a Fireface 400, which is much higher in the loopback test ranking by an UFX and did not notice that the sound would not be as good. My first feeling (before I knew the test result) was that it was better. However I would like that RME explains why the Babyface and the UFX do not perform well in this test.

[KBOY]

Originally Posted by cowboycoalminer

I have found that the Apollo and USB devices don't play nice with each other. Cant seem to figure out how to aggregate them

I wasn't going to be using them that way. I was thinking I'd route the apollo's outputs optically into the rme.

[KBOY]

Originally Posted by nms

If the Apollo is only feeding into the UFX via optical there's no point in the thunderbolt whatsoever. You're going to pay for the latest fastest connectivity and then only use it for control panel adjustments?

Wouldn't the point be well made for using the DSP plugs in the mix? Freeing up firewire bandwidth for the UFX?

[Purusha]

Personally I prefer A.

So which one is which?

[WKG]

Originally Posted by pointsource

How you guys (the owners) feel about UFX being on the bottom of the AD/DA loop shootout thread??

Who cares. The UFX sounds great and is an excellent piece.

The loopback thread while fairly interesting is really not the divine judgment on the world order of conversion quality many people seem to think it is.

[pointsource]

Originally Posted by WKG

Who cares. The UFX sounds great and is an excellent piece.

The loopback thread while fairly interesting is really not the divine judgment on the world order of conversion quality many people seem to think it is.

Why you say that? I think it's pretty obvious, the numbers don't lie.

I was gonna get a UFX but that thread changed my mind... I'd rather get a motu 828MK3 and use the rest of the money on something else.

[WKG]

Originally Posted by pointsource

Why you say that? I think it's pretty obvious, the numbers don't lie.

I was gonna get a UFX but that thread changed my mind... I'd rather get a motu 828MK3 and use the rest of the money on something else.

The numbers there are somewhat of interest but it's really not the divine judgment it is assumed by many to be. There is at least one user in that thread who owns Burl, Lavry and others as well as the UFX and thinks it's conversion sounds great and recommends it. If a Motu 828mk3 meets your needs go for it. Personally I'd rather try both in person and make the decision personally, for myself.

I think both the Apollo and the UFX sound great.

[nms]

People don't trust what they don't understand fully and others tune stuff out if it defies convention and what they want or expect to hear. That's what it really comes down to. A null test is in fact very basic science (math technically ie 5-4=1!)

It's foolish to disregard but also not meant to be the defining measure of a converter's sound as we say often in that thread. Trust me when I say that a lot of manufacturers count on you not noticing the difference though or listening with your "new gear excitement ears".

It's all in how you weigh it.

Probably the reason manufacturers count on you not noticing is because the majority of units out there are good enough for most people. For every person who thinks the UFX sounds harsh and looser on the transient control there are a good 20 that are happy with it. From a business standpoint that's a successful product.

[WKG]

Like I said, the loopback thread is not the divine judgment many assume it to be. There are may who use the UFX and other high end conversion units and have no problem at all. There are others who see a number ranking on a screen and are forced to conclude it sounds bad. Then there are others still who feel empowered to embark on a crusade to substantiate their numerical ranking conclusions.

I think I'll trust my ears. The fact that owners of other highly esteemed, and perhaps even legendary, units easliy recommend the UFX as well carries much more weight than a simple numerical ranking found in a thread on a contentious and often conflicting internet forum.

BTW I think the Apollo and the UFX both sound great.

[nms]

Originally Posted by WKG

I think I'll trust my ears. The fact that owners of other highly esteemed, and perhaps even legendary, units easliy recommend the UFX as well carries much more weight than a simple numerical ranking found in a thread on a contentious and often conflicting internet forum.

Not really. Not if you are after the best sounding & most transparent units available currently. If you just want someone to recommend a converter for sounding good just go buy anything you want. They mostly all sound "good" and are better than what people used to make records on.

I don't care who you are or what gear you own. Test methods will always be able to pinpoint things conclusively and repeatably that your/my ears fail to consciously pinpoint and identify. You may have mixed one of my favorite albums but that doesn't make you an expert on the difference between a UFX and a Prism Dream etc or give you the knowledge of having sat in a great room A/B'ing the two.

There's a thread on here comparing cables where people's ears were sure they could hear different things from the recordings of the cheaper vs high end which we ended up being able to null down to silent noise floor! How many listening tests on here have you seen people describing the same units in opposite terms to the next guy? It's common. Ears fail often but particularly when expectation bias plays into it.

If you go to the hospital do you trust them to use a microscope or stethoscope? Why not just use their eyes and ears? After all, they're professionals aren't they?

Transparent by definition means you can run audio through it without alteration to the waveform. Null tests are where identical waveforms cancel out and the mismatched residual remains. No voodoo I'm afraid.

Transparent definitely doesn't always equate to best sounding though obviously as that's subjective. Use whatever you want. There are plenty of other more important things to worry about at the end of the day and anyone whose needs exceed a unit like the Apollo or UFX knows there's plenty of Lavry/Prism/Mytek/Burl/Antelope out there.

[WKG]

At the end of the day it is human ears/perception and all the subjectivity they entail that anybody engaged in the endeavour of music production ultimately serves. We are not creating music for bats and dogs to approve or disapprove of.

This persistent crusading in this forum wherever there is any hint of less than complete submission to the loopback test results really does not help the cause. I certainly understand null tests. I also understand that diffmaker itself states as follows:

Changes detected by Audio DiffMaker are not necessarily audible changes for any given person. Some changes will not sound different, and some are too weak to be heard

Audio DiffMaker

The fact that owners of Burl and other highly regarded converters, who have used and A/B'd, also recommend the UFX indicates that there is obviously more to the picture.

I think the Apollo and the UFX sound great, which one did you pick in the blind test here?

[nms]

Originally Posted by WKG

At the end of the day it is human ears/perception and all the subjectivity they entail that anybody engaged in the endeavour of music production ultimately serves. We are not creating music for bats and dogs to approve or disapprove of.

That's all well and good, but the reality is transparency (within their budget of course) IS the general goal of most converter companies. It's a sliperry slope when you make excuses for a piece of gear completely tanking in the results of a test like that among 50 converters. RME cater to their users though and spends their money on features they can market. You don't find the Fireface series in mastering studios. They're not intended or regarded as mastering grade conversion. That's just reality.

This persistent crusading in this forum wherever there is any hint of less than complete submission to the loopback test results really does not help the cause.

crusading? Do you know how much fcking useless info and recommendations get passed around this forum because of amateurs who can't test gear properly? It's brutal. Some of the worst purchases I ever made (2 converters and an $1800 compressor) were from throwing caution to the wind and buying forum darlings that were hastily assessed and bandwagoned. People need to smarten up and the efforts of myself and others have been helping that quite a bit and causing companies to have to step up their game. Companies love it if no one threw in depth tests at their gear as we do and just bought on brand name and marketing. If you want to go that route go ahead but I'll be waiting to tear into any unit we find on the chopping block.

I certainly understand null tests. I also understand that diffmaker itself states as follows:

If you understand so much then why would you post something as redundant as that? Of course null tests can reveal things below our level of perception. By eliminating the identical waveforms and leaving only the changes you are increasing the signal to noise in your perception of said distortions by a huge margin. However, in the context of the ultimate converter thread the rankings are according to measured energy so the quieter the change is, the less it will affect the ranking. No one cares if a unit scores a half db better or worse there. They sure do care if a unit scores 10-20db better/worse though. It warns you to procede with caution and do careful A/B listening if you choose to go for a unit like that. That's the whole point of why we do what we do. You have to make your own decisions on what to do with the info.

The fact that owners of Burl and other highly regarded converters, who have used and A/B'd, also recommend the UFX

I bought my MR816 because of the whole "OMG.. MR816 sounds as good as an Orpheus!" craze. In reality the Orpheus is a far better unit. Sorry, but owning this or that piece of gear does not make you an expert gear review source by default. That said, I've never heard a working professional who uses Burl/Lavry/Mytek recommend the UFX to anyone looking for high end conversion.

I think the Apollo and the UFX sound great, which one did you pick in the blind test here?

I couldn't deal with the source material here so didn't even bother. I'll tell you one thing though. I've worked in the music industry for 17 years now, have a great studio for what I do, and bought around $11000+ in gear this past year alone. And you know what? I'm usually not comfortable with trusting my ears and what I think I hear in any of the listening tests posted in the forum. I need isolation, focus, and suitable content in order to be that accurate. I trust nothing unless I can confirm it blind. This is partly why I got really good with scientific analysis so I have tools that do exactly what I want and know how they behave in different conditions.

Listening tests really require a lot in order to be valuable & effective. It can be thrown off if sources aren't identical, levels mismatched even slightly, content not suitable for exposing key aspects, the limitations of the monitoriing environment of listeners, influence of voting trends, etc etc.


I fully & COMPLETELY support that people buy and use whatever gear they like. I just don't support the idea that because you own something you should have your head in the sand when it comes to its flaws or the existence of better gear. If you don't work at a professional level that justifies it or have money to burn I would never recommend chasing "the best" converters though. It's silly. Forget about how your unit places in our test if you're happy with it. Your time is much better spent making music and your money is much better spent on a killer monitor upgrade or one of the many other things that make a greater difference.

[djmukilteo]

All the testing is well and good, but at the end of the day...some people can afford a Mercedes or Ferrari and some people can afford a Chevy or Ford.
I totally agree with your assessment that Burl/Lavry/Mytek is not at the same level as RME or Apollo or a MOTU and testing should show that.
A better comparison, method or discussion should have price range as a group factor.
That's what most people should compare and truly that's all they want to know.
How many times have we seen the "I have $1500 to spend whats the best interface?" That makes the whole thing more relevant and specific!
It also puts companies on notice not to put out a product in the $5000 range that technically performs in the $1000 range group.

[WKG]

Originally Posted by nms

That's all well and good, but the reality is transparency (within their budget of course) IS the general goal of most converter companies.

Making music is the final goal, of which transparency is certainly one aspect.

Originally Posted by nms

crusading? Do you know how much fcking useless info and recommendations get passed around this forum because of amateurs who can't test gear properly? It's brutal. Some of the worst purchases I ever made (2 converters and an $1800 compressor) were from throwing caution to the wind and buying forum darlings that were hastily assessed and bandwagoned. People need to smarten up and the efforts of myself and others have been helping that quite a bit and causing companies to have to step up their game. Companies love it if no one threw in depth tests at their gear as we do and just bought on brand name and marketing. If you want to go that route go ahead but I'll be waiting to tear into any unit we find on the chopping block.

I certainly agree that there is much useless info getting passed around this forum.

Not trying to be disrespectful but crusading is not an entirely inaccurate term. The fact that you are here in this thread, which was intended to discuss the Apollo and UFX in a blind listening test, making the effort to present yourself as the authority (and those who disagree or don’t subscribe apparently as amateurs…) regarding said gear and the loopback test thread pretty well exemplifies that.

Personally, I’ve never followed the practice of simply buying the latest forum darlings.

Originally Posted by nms

If you understand so much then why would you post something as redundant as that?

Simply because it is what the writer of Audio Diffmaker, the primary testing tool you are using warns of it in regards to use of the program. It needs to be included to have a clearer understanding of the results of the null test. To disregard it implies results the program may or may not necessarily be supporting.

Originally Posted by nms

I bought my MR816 because of the whole "OMG.. MR816 sounds as good as an Orpheus!" craze.

I never even considered the MR816.

Originally Posted by nms

I couldn't deal with the source material here so didn't even bother. I'll tell you one thing though. I've worked in the music industry for 17 years now, have a great studio for what I do, and bought around $11000+ in gear this past year alone. And you know what? I'm usually not comfortable with trusting my ears and what I think I hear in any of the listening tests posted in the forum. I need isolation, focus, and suitable content in order to be that accurate. I trust nothing unless I can confirm it blind. This is partly why I got really good with scientific analysis so I have tools that do exactly what I want and know how they behave in different conditions.

Well the test is what this thread is really about. I always take listening tests with grain of salt and in general terms only. I have never substituted analysis tools for ears though. The goal and reason for the entire endeavor of music production is human ears and perception, not a graph on an analysis tool. And of course I agree actual audible perceptions can be skewed by voting trends etc, but just as easily they can also be skewed by expectation bias due to a numerical position, actual perceptible audible differences aside.

For the record I like both the Apollo and the UFX.

[cowboycoalminer]

@NMS

You say you've worked in audio for 17 years but don't trust your ears. Why? Are you that lacking in confidence? This seems to me one of the oddest statements I have ever read on this site. There simply isn't anything of more value for a mixer than the two free instruments the good Lord gave us. I agree with you 100 percent about the misguided information spouted on this site daily that I and any sage person has learned to ignore, but where we part is in your quest for righteous truth you come off a condescending and know it all type person. You have made great effort in your thread and that's commendable. But you must know that your tests in the way they are performed are less than scientific. I'll admit that if they where performed in the same lab under a control they would be but we are left to trust the integrity of nameless faceless people to be truthful in this endevour. It goes without saying that if you can hardly trust people you know, how can one trust a stranger? You trust your test, fine. I couldn't care less. It would be good that in future posts if you might refrain from being condescending to those who question the verity of the endevour. For me, I have learned this very important lesson in practice and not by tests, I can make any of these modern boxes sing. And I'm not attached to any of them. I've used what's considered high end, mid grade and low end. Maybe a nickels worth of difference in them in my book. I've made great records with them all. I'll agree that if you want to reproduce a single perfect waveform and sit back and stick your chest out, by all means, buy the most expensive converter you can find. If you want to make a record any of these new converters will do just fine. If you know what your doing that is.

[mcgruff]

If it's "condescending" to make an attempt to objectively analyse audio performance, can I have some more please?

You're accusing people of lying in the tests. With no evidence.

You claim the differences are small in practice. That depends what you're comparing, but OK it is broadly true for the better units. Nobody is claiming otherwise. These differences may not be important to you and that's fine. However, it doesn't mean that they don't exist or might not be important to other people.

[nms]

Originally Posted by mcgruff

These differences may not be important to you and that's fine. However, it doesn't mean that they don't exist or might not be important to other people.

Exactly and I've said it a million times. Use whatever you want according to your budget and needs. That doesn't mean you need to have your head in the sand about the existence of better gear or get offended and slag the method because your unit tests worse than others. It's been repeated countless times.. the current quality of converters on the market are usable across the board and differences are very subtle most times.

Originally Posted by cowboycoalminer

You say you've worked in audio for 17 years but don't trust your ears. Why? Are you that lacking in confidence? This seems to me one of the oddest statements I have ever read on this site.

I never said I simply don't trust my ears. I said:

usually not comfortable with trusting my ears and what I think I hear in any of the listening tests posted in the forum. I need isolation, focus, and suitable content in order to be that accurate. I trust nothing unless I can confirm it blind.

There's a big difference between hearing something vs consciously identifying it. Sometimes it's not that you aren't hearing it, it's that you aren't conscious of it. When the audio is changing constantly or busy it can distract you from focusing and remembering upon A/B test. It's a skill. You can call me a condescending knowitall all you want but I know my limits. There are guys on this forum infinitely better at that than I am, and there are even more guys who think they hear things that aren't there.

I've also been DJing on stages for the past 17yrs with loud monitors so that doesn't exactly help the matter. I get by in the studio though. I have total control of the conditions and content so that's not an issue. I know my gear inside & out. It still takes me twice as long as most to make decisions though. Comes with being a Virgo perfectionist with ADD tendencies.

Regardless, if this thread pops up in my feed with comments directed at the validity of the months of work & refinement in the converter test thread why would I not answer? The line about what we're doing not being scientific is a load of BS. To date we've established a typical margin for error of less than 0.5db ranking placement between same units tested by different users with different cables. We've had 5 Motus within that and several other duplicates like that.

We try to help people make more informed purchase decisions. It's an area of significance to me since I've made a lot of misinformed purchases in the past and had to waste time reselling stuff.

[Quint]

Originally Posted by cowboycoalminer

@NMS

You say you've worked in audio for 17 years but don't trust your ears. Why? Are you that lacking in confidence? This seems to me one of the oddest statements I have ever read on this site. There simply isn't anything of more value for a mixer than the two free instruments the good Lord gave us. I agree with you 100 percent about the misguided information spouted on this site daily that I and any sage person has learned to ignore, but where we part is in your quest for righteous truth you come off a condescending and know it all type person. You have made great effort in your thread and that's commendable. But you must know that your tests in the way they are performed are less than scientific. I'll admit that if they where performed in the same lab under a control they would be but we are left to trust the integrity of nameless faceless people to be truthful in this endevour. It goes without saying that if you can hardly trust people you know, how can one trust a stranger? You trust your test, fine. I couldn't care less. It would be good that in future posts if you might refrain from being condescending to those who question the verity of the endevour. For me, I have learned this very important lesson in practice and not by tests, I can make any of these modern boxes sing. And I'm not attached to any of them. I've used what's considered high end, mid grade and low end. Maybe a nickels worth of difference in them in my book. I've made great records with them all. I'll agree that if you want to reproduce a single perfect waveform and sit back and stick your chest out, by all means, buy the most expensive converter you can find. If you want to make a record any of these new converters will do just fine. If you know what your doing that is.

I've been round and round with him about this. He's got the blinders on at this point and has for some time now. Unflinching certainty against the notion of one's own fallibility is the antithesis of valid scientific endeavor. In this regard, NMS is the Gearslutz poster child because, as you said, the "ultimate?" thread is definitely far less than scientific.

[pointsource]

Originally Posted by Quint

I've been round and round with him about this. He's got the blinders on at this point and has for some time now. Unflinching certainty against the notion of one's own fallibility is the antithesis of valid scientific endeavor. In this regard, NMS is the Gearslutz poster child because, as you said, the "ultimate?" thread is definitely far less than scientific.

What a scientific test is? I mean, We are not talking about living beings here... I'm not a genious, but I don't think this kind of testing needs anymore than a software comparing files using maths. I trust maths, numbers...

I really trust this test, for me it's convincing.

[nms]

lol, what are you on about Quint. As usual nothing you just said holds a shred of truth including the laughable notion as if any of us thinks it's a flawless perfect process. We never have. Apparently we're just smarter than you when it comes to understanding how the info can be useful.

I don't remember what you were crying about.. just that it was whiney, repetitive, & redundant. People like you cry about about how the whole thing is useless if units are tested by different people with different cables. You claim it's not science despite the straightforward science of a basic null test. Meanwhile, over in REALITY, we end up with 4 of the same model ranking within a few decimal points (wow, what a gamechanger!) of each other and several other doubles doing the same. In other words, evidence. Something you never bring to the discussion.