It is just a new piece of equipment... it certainly isn't personal against you or UAD in the least
Originally Posted by atrophy08
Yes very helpful post there Bill@Welcomehome. Especially the whole "buy the proven product." no offense, or disrespect, but it sounds like someone has some irrational, misdirected anger at the apollo. Second off, i find it's always helpful to follow the rule 'don't knock it til you try it' therefore a more helpful post would have been something like "I have not used the Apollo and don't know much about it. I am happy with the RME ff800....etc" You know I created a gearslutz account just to respond to this
Here are some technical facts:
The RME ff800 has a THD+N (Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise) value of Less than 100 dB, and a Total Dynamic Range value of 116 dB.
The UA Apollo has a THD+N value of: less than 103 dB, and a Total Dynamic Range of 111 dB
So going by those numbers, yes you have the RME in front, but is it world's better? Absolutely not. How do I know? I own both.
Second very valid point, is of course there may be some sacrifices on that front of the argument so that you can get real time UAD processing while tracking with sub 2 ms latency. RME cannot do that, nor can any other interface. It's like having an SSL console and Ampex Tape machine to record your tracks, then saving DSP power for even more versatility in the mix and mastering stage. Not to mention this is the first interface in its class and price range to have a processor, so that host computer has more CPU to breathe
I worked behind an SSL console for three years as well as several Tape consoles, and Neve channel strips. There is no question that UAD-2 plug-ins are the best in the DAW home recording front. It's like having an $80K recording desk console in a portable, $2500 unit, as well as tens of thousands of dollars worth of mastering hardware. I really thought that having this feature would be very exciting to an amateur such as yourself Bill@welcomehome
If you want to talk bout track record of universal audio and their converters, then look up the Twin finity 710 series as well as their other very legendary pieces of A/D D/A hardware units such as their channel strips and limiting amplifiers. So yeah, much better track record amongst the pros.
In closing, of all the interfaces i have used and owned, a much more accurate comparison would be the UA Apollo to the Apogee Ensemble.
Nothing's really wrong with the RME FF800 but I would save the extra $400 and get the Apollo Duo, because there's nothing TOO great about FF800
To compare the Apollo Interface to an SSL console and High-End Tape machines as well as tens of 1000's of dollars of mastering hardware all wrapped up in a box has little value here on GS. While I appreciate your perspective, the Apollo is none of those things. It is an high-quality interface with plugins and DSP. Thats all.
It is still a great piece of equipment, but it is not an SSL console nonetheless.
UAD is my favorite company as a whole. I own and use UAD products for many years. There are countless posts on this board over the past 8 years from myself supporting UAD and thier great products. And for me they are just great products
. I also own and use RME products and have for years and have equal posts supporting them. While you may not find RME particularly 'professional' ... I certainly do
While there may not be anything too 'special' about RME, what they do
bring is a long history of stability, reliability and clean clear professional performance in the digital interface world. That is valuable to me as a working professional.
The UAD Apollo is brand new. That is not a dminishing remark against the product, it is just a fact and for better or worse that has it's bonafide risks. For some it is worth the risk, for others it is not. Fair enough?
Few people who record for a living in the digital domain will risk stability for an unproven product without any history. If they do, they generally keep thier current set-up close at hand until they can get thier new system stable.
Even with this I am not suggesting that the Apollo is not rock-solid. It may be.
However there is a point that cannot be circumvented for any company. UAD (and any company), despite thier best efforts will not have the ability or knowledge to know where the Apollo is going to need changes until it has been out in the world, being used in different scenarios with different workflows by different users. This first year is indeed the real
Beta-Testing period and the first group of buyers are the real beta-testers. This is how it is with all new digital gear, DAWS or even new revisions of proven gear.
The OP has a valid position to consider. I myself agree with Bill.. today
I would prefer an RME with say a UAD DUO or QUAD etc. as my base. Perhaps in a year or two I would look at the Apollo because I genuinely love the sound quality of most UAD gear. For now stability is highest on my value system over any plugin access or increase in converter quality.
All is well. We are a blessed bunch with infinite options to support our success today.