UA Apollo vs MH 2882

[smoovemode]

Now this is a good boxing match! New School vs Old School!

My application would be exceptional sound quality with a vintage flavor, which both seem to brag about. If I'm correct, the 2882 dsp can utilize more than just it's own plugins (i.e. logic plugins, etc)! the UA has newer chips in stuff but that does not mean it's better! What do you fellas think about these two and which one would you pick?

Mic Preamps?
Converters?
Options?
DSP
Out of the box Plugins?

[Puffpastry]

I'm not as familiar with the MH, but I currently use a UAD-2 Quad and the quality of the plugins is amazing. If I had to live with only one piece of audio gear, I think the UAD Apollo would be my choice.

I think the converters in the UAD Apollo will be noticeably better than the MH, plus they sample up to 192 Khz.

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by Puffpastry

I'm not as familiar with the MH, but I currently use a UAD-2 Quad and the quality of the plugins is amazing. If I had to live with only one piece of audio gear, I think the UAD Apollo would be my choice.

I think the converters in the UAD Apollo will be noticeably better than the MH, plus they sample up to 192 Khz.

That's the only concern I have is the built in UAD seems to be all they talk about. For all we know the actual interface is no better than a Saffire Pro or something.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by Puffpastry

I'm not as familiar with the MH, but I currently use a UAD-2 Quad and the quality of the plugins is amazing. If I had to live with only one piece of audio gear, I think the UAD Apollo would be my choice.

I think the converters in the UAD Apollo will be noticeably better than the MH, plus they sample up to 192 Khz.

Why would you think that the converters will be noticeably better in the Apollo than the MH if you've never used the Apollo and are relatively unfamiliar with the MH? At best it's a wild guess, and maybe even a poor guess when it's generally agreed that MH conversion is superb.

For what it's worth, I was told by UA at NAMM that the Apollo has the same converters as in the 4-710d.

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

Why would you think that the converters will be noticeably better in the Apollo than the MH if you've never used the Apollo and are relatively unfamiliar with the MH? At best it's a wild guess, and maybe even a poor guess when it's generally agreed that MH conversion is superb.

For what it's worth, I was told by UA at NAMM that the Apollo has the same converters as in the 4-710d.

That's worth a lot! It seems like a lot of people are dissing those converters on here! That gives me mixed emotions. Relieved because I don't see UA putting shitty converters in their flagship interface, so maybe they are good after all. But concern because, if the converters are not cool...What can you really expect from Apollo? Now I would really like to hear more about the 4-710 converters. How do they hold up against the likes of MH and Apogee?

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

Why would you think that the converters will be noticeably better in the Apollo than the MH if you've never used the Apollo and are relatively unfamiliar with the MH? At best it's a wild guess, and maybe even a poor guess when it's generally agreed that MH conversion is superb.

For what it's worth, I was told by UA at NAMM that the Apollo has the same converters as in the 4-710d.

Puff...he's got a point. Unless I'm missing something, you're using double speculation to come up with your conclusion.

[Richie]

MH 2882, as far as I know, can only access it's own suite of plugins, and it's graph function, which is a way of creating your own with various components supplied with the dsp license. This is an incredibly powerful set of tools and options, but it does not have the mojo of vintage and sought after gear names to whet your whistle. I've been using the 2882 for several years now, and the more I get to know it, the more I love it. The pres are clean if you don't need to hit them too hard, but for ribbons and such you'll need an outboard. The set of character plug-ins is usable, and they add a bit of the analog flavor so many seem to be after, I have my favorites and use them to print. The Channel Strip is fantastic, I know plugs aren't supposed to distort, but so many do, this one is truly spot on . As far as the converters go, how can you tell? These sound as good as I need them to, but there may be better, but I view converters as either they work or they don't, like water, the best has no taste. Metric Halo is second to none when it comes to support and community, it is a bit cult like, but what other piece of gear that was introduced so long ago is still a viable option in this fast paced world of computer audio? I don't know about the UA, if I was in the market now, I'd give it a good hard look, but it seems to be a variation on the theme of the MH approach, i.e. dsp processing offline of effects and plugs. The Record panel in the MH box allows realtime mixing of your final mix with your DAW and MH Mio mixer contributing to the final, recorded in the MH . Sounds simple, but it goes way beyond, the options are fantastic. Steve Devino at GraniteRoks Live (Granite_Rocks_Live) can answer any questions you might have better than I.

[smoovemode]

Which system has the better stock plugins?

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

Which system has the better stock plugins?

According to the UA rep at NAMM, the Apollo comes with the UAD 1176 plugin. That's it.

[rhizomeman]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

My application would be exceptional sound quality with a vintage flavor, which both seem to brag about.

I wouldn't say mh "brag" about their quality - that comes from the customers

[work2do]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

According to the UA rep at NAMM, the Apollo comes with the UAD 1176 plugin. That's it.

wrong.

Does Apollo come with any UAD Powered Plug-Ins?
Yes! Apollo ships with the Analog Classics Plug-In Bundle. You will also have access to fully functioning 14-day demos for all UAD Powered Plug-Ins.

UA Apollo FAQ section

Originally Posted by smoovemode

Now this is a good boxing match! New School vs Old School!

My application would be exceptional sound quality with a vintage flavor, which both seem to brag about. If I'm correct, the 2882 dsp can utilize more than just it's own plugins (i.e. logic plugins, etc)! the UA has newer chips in stuff but that does not mean it's better! What do you fellas think about these two and which one would you pick?

Mic Preamps?
Converters?
Options?
DSP
Out of the box Plugins?

Anyone pretending to know anything about how the Apollo sounds or anything of the sort is just blowing smoke and making up stuff based on their own imagination or bias. No one has used it yet. It's not shipping for quite some time.

[cme]

I'm a fairly new MH convert, but the Apollo has also gotten my attention. I don't think you can really go wrong either way. They just have slightly different feature sets. But are also very similar. And I think both are where the recording industry is going. Interfaces with built in DSP. Being able to use UAD's plugs and thunderbolt are two big pluses for the Apollo. However not yet being able to use more than one at a time is a minus. For now anyways. Also MH is dedicated to never leaving an interface behind. Which is almost unheard of in today's world. So pick either and I think you'll be happy. I'm pretty sure I would be.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by work2do

wrong.

Does Apollo come with any UAD Powered Plug-Ins?
Yes! Apollo ships with the Analog Classics Plug-In Bundle. You will also have access to fully functioning 14-day demos for all UAD Powered Plug-Ins.

Okay. Wasn't wrong so long ago. At NAMM UA said it just came with the 1176 plug.

Also said Thunderbolt I/O was coming in May, along with ASIO drivers/software for using multiple Apollos.

[smoovemode]

My concern is this. If I buy the MH, it's a strong box, even without the plugin "thingy", just because of its exceptional quality. I'm sure the UA is good. But is The sound quality as good or better than interfaces in its price range? The built in iAd is nice. But it's not why I'm buying it.

[smoovemode]

Any idea on the price of the thunderbolt upgrade? If it cost the same as a symphony 64 card or pro tools native card I'd be pissed!!!! Lol

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

Any idea on the price of the thunderbolt upgrade? If it cost the same as a symphony 64 card or pro tools native card I'd be pissed!!!! Lol

UA wasn't giving up prices, but Thunderbolt isn't expensive tech. There shouldn't be any reason it should be more than a couple hundred dollar upgrade. If it is, rightfully feel gouged.

[Mazrak]

There was talk in the UA Apollo discussion about the Thunderbolt add-on being 500 USD. That seems like a ridiculous price though, and I haven't seen that quoted from any trustworthy sources.

[tomdarude]

A MH2882 and a UAD Quad would be nicer and more versatile solution I guess, which has already proven itself!

Both can be used or resold also independently, the MIO Console actually CAN do a lot more than what´s built into the Apollo from what I´ve seen so far.

And it not only makes tracking a breeze with the inbuilt DSP functions and completely customizable dsp-mixer, it also can do more versatile monitoring, control room functions and last, but not least.....it´s an 80bit fixed point summing mixer, which drastically improves stereo field and depth over most DAW summing engines.

So while the Apollo seems like a nice, conveniant option for tracking a single mono or stereo source (and it can provide the nice UAD plugins in low latency)
in practice the 2882 can do the same plus much more! and has a very nice quality of conversion already, plus will keep it´s value.


I do have a MH LIO-8 and DO use the MIO Console often, but still I´m all for analog cue-mixing when easily possible, I think it makes people play more inspired and doesn´t make them tired as quickly! it´s not too expensive and complicated either...

do we really need new solutions in regard to tracking?? food for thought...

[work2do]

Originally Posted by tomdarude

So while the Apollo seems like a nice, conveniant option for tracking a single mono or stereo source (and it can provide the nice UAD plugins in low latency)
in practice the 2882 can do the same plus much more! and has a very nice quality of conversion already, plus will keep it´s value.

The 2882 can track thru UAD plugs too? Once again no one here knows what the Apollo can do and are just making up stuff based on their own preferences or other product they already own. When someone actually has hands on experience with the Apollo, it's converters, it's dsp mixer, please wake us all up, Until then....

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

I wouldn't say mh "brag" about their quality - that comes from the customers

Good Point!

[smoovemode]

I believe I would be able to more easily decide which one to get, if I knew more about the components used in the Apollo. Does anyone know if there is any in depth information on the type of Preamps, Converter, etc? At least I could base my decision on the history of those components and the flavor they bring to the mix. I need to get something and something soon. The Saffire Pro 24 is cool for me, but I have some "Pros" coming in and I know that'll make em a bit nervous! Right now, I'm using a 4-710d preamp for all analog input, via adat, into the Saffire Pro 24.

[gdoubleyou]

Originally Posted by Puffpastry

I'm not as familiar with the MH, but I currently use a UAD-2 Quad and the quality of the plugins is amazing. If I had to live with only one piece of audio gear, I think the UAD Apollo would be my choice.

I think the converters in the UAD Apollo will be noticeably better than the MH, plus they sample up to 192 Khz.

Would be hard to speculate on, since they have no history with audio interfaces.

[Papanate]

Since I have to keep working I would pick the Metric Halo since it's here, it's working, and it's a known device.

I can always get UA plugsins.

[Jose]

I wouldn't buy an interface/converters mainly por its plugins.I expect for 2K UA offers more than that...

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by Jose

I wouldn't buy an interface/converters mainly por its plugins.I expect for 2K UA offers more than that...

The issue I have is all of their videos and info keeps pushing the DSP only. They never go into detail about their converters, preamps and other components. If they said something like "The preamps are four UA-110s" then I"m like "which credit card do you take, again"?

But, they just keep going on about the "analog" sound and the plugins.

[_Ludovico]

Originally Posted by Mazrak

There was talk in the UA Apollo discussion about the Thunderbolt add-on being 500 USD. That seems like a ridiculous price though, and I haven't seen that quoted from any trustworthy sources.

I strongly believe once the TB card is out they will come up with some kind of discount for the whole package or even put it in for free.

By the way, many questions raised in here have been answered and discussed in the main Apollo thread. I strongly suggest you all take a look at it. Once you remove all the sh*t talk about technical oddities, there's some nice info about the unit in there.

[smoovemode]

I just did some digging. Maybe UA will use the converters from their 2192. If they do...I'm in!

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

I just did some digging. Maybe UA will use the converters from their 2192. If they do...I'm in!

From an earlier post:

Originally Posted by travisbrown

I was told by UA at NAMM that the Apollo has the same converters as in the 4-710d.

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

From an earlier post:

That is true! Travis, did they tell you anything about the other components in the Apollo, like the mic preamps?

[Mazrak]

What's wrong with the 4-710D converters?