Final Decision UFX or Apollo!

[RightOnRome]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

dsub, use of outboard mic pres is a big advantage

sorry thats is not enough .. i have dsubs on tons of stuff around here .. my api,tridents,FR,CL,UA's, and other pres don't care either ...also that hardly equals a quad card and great conversion.. i have been loving this box! bought the ampex master tape machine ..sick! .. i have been only mixing and mastering projects and loving it(great clock btw).. but cant wait to do some tracking!

I am 100% happy!

[Ciozzi]

Originally Posted by nms

The UFX had one of the worst slingshot effects to low end response of 30 units tested. This means slower slew rate at onset of the sound then overshooting before stabilizing. Not well controlled there. It also exhibited measurable low end phase issues. Try recording a 60hz sine from an external source if possible and then check it under a phase scope.

I read the thread and saw the waveforms myself. The slingshot effect you got with the 60hz wave isn't necessairly caused but the low end response itself, the moment you start feeding the AD/DA stage with the waveform there's a transition time with a sharp edge, that very edge has a rich harmonic content that is responsible for the transient response.

I never saw the phase test in your thread.

I'll post some graphs later to better explain my point.

I learned the hard way that the listening tests on this forum should never be taken as anything more than food for thought. While you mentioned the MR816 vs Lavry ADC, I can mention the Symphony vs Apollo test where a lot of people had no problem telling them apart. I can also say that there is absolutely no way I would make purchase decisions based on either of them. I wouldn't even trust my own listening tests without going about them in a very careful comprehensive way and using several different sources. Listening tests are EXTREMELY volatile.. and rely on your monitoring, ears, your DAC, and the source content. There's so much room for people to mess those up that you can see why we've worked so hard to develop that Ultimate Converter loopback thread. Despite it being a constant work in progress and having areas for improvement (we never just stupidly rest on our methods as if perfect) is still so much less volatile than the alternative. Of course nothing can ever replace the value of sitting in a good sounding room with a great pair of monitors A/B'ing two units.. but for several reasons more often than not we end up just having to take a risk and buy something then sell it or return if it doesn't hit the mark.

The Hilo is another ball game. As is a Lavry DAC which I loved. The DAC is the most important side though as that dictates all you hear. There's a reason all the mastering guys use those nice DACs.. and it's not just because they are blinded by expectation.

When I got my Lavry that was also the first time in a long time that I didn't mind working on headphones. The headphone amp just sounds fantastic and the Hilo is even better.

I just checked the Apollo vs Symphony thread myself and that test can't be taken seriously. It's two different takes plus a third one which is half the first take and half the second. I could tell in a split second that take two had more proximity effect with vocals at the very beginning of it, and BTW no one spot the fact that the third take was a mix of one and two.

All the decently performed blind tests that I've seen (which means: same take, split cable, volume matched samples) have always gotten to the same results: people can't statistically tell recently designed converters apart. I know you have zero information about how people listen to it, in what kind of enviroment and with that DA and on what monitors but the result still stands, the average engineer here on GS can't hear an actual difference.

[SabreChris]

I recently did the comparison between interfaces that have digital routing and FX and chose the UFX over the Apollo and Konnekt. I think these are the future of interfaces. You (I) really NEED a channel strip on every input, but not necessarily for recording, at a minimum for monitor mix. I think in five years every interface will have equivalent routing and FX. These are digital mixers without faders.

The reasons:

1) Best FW/usb drivers w/ lowest latency. This is important if using it as DI to VSTis. Konnekt was disqualified on this count alone. The apollo boasts an upcoming TB update board, but it only needs it because its FW performance is not great.

2) Sound test thread. The UFX sounds more musical, converter tests be damned! And I will absolutely be using the pres on a daily basis, which are getting high marks from everyone.

3) Dislike UAD business model, did not want to start collecting proprietary plugs. Native plugs are the future, but people with UAD hardware dongles really do like to collect em' trade em'! (I dont care about that)

4) Total mix is most flexible routing solution, I can save and restore different configurations for different tracking scenarios and outboard gear.

5) Front mount preamps. This is just a better design for location recording and tracking. At least with the Apollo you don't have to look at the preamps you will probably rarely use.

I think the Apollo is the last hurrah for hardware dongle plug-ins. If I later absolutely need a UAD plug, I can just buy a card. It is impossible to improve on IO capabilities of the Apollo. And if I later update converters, it will be good to have them running through the king of stability and low latency.

The UFX works NOW, the Apollo is built on promises (TB and having to buy plugs)

[Clonkified]

Originally Posted by SabreChris

1) Best FW/usb drivers w/ lowest latency. This is important if using it as DI to VSTis. Konnekt was disqualified on this count alone. The apollo boasts an upcoming TB update board, but it only needs it because its FW performance is not great.

Have you actually tried the Apollo? The FW performance is fine, including with VSTs.

Originally Posted by SabreChris

2) Sound test thread. The UFX sounds more musical, converter tests be damned! And I will absolutely be using the pres on a daily basis, which are getting high marks from everyone.

To each their own - Apollo sounds great to me.

Originally Posted by SabreChris

5) Front mount preamps. This is just a better design for location recording and tracking. At least with the Apollo you don't have to look at the preamps you will probably rarely use.

The Apollo preamps are fantastic actually. In a rack, it is much easier to have them in the back for routing purposes and keeps the cable mess hidden.

Originally Posted by SabreChris

I think the Apollo is the last hurrah for hardware dongle plug-ins.

I guess AVID's new HDX system must be the previous last hurrah then? And the Metric Halo series before that? All these high end interfaces are just dongles I guess!...When it comes to stability and performance, these systems aren't going away.

Originally Posted by SabreChris

It is impossible to improve on IO capabilities of the Apollo.

Um, that's the case with most hardware unless you buy a modular system like the Symphony I/O. UFX's IO is fixed as well - and actually more limited than the Apollo's in terms of number of outputs.

Originally Posted by SabreChris

The UFX works NOW, the Apollo is built on promises (TB and having to buy plugs)

I wonder what my Apollo has been doing in all these sessions then...apart from working really well. Btw, the UFX can never be upgraded to TB and you don't have to buy any plugins with the Apollo.

[nms]

The UFX is sloppier on low end control, which leads to a less clinical sound. It comes back to whether you want more clinical monitoring that leaves music fully exposed or whether you want it to sound nicer to your ears (qualities that are perceived as more musical to some). Of course what sounds nicer to your ears and compliments your monitors well is subjective. This is why I think it's so valuable to use technical testing as well as your ears to pick converters. That way you're digging in and finding out the unit's character & flaws while also listening and deciding if it gives you the sound you're after.

The UFX sounds more musical, converter tests be damned!

I assume you're referencing our Ultimate Converter thread.. and couldn't agree more. Some people get so offended and don't get it.. but we took that on to dig into the accuracy of these units, not provide the final say on which one is going to give you the sound you are after! Well, unless you're after the most clinically transparent units out there. It's valuable to know all you can about what goes on under the hood, but your ears (and your bank acct) have to be happy with it. Some think you have to either be a diehard crusader of one side or the other but it's good to take it all into consideration.

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

people can't statistically tell recently designed converters apart. I know you have zero information about how people listen to it, in what kind of enviroment and with that DA and on what monitors but the result still stands, the average engineer here on GS can't hear an actual difference.

This is definitely not true. I have a thread in the mastering forum right now with strictest of control and blind votes via PM and shockingly we're up to 7-0 for one unit in the votes. The particularly shocking part is it's an 828mk2 winning against a high end set of converters.

[SabreChris]

nms- "blah blah blah... low end control.. specs.. blah blah.. elitism.. converters... blah blah.."

Get a life.

[nms]

Originally Posted by SabreChris

nms- "blah blah blah... low end control.. specs.. blah blah.. elitism.. converters... blah blah.." Get a life.

lol! Yes that's real elitism supporting the idea people should use what works for them and their budget. Sorry, I clearly misjudged you. Apparently you're just another UFX owner who gets pissed off if anyone says a word about flaws or the idea of better converters existing. What's with some UFX owners? You buy your unit expecting some level of forum bragging rights and suddenly technical tests become your sworn enemy? If sound quality bragging rights are what's important to you then go buy a high end converter already. Otherwise sort out your attitude and get used to the idea the UFX isn't the peak of conversion technology so that maybe you can contribute sensibly to objective converter discussion.

[RightOnRome]

Originally Posted by nms

lol! Yes that's real elitism supporting the idea people should use what works for them and their budget. Sorry, I clearly misjudged you. Apparently you're just another UFX owner who gets pissed off if anyone says a word about flaws or the idea of better converters existing. What's with some UFX owners? You buy your unit expecting some level of forum bragging rights and suddenly technical tests become your sworn enemy? If sound quality bragging rights are what's important to you then go buy a high end converter already. Otherwise sort out your attitude and get used to the idea the UFX isn't the peak of conversion technology so that maybe you can contribute sensibly to objective converter discussion.

+1!!!!!!!


im tracking through a fatso right now ! tlm103 has never sounded better! cant do that with a Ufx :( THANKS APOLLO!

[nms]

Exactly. What it comes down to is if it works for you and you're totally satisfied with it that's bloody fantastic whether it's a UFX, Apollo, or whatever else. Owning one or the other doesn't mean you have to become the sworn enemy of anyone who mentions something bad about it or refuse to acknowledge it's not perfect and has its weaknesses. FFS guys!

Personally I prefer knowing the weaknesses of any piece of gear I use. If someone points out a flaw in anything I use that I didn't know about that person is my friend not my enemy. It's just part of knowing your tools really well.

[SabreChris]

Originally Posted by SabreChris

Get a life.

The point is that you arrive in every UFX thread to point out its shortcomings (bash), despite overwhelming popular praise. Its not so much that you are right or wrong, but your obsessive crusade to "correct" everyone else on the internet.

Your personality is not uncommon on the internet. The "know it all".

I imagine that the internet "know it all" leads a small and insignificant life in the real world and hits up the internet for the tiny insignificant rush of ego boost he gets from his own personal perception that he has outwitted or outsmarted an anonymous internet poster.

Prove me wrong and don't reply to this thread. Go make some music.

I have been reading the UFX/apollo threads because I had to decide between the two. Look at my post count and see that I have a life outside the internet.

[nms]

Originally Posted by SabreChris

The point is that you arrive in every UFX thread to point out its shortcomings (bash), despite overwhelming popular praise. Its not so much that you are right or wrong, but your obsessive crusade to "correct" everyone else on the internet.

This would probably be a good time to let you know that "everyone" on the internet doesn't praise the UFX for it's sound and I'm not correcting "everyone". A few disgruntled UFX owners who are overly sensitive about their piece of electronics does NOT constitute "everyone"!

The UFX is what it is. It's not intended to compete on the level of Lavry, Mytek, Prism, Apogee, Metric Halo, Lynx conversion quality. You don't get 8ch of high end conversion plus preamps, computer interface w/solid drivers and lots of connectivity, onboard USB recording etc for that price. If you did then no one would spend $5-6k on a Metric Halo. That's just reality.

It's unfortunate a few of you UFX guys need to lose your shit at those who dig into it completely subjectively without bias to find out where those weaknesses that separate it from high end units are to be found. Don't you guys ever test your gear on a technical level?

I imagine that the internet "know it all" leads a small and insignificant life in the real world and hits up the internet for the tiny insignificant rush of ego boost he gets from his own personal perception that he has outwitted or outsmarted an anonymous internet poster.

Cool story. Since you're interested I've toured & headlined shows for the past 17 consecutive yrs. Today I spent the morning in my studio & afternoon on a lake. This forum is usually the worst my life gets these days. The petty, unprofessional, disgruntled UFX owners club on here makes me question why the hell I even bother participating. Regardless, if I do have anything of relevance to add to converter discussions it's because I've given 50 of the most popular converters the rubber glove treatment and have around 6GB of test recordings & measurements from them all sitting on a hard drive.

I've also personally owned:

Lynx Hilo
Mytek 192ADC
Mytek 96 ADC
Lavry DA10
Motu 828mk3
Motu 828mk2
Steinberg MR816
Ross Martin 4222ADC

Am I qualified enough to make a comment about stuff you could easily discover yourself if you cared to look?

Enough with the UFX militia already. It's a box of metal parts FFS.

[teamalkos]

Originally Posted by Altered Beats

Another factor is the midi interface, which the Apollo doesn't have. What would you recommend as a midi interface to accompany the Apollo. Motu?

I want a apollo bad but no midi. I need one for my MPC2000zl thats a deal breaker. I might go lynx and usb interface. I am tired of clocking my apogee to my focusrite interface I want a dedicated interface

[Ciozzi]

Originally Posted by nms

The UFX is what it is. It's not intended to compete on the level of Lavry, Mytek, Prism, Apogee, Metric Halo, Lynx conversion quality. You don't get 8ch of high end conversion plus preamps, computer interface w/solid drivers and lots of connectivity, onboard USB recording etc for that price. If you did then no one would spend $5-6k on a Metric Halo. That's just reality.

It's unfortunate a few of you UFX guys need to lose your shit at those who dig into it completely subjectively without bias to find out where those weaknesses that separate it from high end units are to be found. Don't you guys ever test your gear on a technical level?

In the world of engineering the next step after colleting data and measurements is to evaluate the impact of those specs in order to understand if it's worth improving over a design or not. In the converter shootout thread you guys collected a bunch of data but never bothered to test the audibility of those differences.

Have you ever read this thread: A/D Comparison - Steinberg MR816 vs Lavry AD11 ?!?

It's a "scientific" comparison between one of the worst and one of the best audio interfaces (specs wise) you tested and yet, people can't tell them apart. Hasn't ever struck you that maybe all this blind pursuit of the best specs is a waste of money and resources ?!?

Better is a very controversial word when it comes to audio equipment and IMO, better is something that produces better results. How many times have you properly blind tested yourself to see how much of a difference you could perceive between different audio interfaces ?!? How about testing other people too ?

[nms]

Before I get into this, just want to clarify this is not me bringing this up but I WILL respond here. After this if I could ask that no one divert the thread to discussions about the loopback thread. Before you know it the same old trolls will show up crying about how I derail threads crusading about it, when in fact it's usually other people bringing it up.

A little note: null testing was only one of the angles I/we measured and tested units with. It seems silly to have to point out, but from here onwards it's not to be assumed that everything I ever say about converters is based on one test. I've done null tests, RMAA tests, 2 daw external clocking tests, transient control measurements, blind listening tests, checked clock output under oscilloscope, etc.

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

Have you ever read this thread: A/D Comparison - Steinberg MR816 vs Lavry AD11 ?!?

Have you ever read the thread about how an MR816x is as on par with the Orpheus? lol. Trust me, you'll find no shortage of flawed tests on this forum and no shortage of comments made by listeners who lack the ears or monitoring environment to give feedback of value. Any thread where you see people frequently making the same observations on opposite pieces of gear tells you something. A lot of things have to be in place to get valuable results from a listening test or it's a waste of time and you're no better off than if people just guessed at random.

It's a "scientific" comparison between one of the worst and one of the best audio interfaces (specs wise) you tested and yet, people can't tell them apart. Hasn't ever struck you that maybe all this blind pursuit of the best specs is a waste of money and resources ?!?

Better is a very controversial word when it comes to audio equipment and IMO, better is something that produces better results. How many times have you properly blind tested yourself to see how much of a difference you could perceive between different audio interfaces ?!? How about testing other people too ?

You mean have I skipped over obvious steps despite months of research & testing? No.

Lynx Hilo, MH LIO8, Orpheus, Lavry Black Shootout (Music & test tones)

The only place I trust for listening tests in this forum is the mastering section. The ratio of working professionals with good monitoring environments is higher there than any other forum on the site:

[Ciozzi]

Originally Posted by nms

Before I get into this, just want to clarify this is not me bringing this up but I WILL respond here. After this if I could ask that no one divert the thread to discussions about the loopback thread. Before you know it the same old trolls will show up crying about how I derail threads crusading about it, when in fact it's usually other people bringing it up.

A little note: null testing was only one of the angles I/we measured and tested units with. It seems silly to have to point out, but from here onwards it's not to be assumed that everything I ever say about converters is based on one test. I've done null tests, RMAA tests, 2 daw external clocking tests, transient control measurements, blind listening tests, checked clock output under oscilloscope, etc.

Have you ever read the thread about how an MR816x is as on par with the Orpheus? lol. Trust me, you'll find no shortage of flawed tests on this forum and no shortage of comments made by listeners who lack the ears or monitoring environment to give feedback of value. Any thread where you see people frequently making the same observations on opposite pieces of gear tells you something. A lot of things have to be in place to get valuable results from a listening test or it's a waste of time and you're no better off than if people just guessed at random.

You mean have I skipped over obvious steps despite months of research & testing? No.

Lynx Hilo, MH LIO8, Orpheus, Lavry Black Shootout (Music & test tones)

The only place I trust for listening tests in this forum is the mastering section. The ratio of working professionals with good monitoring environments is higher there than any other forum on the site:

The shootout in that thread I linked was very well conducted and since it wasn't a simple AB but several sets of samples, no one was able to tell the two interfaces apart.

We can chat and discuss all you want, but a prism orpheus is not any better than an MR816 if it doesn't produce better audio. Better audio for me means, audible difference, and the only way to test for audible differences is blind shootouts, it's that simple.

BTW, you haven't answered my question directly, have you blind tested yourself with loopback tests and matched audio samples to see if you can distinguish between the audio interfaces we're talking about?

[SabreChris]

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

BTW, you haven't answered my question directly, have you blind tested yourself with loopback tests and matched audio samples to see if you can distinguish between the audio interfaces we're talking about?

He already answered this question (see above). It doesnt matter which one sounds better, because the UFX is inaccurate and this inaccuracy makes it sound better, which allows it to win individual sound shootouts and confuse non-professionals into buying it, but this also (obviously) means that in a complicated mix, it will not sound as good....

[cavern]

I own a UFX and would just as soon own an Apollo,it doesn't really matter to me as i have done two of my best sounding songs on a Mackie 1200F
A talent shootout is what's needed here,lol

[Ciozzi]

Originally Posted by SabreChris

He already answered this question (see above). It doesnt matter which one sounds better, because the UFX is inaccurate and this inaccuracy makes it sound better, which allows it to win individual sound shootouts and confuse non-professionals into buying it, but this also (obviously) means that in a complicated mix, it will not sound as good....

so it sounds better, which in turn (obiously) makes it sound worse but professional who like things to sound worse don't buy it.

I guess the debate ends here...

[WKG]

Originally Posted by SabreChris

He already answered this question (see above). It doesnt matter which one sounds better, because the UFX is inaccurate and this inaccuracy makes it sound better, which allows it to win individual sound shootouts and confuse non-professionals into buying it, but this also (obviously) means that in a complicated mix, it will not sound as good....

[maxwelldub]

ufx, native plugs are so good now why pay for a hardware dongle?

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by nms

Personally I prefer knowing the weaknesses of any piece of gear I use. If someone points out a flaw in anything I use that I didn't know about that person is my friend not my enemy. It's just part of knowing your tools really well.

On the UFX and Apollo you tested which conversion side is better, the AD or DA?

[oudplayer]

Y'all can have fun with your ripple tests, slew rate measurements and such, but that's not the only consideration regarding buying an interface. Perhaps the biggest complaint I've ever seen, and the topic that has consumed more energy on online forums and newsgroups since the late 1990s, is how to get these damn interfaces to work reliably at all. Will your interface work out of the box? Typically not.

FWIW, I have found that driver installation and getting the UFX up and running with 5 different machines (macs+pcs, usb+firewire) to be absolutely painless. This is the first interface I've owned which I can say that about, as my experiences with products made by Apogee (Ensemble), Lynx (Lynx 2, Lynx AES16), MOTU (828s and their PCI-card systems) and Avid/Digidesign (Mbox 2 pro, protools hd, digi001) and even with earlier RME PCI card iterations has always been that many hours are lost getting the device up and running without dropped buffers, kernel panics or other joys of working with digital audio.

No messing around with BIOS settings to get the IRCs to play nicely. No worrying if the motherboard so happens to have a "TI ZYX415039653whatchamacallit" firewire chipset otherwise the device will burst into flames and destroy not only the sound card but the mix in progress. Finally, an interface that is plug-and-play! I can't speak for the Apollo in this regard, but RME totally nailed it in the driver/firmware department.

And, the pres sound quite good. Much better than I expected; I hadn't even planned on using them, but use them all the time now.

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by oudplayer

Y'all can have fun with your ripple tests, slew rate measurements and such, but that's not the only consideration regarding buying an interface. Perhaps the biggest complaint I've ever seen, and the topic that has consumed more energy on online forums and newsgroups since the late 1990s, is how to get these damn interfaces to work reliably at all. Will your interface work out of the box? Typically not.

+1

Sonically, if you can't make a record with either, well....
What really matters is which has the most solid driver with the best low latency performance and is built to last. In this day and age all those higher end Interfaces are great sonically.

[nms]

Hey Sabrechris what is your problem dude? Grow up and learn how to discuss something like an adult. If the best you can do is put words in my mouth you're not even worth talking to.

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

people can't statistically tell recently designed converters apart. I know you have zero information about how people listen to it, in what kind of enviroment and with that DA and on what monitors but the result still stands, the average engineer here on GS can't hear an actual difference.

You did say this previously right Ciozzi? Well in that thread I linked you will find 100% of people voting for an 828mk2 in a properly setup mastering test setting and the Hilo being picked as the consistent winner in the 4 unit test. You also are provided with info on what people monitored with (should be mandatory with every listening shootout) and no one is influenced by the voting trend because of how I laid it out. One person told me he listened on laptop speakers so I tossed his vote.

One member (Shelterr) was even able to pick out which of the 4 units was the Orpheus. So there you have it. Firsthand evidence that the differences can be captured and identified by several people blind in a well constructed test.

That's all I'm going to say here. I was up til 5am prepping an artist for a tour and have no interest in debating Apollos or UFXs (or anything really), so I think I'm going to do the novel thing and leave this thread clearly marked as Apollo vs UFX.

Originally Posted by oudplayer

Will your interface work out of the box? Typically not.

All of mine have (you can see the list in my previous post). FW is touchy for some people. I built my studio comp well and use Windows 7 and have had smooth operation. Some had real issue in the past but most companies have their drivers together these days.

Originally Posted by Tui

I'm surprised there aren't more recommendations along the lines of
- RME for interfacing
- boutique converters for the sound (Prism, Apogee, or whatever).

I've been using such a combo for more than 10 years and couldn't be happier with the results.

Hordes of working pros will recommend it. The RME PCIe AES cards are fantastic.

[Tui]

In fairness, RME interfaces don't provide for a high-end sonic experience. Their sound is "OK", but also on the bright and somewhat metallic side of things. However, as has been said here many times, RME make their drivers about as bullet-proof as it gets. Set and forget.

I'm surprised I don't see more recommendations along the lines of
- RME for interfacing
- boutique converters for the sound (Prism, Apogee, or whatever).

I've been using such a combo for more than 10 years and couldn't be happier with the results.

[SabreChris]

Originally Posted by Tui

In fairness, RME interfaces don't provide for a high-end sonic experience. Their sound is "OK", but also on the bright and somewhat metallic side of things. However, as has been said here many times, RME make their drivers about as bullet-proof as it gets. Set and forget.

I'm surprised I don't see more recommendations along the lines of
- RME for interfacing
- boutique converters for the sound (Prism, Apogee, or whatever).

I've been using such a combo for more than 10 years and couldn't be happier with the results.

The ufx is a new generation of converters for rme. In the sound test, it was generally darker than the apollo. In my studio it sounds more correct and requies no compensation. this is a step up from prior firefaces. I am very pleased.

[Ciozzi]

Originally Posted by nms

You did say this previously right Ciozzi? Well in that thread I linked you will find 100% of people voting for an 828mk2 in a properly setup mastering test setting and the Hilo being picked as the consistent winner in the 4 unit test. You also are provided with info on what people monitored with (should be mandatory with every listening shootout) and no one is influenced by the voting trend because of how I laid it out. One person told me he listened on laptop speakers so I tossed his vote.

One member (Shelterr) was even able to pick out which of the 4 units was the Orpheus. So there you have it. Firsthand evidence that the differences can be captured and identified by several people blind in a well constructed test.

You present people with 4 samples, you ask them which is their preference and that should prove they are able to distinguish between converters ?
One member guessues which one is the Orpheus...one out of how many ? Out of 4 samples you have a 25% chance to get it right, not that difficult.

Sorry but that's not the way a blind shootout works, in order to have a significant result you have to be able to repeatedly pick one sample consistently over for the others for a certain number of tries (at least 10). Another thing that should be prevented (and this is almost impossible to do)
is people using DAW's to null test files against each other. I took the liberty
to download your files and it's easy to know what the most transparent converter is once you start flipping phases. It's all info that distorts the result, all you should use is audio samples and an ABX comparator

[Masaaki]

Originally Posted by Tui

I'm surprised I don't see more recommendations along the lines of
- RME for interfacing
- boutique converters for the sound (Prism, Apogee, or whatever).

I'm using UFX with Mytek ADC (2ch), and Mytek DAC (2ch), if you say Mytek is one of boutique converters.

I can recommend this combo to anybody who has $4000 budget. Budget asid, "interfacing" can be done with any <$1000 interfaces, because the Mytek in/out is just 2ch AES/SPDIF. For the interfacing purpose, UFX is overkill. The reason I have UFX is, I can bring just UFX outside, and use it as an independent recorder (using DUREC), and the preamps are just clean and uncolored for my recording needs (classical solo pianos, violin/piano duos, chamber music etc). I don't take my Myteks to location sites, because they are heavy, and don't make 'huge difference' in terms of the DAC quality I can hear on sites. I need to listen to the difference (between UFX and Mytek) really at quieter places with superior monitors (not the headphone I bring). I might bring ADC, though. Rather than bringing the boutique converters to location sites, I bring DAV BG preamps also, which is superior to the UFX's pres (clarity-wise, and timbre I get for violins).

Just saying my use of UFX. No idea about apollo.

[oudplayer]

Originally Posted by Tui

In fairness, RME interfaces don't provide for a high-end sonic experience. Their sound is "OK", but also on the bright and somewhat metallic side of things. However, as has been said here many times, RME make their drivers about as bullet-proof as it gets. Set and forget.

I'm surprised I don't see more recommendations along the lines of
- RME for interfacing
- boutique converters for the sound (Prism, Apogee, or whatever).

I've been using such a combo for more than 10 years and couldn't be happier with the results.

Personally, I have not been impressed with Apogee converters, at least the ones that I've used (AD16, DA16, PSX100, 8000 series, Rosettas, Ensemble). I've done a bunch of albums with these and they turned out usable and I definitely don't remember any consumers of these albums complaining about our signal chain! But I know they would have been that 1-3% better sounding with the RME UFX, and I think it has to do with the analog stages more than the converter chip. If I had the budget I'd consider getting a few channels of Lavry or Burl, perhaps the HEDD 192 which I've always liked, but honestly converters are not the "weak link" in the chain at this point.

Originally Posted by SabreChris

The ufx is a new generation of converters for rme. In the sound test, it was generally darker than the apollo. In my studio it sounds more correct and requies no compensation. this is a step up from prior firefaces. I am very pleased.

That's been my experience, too.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by SabreChris

1) Best FW/usb drivers w/ lowest latency. This is important if using it as DI to VSTis. Konnekt was disqualified on this count alone. The apollo boasts an upcoming TB update board, but it only needs it because its FW performance is not great.

Yep, clearly someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
I've been using Apollo for months over FW. No issues at all, and big 96khz projects.
I had some issues using my Lynx Aurora over FW. In fact I could only work at 44.1khz, not 96khz. So again, Apollo is working for me now, with absolutely no compromise. Many people have already bought the Apollo TB card and are using it successfully. So to still be posting that Apollo is based on some future promise is astoundingly inaccurate.

2) Sound test thread. The UFX sounds more musical, converter tests be damned! And I will absolutely be using the pres on a daily basis, which are getting high marks from everyone.

Apollo's pre's are surprisingly excellent.
I've put them up against my vintage Q8 and API pre's and Apollo represents a cleaner option, and is no compromise at all. I would have no issue using Apollo's pre's every day.
As for the sound overall, I'm very happy with Apollo. How does one define a converter sounding 'more musical'? What kind of music???

5) Front mount preamps. This is just a better design for location recording and tracking. At least with the Apollo you don't have to look at the preamps you will probably rarely use.

Apollo has two 1/4" jack inputs on the front!