Universal Audio Apollo interface

[DIGI ENT]

Originally Posted by Jules

Plugging into line inputs 1-4 does bypass the pres - so yes.

Actually, I meant on the XLR ins. I wanna go XLR outta my GTQC to XLR in on the Apollo. Can I bypass the pre's somehow that way?

[climber]

I have a FF800 now. I us an ADA8000 via ADAT out to my Furman headphone distribution system. I use aux sends in PT10 and send them to outs 1-6 in the ADA8000. it works great. I know I can still do this in PT, but I was wondering if I can do this in Apollo from in the console application instead? any reason why not? I suppose I should d/l the manual and see, but I thought someone might have the same idea...

[TAFKAT]

Originally Posted by Jules

It's seems "Rock 'n Roll'.

Print the sound you want at the tracking stage.

No looking back, no need to "freeze" so you can re-do later.

Commit to sound you like and move on. Goodby to the "tweak forever" mentality.

Use the plug in power for mix-down.

It's a tracking thing.

LOL, is that you talking or the spin from the reps.. ?

[Artist4]

Originally Posted by TAFKAT

LOL, is that you talking or the spin from the reps.. ?

mmm

[Quint]

Originally Posted by Billy Buck

It looks like the public launch of the Apollo is getting nearer. UA just released a bunch of Apollo Console Application video's in HD. About 30 minutes worth, from using the Console Application to setting it up with various DAW hosts (Cubase, Pro Tools, Live & Logic Pro).

Scroll down to the "Apollo" video section:

Videos - Blog - Universal Audio

So a question I've had all along was whether or not you would be able to destructively print plugins like the Studer while not printing and just only monitoring things like reverb. For those of you that have watched the console app video, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I gathered from watching it is this.

You CAN achieve what I mentioned above but only by using the individual aux's. Basically it appears to me that you could insert a Studer on every channel insert and print that while also just monitoring (NOT printing) things like reverb and vocal compression by just placing those particular plugins on the AUX inserts and adjusting accordingly on your headphone mixes.

Did anybody else watch the video and come to the same conclusion?

[Quint]

Also, from watching this video I have another thought about headphone mixes. It looks like you can use all of your AUX sends to make an additional two headphone mixes if you choose to route the AUX outputs to two of the analog outputs instead of the main monitor mix (although the AUX headphone mixes would have to be mono ).

The downside appears to be though that you will have everthing dry and won't be able make any wet headphone mixes if you also wish to print plugins in the scenario I mentioned in my last post. Now if you're not printing any plugins it looks like it would be much easier to make four separate headphone mixes unless I'm missing something.

I mean the two headphone mixes are nothing more than AUX's themselves really. I just wish UA would have included six or even eight AUX's in the console instead of just two. That would have opened up a ton more flexibility for this kind of stuff.

[muziqfreek]

Originally Posted by DIGI ENT

Actually, I meant on the XLR ins. I wanna go XLR outta my GTQC to XLR in on the Apollo. Can I bypass the pre's somehow that way?

Just use XLR -> TRS Jack Leads to the TRS Line in????

[DIGI ENT]

Originally Posted by muziqfreek

Just use XLR -> TRS Jack Leads to the TRS Line in????

I could just go TRS to TRS, I just want to know if it could be done. GTQC XLR out to Apollo XLR in, bypassing Apollo pre. Basically, can the pre's be bypassed or turned off via the UA console or Apollo control panel.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by DIGI ENT

I could just go TRS to TRS, I just want to know if it could be done. GTQC XLR out to Apollo XLR in, bypassing Apollo pre. Basically, can the pre's be bypassed or turned off via the UA console or Apollo control panel.

You bypass them by plugging into the 1/4" inputs that bypass the preamps.

The XLR inputs *are* the preamps. You would need a hardware switch to jump the mic pre gainstage. It would be a bit redundant to include that with the alternate 1/4" inputs that accomplish the same thing.

Most preamps that allow you to "bypass" the preamp actually only pad down the input signal 20db and call it a day. They don't actually bypass. If you were adamant to use the XLR inputs, build a cable with a couple resistors, or use an inline attenuator.

[bee]

Originally Posted by Quint

Also, from watching this video I have another thought about headphone mixes. It looks like you can use all of your AUX sends to make an additional two headphone mixes if you choose to route the AUX outputs to two of the analog outputs instead of the main monitor mix.

The downside appears to be though that you will have everthing dry and won't be able make any wet headphone mixes if you also wish to print plugins in the scenario I mentioned in my last post. Now if you're not printing any plugins it looks like it would be much easier to make four separate headphone mixes unless I'm missing something.

I mean the two headphone mixes are nothing more than AUX's themselves really. I just wish UA would have included six or even eight AUX's in the console instead of just two. That would have opened up a ton more flexibility for this kind of stuff.

Yeah, I concur.

[IAMCRISIS]

Well it looks like I'll be getting mine in 2 weeks... So much for blasting off this week! Guess I'll have to continue to use my MBox 3 Pro & Waves plugins... (Sigh) LoL...

[GPl]

Originally Posted by Jules

UA say ready this summer! Windows7 only. (same for thunderbolt)

I still have a XP 64 daw....

[Quint]

Originally Posted by bee

Yeah, I concur.

You concur about the present functionality that I observed in the video or you concur about wishing they had added more AUX's or both?

Either way, I don't see what is so hard about adding the additional AUX's since the software routing is already there for the two they already have. Unless they were concerned with GUI real estate I just don't understand why they didn't do it. Plenty of other interface mixers offer way more routing than even that....

[Sarrova]

Originally Posted by Quint

Either way, I don't see what is so hard about adding the additional AUX's since the software routing is already there for the two they already have. Unless they were concerned with GUI real estate I just don't understand why they didn't do it. Plenty of other interface mixers offer way more routing than even that....

Yeah you got me thinking ...
Say you have a live situation and you want to process your instruments with UAD plugins (after all that's what they're advertising). Will it be possible to send multiple audio signals to different audio outs after being processed and without going to your DAW?

Example:
Drums 1-8 via ADAT -> UAD -> to analog out 1 and 2 (stereo)
Bass -> UAD -> to analog out 3
Vox -> UAD -> to analog out 4
Guitars -> UAD -> to analog out 5 and 6
UAD Reverb -> analog out 7 and 8

---> So all of them with UAD plugins and UAD Reverb sends
---> You need the multiple out signals to go to FOH / Recording / Processing / ...
---> You need to be able to still record the clean / dry signals for later mixing

I mean, if you first need to go into your DAW and redirect the audio signals from within your DAW, you lose the "realtime UAD processing" because your DAW's audio buffer size will be the party pooper :( ???

[Palaver]

Something actually somewhat relevant:

I just heard back from my dealer at Vintage King Audio. I placed my pre-order with them as soon as it was available on their site.

I finally received a response earlier today about a shipment inquiry. Supposedly, these are tentatively shipping on the 2nd week of March. I hate that word.., "tentatively."

I'll post the updates as I get them... I'll be able to do a very quick review of the unit. It will be put thru its paces. It's going to be clocked off a Burl B2 Bomber, and utilizing an InnerTube SumThang (summing mixer) into my mixbuss outboard. At least I'll be able to verify functionality of all of the analog ins/outs and SP/DIF input and clocking functionality.

I promise to post a demo of one of my tracks through it. Hopefully, it all works!

Kind regards,
Phil

[superwack]

I am going to guess that you can't go AUDIO > UAD > AUDIO OUT... just a hunch but they are not really building a LIVE FX processor just giving you the ability to monitor through the FX for headphone/tracking purposes and I think the cues have to be set up in the DAW

Also would it really be worth the hassle or expense? I love UAD emulations but the subtle "better" of them really won't be something anyone would be able to tell vs. some of the better, more road-rugged boxes or even pedals. It's like how guys will play their $25,000 Les Paul gold top in the studio but tour with a $2,000 copy - not worth the hassle, risk or expense for so little gain.

[Sarrova]

Originally Posted by superwack

I am going to guess that you can't go AUDIO > UAD > AUDIO OUT... just a hunch but they are not really building a LIVE FX processor just giving you the ability to monitor through the FX for headphone/tracking purposes and I think the cues have to be set up in the DAW

Also would it really be worth the hassle or expense? I love UAD emulations but the subtle "better" of them really won't be something anyone would be able to tell vs. some of the better, more road-rugged boxes or even pedals. It's like how guys will play their $25,000 Les Paul gold top in the studio but tour with a $2,000 copy - not worth the hassle, risk or expense for so little gain.

I understand what you're saying but having more routing options is also very handy in the studio:

My idea was to record multiple instruments, process them with UAD plugins and route them back out to provide a really pro sounding headphone mix.
You could give the musicians a perfect sounding drum, warm in your face vocals, a little verb on their instrument, ...
The 2 headphone outs are simply not enough and are too limited in functions.
I want to be able to provide at least 4 different headphone outputs and like I said, rerouting within your DAW looses the "realtime processing".

Oh and about that LIVE FX PRocessor - From their site:
Can I use Apollo in a live performance situation?
Apollo is a great solution for playing back prerecorded material from your DAW while also being able to process live sound with UAD plug-ins. Imagine being able to use a Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb as your reverb onstage, or adding an LA-2A Compressor on your vocals to front of house instantly, or adding creative effects like the Roland RE-201 Space Echo to your guitar in a live performance. This is all possible with Apollo.

[Jules]

Originally Posted by oneass

This looks exciting!!

Yeah!

How about trying to win one on Gearslutz! Click below for info!

http://www.uaudio.com/blog/gearslutz-giveaway/

[superwack]

Originally Posted by Sarrova

I understand what you're saying but having more routing options is also very handy in the studio:

My idea was to record multiple instruments, process them with UAD plugins and route them back out to provide a really pro sounding headphone mix.
You could give the musicians a perfect sounding drum, warm in your face vocals, a little verb on their instrument, ...
The 2 headphone outs are simply not enough and are too limited in functions.
I want to be able to provide at least 4 different headphone outputs and like I said, rerouting within your DAW looses the "realtime processing".

Oh and about that LIVE FX PRocessor - From their site:
Can I use Apollo in a live performance situation?
Apollo is a great solution for playing back prerecorded material from your DAW while also being able to process live sound with UAD plug-ins. Imagine being able to use a Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb as your reverb onstage, or adding an LA-2A Compressor on your vocals to front of house instantly, or adding creative effects like the Roland RE-201 Space Echo to your guitar in a live performance. This is all possible with Apollo.

I agree with you on it being a cool option (and stand corrected on the Live FX thing!) It's excellent that UAD seems to be trying to cover as many bases as possible

[Jules]

Sorry! posted wrong link

Here is the correct one..

Review Your Studio on Gearslutz.com for Your Chance to Win an Apollo Audio Interface - Blog - Universal Audio

[lllubi]

Originally Posted by climber

I suppose I should d/l the manual and see, but I thought someone might have the same idea...

manual is split into hardware and software
no software manual out yet

[smoovemode]

I have a scenario for you guys. Let's say the UA 4-710 was a full fledged audio interface (add analog outs, headphones and firewire) but with no UAD. Which one would you choose?

[Duardo]

My point is, Thunderbolt is cheap technology. If TB was costly, Apple wouldn't be throwing it in as a penny-for-penny replacement for the DVI interface. I used Apple as an example exactly because it is a premium price.

Even if it is cheap technology, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be cheap to integrate into a unit like the Apollo. The price (if $500 even is the price...that seems to be called into question) seems to be right in line with the USB and Firewire option cards for things like Apogee and Lynx converters, various digital mixers, etc...those are cheap technologies as well, are they not?

And again, regardless of how much it costs...Apple will sell many more times the number of displays than UA will interfaces. And if a technology-driven thing like a display is selling for the same price that it did what, two years ago?...then that is essentially the same thing as the price going up, is it not?

There will be nothing special about the UA TB card. It will be an Intel chip with a TB connector on a PCB board with a flange. All the internal software, the ability for the Apollo to recognize and use Thunderbolt, will be in the Apollo as part of its firmware.

How do you know that's what it will be? The option cards I've seen seem to have a bit more to them than that. And either way, even if most of what's required for it to work is built into the Apollo, it's still got to be paid for. Should that cost be covered only by those who actually use the Thunderbolt option, or should it be spread across all users?

[MH Studios]

Originally Posted by Jules

Yeah!

How about trying to win one on Gearslutz! Click below for info!

Review Your Studio on Gearslutz.com for Your Chance to Win an Apollo Audio Interface - Blog - Universal Audio

Now we're talking! Jules, I don't know how you did it, but I think I feel a review binge coming on! You just made my weekend with the possibility of winning an Apollo. Thanks!

[DR Music]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

I have a scenario for you guys. Let's say the UA 4-710 was a full fledged audio interface (add analog outs, headphones and firewire) but with no UAD. Which one would you choose?

Whichever had better conversion! EASY!

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by Duardo

Even if it is cheap technology, it doesn't mean it will necessarily be cheap to integrate into a unit like the Apollo. The price (if $500 even is the price...that seems to be called into question) seems to be right in line with the USB and Firewire option cards for things like Apogee and Lynx converters, various digital mixers, etc...those are cheap technologies as well, are they not?

And again, regardless of how much it costs...Apple will sell many more times the number of displays than UA will interfaces. And if a technology-driven thing like a display is selling for the same price that it did what, two years ago?...then that is essentially the same thing as the price going up, is it not?


How do you know that's what it will be? The option cards I've seen seem to have a bit more to them than that. And either way, even if most of what's required for it to work is built into the Apollo, it's still got to be paid for. Should that cost be covered only by those who actually use the Thunderbolt option, or should it be spread across all users?

I saw a TB adapter on the Metric Halo website. This adapter was only 250.00. In my experience as a computer and audio guy, most aftermarket adapters usually cost A LOT more than an upgrade card. The man who said if they charge 500.00 for a TB, feel Gouged is 100% correct.

Another point is this... Firewire 800 is 800mbps vs TB at 10gbs = No brainer upgrade for anyone serious about their music and may not want to sprint for an AVID HD or Symphony card.

[DR Music]

Originally Posted by smoovemode

I saw a TB adapter on the Metric Halo website. This adapter was only 250.00. In my experience as a computer and audio guy, most aftermarket adapters usually cost A LOT more than an upgrade card. The man who said if they charge 500.00 for a TB, feel Gouged is 100% correct.

Another point is this... Firewire 800 is 800mbps vs TB at 10gbs = No brainer upgrade for anyone serious about their music and may not want to sprint for an AVID HD or Symphony card.

Research it.. 95% of Thunderbolt is just a FireWire or USB conversion..
Sucks but true!!
In this case the TB "adapter" is 800mbps.

[smoovemode]

Originally Posted by DR Music

Research it.. 95% of Thunderbolt is just a FireWire or USB conversion..
Sucks but true!!
In this case the TB "adapter" is 800mbps.

that's all?

[Mazrak]

Originally Posted by DR Music

Research it.. 95% of Thunderbolt is just a FireWire or USB conversion..
Sucks but true!!
In this case the TB "adapter" is 800mbps.

Sources?

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by Mazrak

Sources?

Don't know if this is definitive with respect to the Apollo, but...

interesting fb post from bla about thunderbolt

If this is the case with the Apollo, $500 for the TB card really is robbery.