Universal Audio Apollo interface
#2341
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2341
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Thanks for that , much appreciated.

Just to be 100% clear, can you confirm the extra 87 samples need to be added to those respective figures for the true RTL ?

So for example - 032 @ 48 : In - 3.438 / Out - 2.396 / RTL - 5.834 ms / 280.032 Samples + 87 samples = 367.032 - True RTL : 7.646 ms.

I have helped develop a RTL measuring utility for Windows but unfortunately don't know of anything similar for OSX, but you should be able to confirm the measurement using your loopback method. It doesn't need to be done on all of the setting, maybe just a few to ensure you are getting a consistent variable for the AD/DA measurement.

Yes, I have to have the 87 sample offset added to get an accurate loopback at any of the buffer settings.
#2342
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2342
Quote:
Originally Posted by clonewar View Post
That seems odd/bad for a first generation loopback. Did you have any plugins active in the Apollo console?
no plugins inserted, i'm quite baffled by this.. it certainly isn't an encouraging result… perhaps some other users could do some loopback tests and see what kind of resuts they're getting.

I'm also wondering if anyone else is having to adjust recording offset to get correctly time aligned recordings weith the apollo..? or am I the only one who has done a loopback test??
#2343
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2343
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowSills View Post
Intel has said there will not be PCIe Thunderbolt cards, it will only come on OEM motherboards. Thunderbolt IS PCIe bundled together with DisplayPort, designed to bring PCIe expansion and bandwidth to computers without PCIe slots while consuming minimal real estate
That is correct for the first generation of chips currently being used in iMacs, Macbooks , Intel would not allow the option of a TB PCIe expansion card , specifically due to the fact that the DisplayPort had to be directly plumbed at the motherboard level and that would it be impossible to implement both PCIx4 and PCIe x16 .

However with the second generation TB chip which has been adopted and is being rolled out ( albeit very slowly) by the 3rd party OEM/ODM PC manufacturers , Intel will in fact allow a PCIe expansion card and to separate the 2 aspects.

The logistics of running both the separate PCIe x4 and PCie x16 ( DP) channels in some instances is achieved by a header on the motherboard - i.e the PCIe x4 is achieved by a standard interconnect into a PCIe x4 slot , the separate PCie x16 is via a connection cable from the card to the header on the motherboard. If the header is not available on the motherboard , the PCIe x4 expansion will still be available sans the PCIe x16 aspect for displays - which will be fine for many.

PCIe TB expansion cards are coming , how they ultimately perform will be the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
Yes, I have to have the 87 sample offset added to get an accurate loopback at any of the buffer settings.
Thanks Mate, duly noted and very much appreciated.
#2344
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2344
Another discovery.. when doing the loopback test using ADAT, there is a 63 sample offset that needs to be compensated for manually. This implies that using digital and analog inputs simultaneously could be a problem since the analogue and digital inputs have different sample offsets. I'm going to try and test it myself using the console "input delay compensation" and see if the UAD driver is actually able to maintain time alignment during a mixed analog/digital recording session...
#2345
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2345
Lives for gear
 

How are the Windows drivers? Are they even out yet?

This looks like a cool "tax refund" toy, not to fond of my current interface.
#2346
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2346
Lives for gear
 
euphoria89's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
How are the Windows drivers? Are they even out yet?

This looks like a cool "tax refund" toy, not to fond of my current interface.
Not out yet. No date for them specifically.
#2347
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2347
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
That is correct for the first generation of chips currently being used in iMacs, Macbooks , Intel would not allow the option of a TB PCIe expansion card , specifically due to the fact that the DisplayPort had to be directly plumbed at the motherboard level and that would it be impossible to implement both PCIx4 and PCIe x16 .

However with the second generation TB chip which has been adopted and is being rolled out ( albeit very slowly) by the 3rd party OEM/ODM PC manufacturers , Intel will in fact allow a PCIe expansion card and to separate the 2 aspects.

The logistics of running both the separate PCIe x4 and PCie x16 ( DP) channels in some instances is achieved by a header on the motherboard - i.e the PCIe x4 is achieved by a standard interconnect into a PCIe x4 slot , the separate PCie x16 is via a connection cable from the card to the header on the motherboard. If the header is not available on the motherboard , the PCIe x4 expansion will still be available sans the PCIe x16 aspect for displays - which will be fine for many.

PCIe TB expansion cards are coming , how they ultimately perform will be the question.



Thanks Mate, duly noted and very much appreciated.
This must be what the Admin on the UA forum was referring to. He said there will be a PCIe TB expansion but that it won't support video. Which is totally fine as for as I'm concerned. I'm sure thunderbolt will be necessary to connect multiple Apollos. I would love to be able to do that without having to buy a new Mac. This is my main concern with the Apollo. I wish UA would give us some more info about running multiple units and a time frame.
#2348
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2348
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dankin View Post
This must be what the Admin on the UA forum was referring to. He said there will be a PCIe TB expansion but that it won't support video.
Yep , that would be it... :-)

This is what many of us in the tech industry were hoping for the first gen TB chip rollout, but Intel dug there heels in and wouldn't allow the separation of PCIe x4 and DisplayPort - ( I suspect there was more than a little politics involved with a certain fruit themed manufacturer ).

With the new gen they are loosening the reigns. IMO they realised that to get a greater foothold the PCIe x4 interconnect is of far more interest over the DisplayPort.

Re running multiple Apollos, we have no idea how one runs under TB, let alone multiple. I am most interested in what if any benefit is delivered in regards to the I/O and RTL values as the current numbers under FW are substantially higher than some of the better units offered by the competition.

Also, we still have no idea how the unit actually scales at those values comparatively either , but that doesn't seem to be the focus for the majority here, so looks like I'll pick up that ball when the time comes on my dedicated threads.

#2349
18th April 2012
Old 18th April 2012
  #2349
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
Another discovery.. when doing the loopback test using ADAT, there is a 63 sample offset that needs to be compensated for manually.
Really ??

You have to wonder what is going on there , via analog the non reporting of the AD/DA could explain the variable , and because it was consistent across all of the buffer values, it was a good bet that the 87 samples was the RTL of the AD/DA.

This however is really odd unless the 63 samples is the arbitration overhead attributed to simply processing the I/O thru the FPGA/DSP. That would leave 24 samples for the AD/DA - which is not inconceivable as the better AD/DA from competing manufacturers have similar latencies.

Either way, the unit is not reporting correctly to the DAW host.

#2350
19th April 2012
Old 19th April 2012
  #2350
Gear Fiend
 

Apollo Demos - Realtime Tracking With Plugs and Pre/Di/Converters

#2351
19th April 2012
Old 19th April 2012
  #2351
mixingtable.com
 
mitzush's Avatar
 

walnut rack for the Apollo

Hi Apollo owners, I'm just wondering if anyone would be interested in a luxury rack/box for thier Apollo. Not the usual flightcase affair but something more stylish and well finished, made in solid walnut, possibly engraved?

We could do a one unit box if there are people who are using it without any other outboard, or more units if otherwise desired.

PM me with your requests as I wouldn't want to de-rail this thread.

Enjoy your Apollo's

Cheers, Pete
http://mixingtable.com
#2352
19th April 2012
Old 19th April 2012
  #2352
Lives for gear
 
kreeper_6's Avatar
 

Anybody know if the outputs are DC coupled?
#2353
20th April 2012
Old 20th April 2012
  #2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Really ??

You have to wonder what is going on there , via analog the non reporting of the AD/DA could explain the variable , and because it was consistent across all of the buffer values, it was a good bet that the 87 samples was the RTL of the AD/DA.

This however is really odd unless the 63 samples is the arbitration overhead attributed to simply processing the I/O thru the FPGA/DSP. That would leave 24 samples for the AD/DA - which is not inconceivable as the better AD/DA from competing manufacturers have similar latencies.

Either way, the unit is not reporting correctly to the DAW host.

another oddity, the MON L/R inputs have a different offset (71 samples)
The headphone inputs also have an offset of 71 samples.

After rebooting, the offset figures changed to 4 samples (a big difference), however adjusting the recording offset in cubase does not affect the offset of either the MON or HP inputs… and in fact creates further new offset figures! (now 79 samples) I suppose this must be a miscommunication between cubase and the apollo.

This means if I want to print my MON L/R or HP inputs to cubase via console, I have to manually align the recorded files. Some strange stuff going on here.
#2354
20th April 2012
Old 20th April 2012
  #2354
Gear interested
 

#2355
20th April 2012
Old 20th April 2012
  #2355
Gear interested
 
Cjoe707's Avatar
 

just curious, does everybody else's apollo front led panel flash when its powered on?
#2356
20th April 2012
Old 20th April 2012
  #2356
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
another oddity, the MON L/R inputs have a different offset (71 samples)
The headphone inputs also have an offset of 71 samples.

After rebooting, the offset figures changed to 4 samples (a big difference), however adjusting the recording offset in cubase does not affect the offset of either the MON or HP inputs… and in fact creates further new offset figures! (now 79 samples) I suppose this must be a miscommunication between cubase and the apollo.

This means if I want to print my MON L/R or HP inputs to cubase via console, I have to manually align the recorded files. Some strange stuff going on here.
That's odd because when recording MON L/R in Pro Tools, if you turn it up it's perfectly phase aligned!

Maybe it's being correctly compensated in Pro Tools.
#2357
20th April 2012
Old 20th April 2012
  #2357
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cjoe707 View Post
just curious, does everybody else's apollo front led panel flash when its powered on?
Nice little disco
#2358
21st April 2012
Old 21st April 2012
  #2358
Gear interested
 

Question for anyone able to confirm an answer. I'm wondering since Apollo has 8 line inputs, am I able to use external preamps like SSL Alpha's or Vintech pre's into the Apollo interface for the purpose of using the latency feature for tracking with plugins on each of the inputs? Basically I'm looking to track a drum kit & I noticed that the Apollo unit only comes with 4 mic pre's.

Thanks!
Paul
#2359
21st April 2012
Old 21st April 2012
  #2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeGus View Post
Question for anyone able to confirm an answer. I'm wondering since Apollo has 8 line inputs, am I able to use external preamps like SSL Alpha's or Vintech pre's into the Apollo interface for the purpose of using the latency feature for tracking with plugins on each of the inputs? Basically I'm looking to track a drum kit & I noticed that the Apollo unit only comes with 4 mic pre's.

Thanks!
Paul
Yes, you can use external preamps through the line inputs.
#2360
21st April 2012
Old 21st April 2012
  #2360
Lives for gear
 
bigbone's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeGus View Post
Question for anyone able to confirm an answer. I'm wondering since Apollo has 8 line inputs, am I able to use external preamps like SSL Alpha's or Vintech pre's into the Apollo interface for the purpose of using the latency feature for tracking with plugins on each of the inputs? Basically I'm looking to track a drum kit & I noticed that the Apollo unit only comes with 4 mic pre's.

Thanks!
Paul
That's from UA tech support.

That will work great. You just take the line outputs of the external preamp into the Line inputs 5, 6, 7 and 8 and you can then use the 4 Apollo preamps and the Daking preamps for a total of 8.
#2361
21st April 2012
Old 21st April 2012
  #2361
Gear interested
 

Awesome thanks for the response. I had another quick question in regards to my previous question. I was wondering if it's possible to use the 4 included mic pre's on the Apollo unit while also simultaneously using the 8 line inputs for separate external mic pre's for a grand total of 12 mic pre's for tracking?
#2362
21st April 2012
Old 21st April 2012
  #2362
Lives for gear
 
euphoria89's Avatar
 

No, it's either the 4 in-built mic pre's or line ins. You can only get 8 in total.
#2363
21st April 2012
Old 21st April 2012
  #2363
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
Some strange stuff going on here.
The inconsistencies are not making much sense.

Definitely worth asking the question via the official support channels and give us a heads up what they come back with.

#2364
21st April 2012
Old 21st April 2012
  #2364
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeGus View Post
Awesome thanks for the response. I had another quick question in regards to my previous question. I was wondering if it's possible to use the 4 included mic pre's on the Apollo unit while also simultaneously using the 8 line inputs for separate external mic pre's for a grand total of 12 mic pre's for tracking?
8 total analog inputs but you can also add 8 digital inputs on the optical if you have additional converters with ADAT optical out. This way you could record up to 16 inputs (8 digital and 8 analog)
#2365
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2365
Gear interested
 
Cjoe707's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stakeoutstudios View Post
Nice little disco
I know it does the little disco light show lol but I'm talking about right when i flip the power switch on the entire led panel will flash then presume to do its disco light show a couple seconds later. I just thought that the initial flash that happens on my unit seems unusual and was wondering if anybody else's unit does this as well.
#2366
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2366
Gear Head
 
Old Dog's Avatar
 

ADAT inputs...

Okay, I can't find anything in this thread, nor on the UA website that details how the two ADAT inputs can be used. It does say you can get 8 additional in via SMUX, but can I get 8 or 16 inputs from another lightpipe device at 44.1 or 48kHz? Does it every work with 8 channel lightpipe pres at lower sampling rates?! No where does UA confirm either. All it says is 8 channels via lightpipe. You'd think you could get 16 at half the sampling rate. Just wondering cause I'd love to get 24 inputs into my computer for live recording. Thanks in advance for the info!!!
#2367
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2367
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Dog View Post
Okay, I can't find anything in this thread, nor on the UA website that details how the two ADAT inputs can be used. It does say you can get 8 additional in via SMUX, but can I get 8 or 16 inputs from another lightpipe device at 44.1 or 48kHz? Does it every work with 8 channel lightpipe pres at lower sampling rates?! No where does UA confirm either. All it says is 8 channels via lightpipe. You'd think you could get 16 at half the sampling rate. Just wondering cause I'd love to get 24 inputs into my computer for live recording. Thanks in advance for the info!!!
Been discussed to death. You can use both ports to get 8 ins at 96KHz or less, you can use a single side to get 8 inputs at 48KHz. When using the single side to get 8 at 48 the other input is disable and the other output mirrors the first.

Stupid, we all agree. probably motivated by the fact that they intend for multiple Apollo units to be sync'ed, and therfore folks wanting 24+ channels of Apollo will have to buy two (and probably two lightpipe adapters too).

Good news for me is that the coax spdif input/output support up to 192k for two channels, so that makes adding a golden converter pair like the BLA Sparrow easy, without wasting the lightpipe ports.
#2368
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2368
Gear Head
 
Old Dog's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Category 5 View Post
Been discussed to death. You can use both ports to get 8 ins at 96KHz or less, you can use a single side to get 8 inputs at 48KHz. When using the single side to get 8 at 48 the other input is disable and the other output mirrors the first.

Stupid, we all agree.
Sorry! Must have missed it in the 118 pages of this thread. Ha! But the UA site is interestingly vague about this. Thanks for the info.

And YES this is very stupid! I've never heard of a company disabling a second SMUX connection when used at a lower sample rate. This will have me looking for a different interface because I need a higher I/O count when doing live recording! Gotta love crippleware.
#2369
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2369
Gear interested
 

Long thread, so sorry if this is a repeat discussion, but does anyone know how high end the clock is on this thing? I'm really happy with my Black Lion Sig Mod and think the clock is amazing. Not sure if migrating over to apollo would be a step down in that department.
Any insight?
#2370
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #2370
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenbecker View Post
Long thread, so sorry if this is a repeat discussion, but does anyone know how high end the clock is on this thing? I'm really happy with my Black Lion Sig Mod and think the clock is amazing. Not sure if migrating over to apollo would be a step down in that department.
Any insight?
It's really not proven that an external clock makes things better (at least more linear). Some people say the sound is improved by one, other say no. heck in the Behringer vs Lynx converter shootout almost everyone said the Behringer sounded better, so if you want to truct the ears of the masses go ahead.

I'm 100% sure BLA will be coming up with a mod for the Apollo and I'm sure the clock will be one of the things they improve so we'll just have to wait and see.

I'm sure when they do the audio will be measurably better...whether or not it will be audibly better is another story. There clearly are audible differences between all the popular mid-high end converters, that's for sure. Whether it has to do with clock, analog design, converter chips, etc. and whether one is more TRUE than the other will always be open for discussion and disagreement.

The bottom line is, after all the tests are done you have to get a device that has the price and features you want, with audio quality you find acceptable. If the Orpheus was cheaper and had RME's driver performance it's be the number one selling interface. As it stands I'll bet the UFX outsells it 100 to 1 or more. Apollo is gonna steal some of that for sure if they can make enough of them. When you listen to good records made on any of them I doubt you can pic the Prism from the Fireface. There are way too many variables in between.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Chieftain Jake / Low End Theory
14

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.