The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Crimson SPL, UA Appollo or Audient 22? what is best for home project studio? Audio Interfaces
Old 14th January 2016
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Crimson SPL, UA Appollo or Audient 22? what is best for home project studio?

Crimson SPL, UA Apollo Twin or Audient 22? what is best for home project studio?

There are so many 1k and below options for interfaces I am getting lost looking at these interfaces. I have an Imac and MacBook pro and might buy a used desktop mac or a newer imac.

I really don't need more than 2 channels, I want the highest quality interface so my overdubs between home and protools HD studios isn't noticeable.

I overdub acoustic/electric guitars, bass, and vocals. I have a distressor, a FMR really nice 2 ch mic pre, and a few mics that get the job done.

I need to upgrade my interface and looking at the 1K and below range and something that competes with any of Avid's HD interfaces (which I don't think is hard to do as I'm strictly a 48K/24 sample/bit type of guy).

Last edited by John Paul; 14th January 2016 at 07:29 PM..
Old 14th January 2016
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Paul View Post
Crimson SPL, UA Appollo or Audient 22? what is best for home project studio?

There are so many 1k and below options for interfaces I am getting lost looking at these interfaces. I have an Imac and MacBook pro and might buy a used desktop mac or a newer imac.

I really don't need more than 2 channels, I want the highest quality interface so my overdubs between home and protools HD studios isn't noticeable.

I overdub acoustic/electric guitars, bass, and vocals. I have a distressor, a FMR really nice 2 ch mic pre, and a few mics that get the job done.

I need to upgrade my interface and looking at the 1K and below range and something that competes with any of Avid's HD interfaces (which I don't think is hard to do as I'm strictly a 48K/24 sample/bit type of guy).
Lots of people seem to be jumping on the ID22 for clean pre's and conversion. From what I've gathered the SPL with it's fully analog signal path offers comparable conversion with a little color added. I'd go UA only if I was interested in the plugs. It doesn't sound like you need all the ins and outs of the Apollo anyways.

I believe at this stage it comes down to drivers and personal preference. Either interface will give you quality sound. I hate those mixer apps that most interfaces use these days so personally I'm considering the SPL but otherwise I'd go ID22. If I needed the ins and out's of the Apollo I'd go that route. I've seen a quad go for $1200.
Old 14th January 2016
  #3
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Fire View Post
Lots of people seem to be jumping on the ID22 for clean pre's and conversion. From what I've gathered the SPL with it's fully analog signal path offers comparable conversion with a little color added. I'd go UA only if I was interested in the plugs. It doesn't sound like you need all the ins and outs of the Apollo anyways.

I believe at this stage it comes down to drivers and personal preference. Either interface will give you quality sound. I hate those mixer apps that most interfaces use these days so personally I'm considering the SPL but otherwise I'd go ID22. If I needed the ins and out's of the Apollo I'd go that route. I've seen a quad go for $1200.
I really am not crazy about the drivers and mixer apps as they seem to be outdated after a while and plus your stuck dealing with the manufacture's version of software which I prefer just to do it all thru the DAW or hands on hardware. Why have a 2nd software mixer when you have a DAW with all the channels. I guess for latency, sample/bit choices and such or for a live application the software is useful but I hate these interface drivers and having to be stuck using them (plus apple's OS updates, driver updates, DAW updates is too many spokes in the wheel software compatibility wise IMO)
Old 14th January 2016
  #4
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Paul View Post
I really am not crazy about the drivers and mixer apps as they seem to be outdated after a while and plus your stuck dealing with the manufacture's version of software which I prefer just to do it all thru the DAW or hands on hardware. Why have a 2nd software mixer when you have a DAW with all the channels. I guess for latency, sample/bit choices and such or for a live application the software is useful but I hate these interface drivers and having to be stuck using them (plus apple's OS updates, driver updates, DAW updates is too many spokes in the wheel software compatibility wise IMO)
Exactly. I started on d24 Pro Tools and went to PT Mix after that. I had no idea that other manufacturers used those mixer apps. I wasn't even aware that latency existed in other interfaces. I hate tracking more than a stereo source in anything other than PT HD. I can do it but I hate it the entire time.

The SPL is the only one of those interfaces that doesn't require a separate mixer app. I believe there is a dedicated "low latency" driver for Mac OS X.
Old 14th January 2016
  #5
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Fire View Post
Exactly. I started on d24 Pro Tools and went to PT Mix after that. I had no idea that other manufacturers used those mixer apps. I wasn't even aware that latency existed in other interfaces. I hate tracking more than a stereo source in anything other than PT HD. I can do it but I hate it the entire time.

The SPL is the only one of those interfaces that doesn't require a separate mixer app. I believe there is a dedicated "low latency" driver for Mac OS X.
The "low latency" driver for Mac OS is something from SPL or Apple?
Old 14th January 2016
  #6
Gear Maniac
I have both the SPL Crimson and a UAD Apollo Twin.

I really like the Crimson, you can use it as a monitor controller without the PC being switched on - which I find really useful. There is a Crimson driver on the SPL website, but I don't use it. I just have it plugged in and it works beautifully. I do like its sound and it is really well made.

The Apollo twin is also a really good piece of kit, but the reason I bought it was for using Unison when tracking. It really shines at this. The downside of the Apollo is how much you will spend on plug-ins in the period after you bought it. The UA 610 preamp always brings a smile to my face.

I don't know about the Audient. But what I can say is this. These are all really good products and as the long as the features and specs meet your needs you should be able to get cracking results out of any of them. In short - there is no wrong answer.

I wish I had spent some of the time I spent agonising of what kit I should I buy actually learning how to use it to better effect.......
Old 15th January 2016
  #7
Gear Maniac
I prefer the sound of the Crimson over he Audient.
Old 15th January 2016
  #8
Gear Maniac
 
gurian1's Avatar
I have the Apollo and the SPL. Both are very good. The SPL is more flexible and has better conversion. Without question. It also gets very very low latency. Lower than I have been able to get from the Apollo using native plugins. Of course the Apollo has its advantage when using its plugins while recording. So I have come to believe that If you enjoy the Apollo plugins its very compelling . I basicly use the Apollo as a dongle at this point to run their plugins.....

Rob
Old 15th January 2016
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Never buy before NAMM since you can get the usual suspects much cheaper, whenever something new is released.
Old 15th January 2016
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Avening's Avatar
 

I really wanted the SPL Crimson when it was released as I'm a huge fan of their products (still am). I ended up with the Audient iD22 for four reasons: 1) SPL was struggling with their drivers early on, especially on Windows systems. I generally don't believe everything I hear online when it comes to compatibility and setup, but it was prominent enough to take notice. That being said, I'm sure they're fine by now. 2) Space on the desktop. The Audient is much more compact on the desktop which can be a blessing. Especially if you have things like midi controllers, keyboards, etc. 3) ADAT. If you ever want to do more than a few channels with the Crimson, you're out of luck. 4) Inserts. 4a) Price vs the Crimson.

End of the day, I'm kind of tired of trying to find the ultimate package and the Audient is staying with me for a while. I went from PTHD2 w/192's to a Prism Orpheus, RME UFX, Apollo 8, Symphony I/O - then decided to go 100% ITB and grabbed the iD22. Too much money down the drain chasing after conversion. In the end, the feature set, drivers, and the user "experience" made 98% of the difference between them versus the miniscule differences in the way they all sound. Enough is enough
Old 15th January 2016
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Will The Weirdo's Avatar
Look at each and decide what are the features you want, each has strengths, you can't go wrong with any of these. I was in similar spot last summer, I went with the iD22 and it has been great. FWIW I have used many quality converters over the years and the Audient conversion quality is fantastic for the price. The pre's are solid and the monitor quality is very good. I would buy another again. Current drivers are killer on Mac and great on PC.

To each their own.
Old 5th February 2019
  #12
Here for the gear
 

i was for a long time ambivalent in the ID22 vs Crimson. and then i listened to a shoot out and i fell in love with the Crimson because of the sound. BUT, there is no clear information on whether i can expand on the Crimson with a dedicated Mic Pre, say a Neve or an FMR? can anyone help with education here, cos I read somwhere and learnt it was possible and then I read somweher and heard you cannot connect an external preamp to the Crimson.

NB: I am eyeing the Crimson 3
Old 6th February 2019
  #13
Lives for gear
 
DirkP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by McNewlove View Post
i was for a long time ambivalent in the ID22 vs Crimson. and then i listened to a shoot out and i fell in love with the Crimson because of the sound. BUT, there is no clear information on whether i can expand on the Crimson with a dedicated Mic Pre, say a Neve or an FMR? can anyone help with education here, cos I read somwhere and learnt it was possible and then I read somweher and heard you cannot connect an external preamp to the Crimson.

NB: I am eyeing the Crimson 3
You would simply use one of the line-ins! The Crimson has only 4 channels (if you don't count the digital in), but it has 8 recording inputs (2 x HZ, 2 x Mic, 4 x line). The 2 HZ inputs, the 2 Mic inputs and the line inputs 1 and 2 are all wired to input channel 1 and 2.



If you plug in an instrument or a mic, these inputs are prefered. No need to change the settings of inputs from mic to line in a menue or in software. It's all hardware. So you could connect up to 4 mic preamps into the dedicated line ins.

I have the first version of the Crimson since they were released and still love it.
I like it to have all the buttons, inputs and switches in front of me and NO menue or software mixer.

Sometimes it is confusing to not have a software mixer. You can not change the routing, everything is hardwired! For example you can not connect a digital device to the coaxial or optical in and record it into a software that only records channel 1 and 2 like for example the camera app in iOS. You can route it within a DAW for shure. BTW it works great with iPads.
Can't have it all...

The only two contenders that are a bit similar (lots of hardware control and an integrated monitor controler) are the iD44 (but no midi!!!) and the new Arturia Audiofuse Studio.

BTW the Crimson has the best headphone amps I ever heard on an interface. And it has two of them.
Old 7th February 2019
  #14
Lives for gear
 

I have a audient id22 as well as others, one thing i been curious on is the crimson. what do people mean by the analog sound? Isn't this a digital interface? I am interested in adding it to the arsenal.
Old 7th February 2019
  #15
Lives for gear
 
DirkP's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevon View Post
I have a audient id22 as well as others, one thing i been curious on is the crimson. what do people mean by the analog sound? Isn't this a digital interface? I am interested in adding it to the arsenal.
For sure it is an interface and therefore digital. It simply sounds good (the preamps, the hz and the mic-inputs) and esp. the headphone amps. But it is as digital as any other interface. The way you operate it is very very analog!
I don't know any other interface that works so good standalone. For many users it replaces a small analog mixer.
Old 11th February 2019
  #16
Here for the gear
ID22

I have the Audient ID22 and am very pleased. I have external mic pre's (Neve 1073's) and a Teletronix LA-2A. I wasn't interested in using software emulations of mic pre's and comp's. I wanted the insert points that the Audient provided!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump