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
Why would anyone NOT buy the Apollo Twin MKII? Audio Interfaces
Old 11th May 2017
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Why would anyone NOT buy the Apollo Twin MKII?

Hi everyone,
I am new to the forum and upgrading from a Line6 UX1 interface to something a little sweeter. I only record Guitar and Vocals.
I had first put my eyes on a Focusrite Clarett 2Pre, especially due to its low-latency Thunderbolt connection and the widespread praise for its sound. However, I have lately discovered and then read more and more about the Apollo Twin MKII (Yes. I'm new.). From what I understand ..

- the sound of this machine is equal if not better than the Focusrite (and many other competitors)
- the Apollo gives you access to the UAD plugins which otherwise you wouldn't have
- the Apollo differs from other interfaces in that the plugins use processing power from the machines themselves, rather than the computer
- however, while you can use UAD plugins only with their machines, you can use any other plugin with them as well
- the Apollo Twin comes with the Realtime Analogs Classics Bundle, which isn't absolutely top-notch, but more than enough for beginners and actually quite comprehensive in terms of the stuff you really need to get going

Now, as suggested in the title, I don't understand why anybody would buy anything else? Of course: The price tag is an issue for many, but let's face it, we are talking about an expensive hobby here. The Apollo is ~800 € here, the Clarett is ~400 €, and most people would agree that the interface is the most important device in your whole setup, is it not? What is more, the bundle that comes with the Apollo contains a lot of stuff that you would otherwise have to buy with the Clarett. So really, the price difference is marginal, if indeed there is one at all.

What is it then? The missing MIDI-connector? Can't I plug in a MIDI keyboard directly into the Computer? Or what is it? Thanks very much for your help and opinions.
Old 11th May 2017
  #2
Gear Maniac
 

Right now I'm contemplating buying into the UAD world once again, but solely because of the simplicity of the Twin, having a desktop monitor controller with amazing mic amps onboard sounds really up my alley, but what's holding me back for now is exactly the UAD side of things.
The temptation to spend way too much money on (albeit good) plugins doesn't appeal to me, with SO many great sounding and much better value for money native plugins on the market these days.
I had a chance to try out every single available UAD plugin a while ago and I can't say I was as impressed as I was in 2001 when I bought my first UAD-1 card.
But if you can resist that all, the Twin is a great piece of kit!
I didn't help you at all, sorry.
Old 12th May 2017
  #3
Gear Nut
 
Rapollo's Avatar
There are plenty of other options that rival the Apollos in sound and quality - just often without the flashy appearance of the box and its plugins. Such as RME, the Focusrite Clarrett line and Audient's. Preamp and converter wise the differences are minimal. Just depends if you want the UA plugins and the console software style workflow.
Old 12th May 2017
  #4
Gear Maniac
 

  • The UAD SHARC DSP chips are outdated and severely underpowered. They run at a ridiculous 350 MHz or so per core and their architecture is like 10 years old. You pay a lot of money for pretty crapy processing units by today's standards.
  • Thanks to the underpowered SHARC chips, you can't really run a lot of plugin instances on the Apollo Twin. You can run a few, but it likely won't be enough capacity for a large project with many tracks.
  • UAD plugins are crazy expensive and there are plenty of native alternatives out there that are a lot cheaper and offer the same emulations at the same sound quality. Slate, Waves, IK, to name just a few. UA fanatics will tell you that nothing compares to the authenticity and sound quality of UA plugins, but that's not true.
  • Even though the Apollo Twin is an amazing interface, plenty of other makers out there offer the same quality of preamps, converters, etc. for less money (a lot less in some cases). Audient, RME, Focusrite are just a few of them.
  • The one-knob design of the Apollo Twin looks cool, but it's quite impractial in practice: With other interfaces you just turn the knob that you need - mic preamps, monitor level, and so on. With the Twin you need to always select the channel that you want the knob to control first, and only then can you change the level. This might not sound like a major thing and it's not the worst thing in the world, but it is quite annoying honestly.
  • In my opinion it generally doesn't make much sense to invest in a proprietary dedicated DSP system. Your laptop or desktop has a hundred times more processing power than a UA interface or satellite and you pay a lot less money per FLOP of processing power. And as opposed to the UA DSP chips, I can use my Kaby Lake core i7 for any task, not just to run the audio plugins of one company. Native plugins are the way forward.

Also, on an unrelated note that has nothing to do with the Apollo Twin in particular:

In my opinion, the quality differences (converters, preamps, etc.) between the audio interfaces of different makers are being grossly exaggerated, especially here on GS. Honestly, it's hard to buy a sh1tty audio interface these days, and if you can't make an amazing-sounding hit record with a Saffire Pro, then the Saffire Pro is not the problem.
Old 12th May 2017
  #5
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexe View Post
  • The UAD SHARC DSP chips are outdated and severely underpowered. They run at a ridiculous 350 MHz or so per core and their architecture is like 10 years old. You pay a lot of money for pretty crapy processing units by today's standards.
  • Thanks to the underpowered SHARC chips, you can't really run a lot of plugin instances on the Apollo Twin. You can run a few, but it likely won't be enough capacity for a large project with many tracks.
  • Anyone who owns UAD also owns Native. And they do so for the quality. The power argument is silly and pointless at this stage.

    Quote:
    UAD plugins are crazy expensive
    No one buys UAD plugins at full price. There are plenty of sales year round not to mention vouchers. All in all they wind up being the same or even cheaper than some Native alternatives.

    Quote:
    and there are plenty of native alternatives out there that are a lot cheaper and offer the same emulations at the same sound quality. Slate, Waves, IK, to name just a few.
    Again, NOT always cheaper as explained above and there is nothing stopping a UAD user from owning both Native and UAD. This either/or argument is silly. If I find a UAD version is better I buy it that way, if I find a Native version is better or the same I'll go that way. Either way I'm not restricted and have both platforms available.

    Quote:
    UA fanatics will tell you that nothing compares to the authenticity and sound quality of UA plugins, but that's not true.
    Without being specific that's a blanket statement by them and you and a matter of taste and preference. I find some plugins average and nothing special on UAD and on those I avoid. I only buy what I feel is unique to that platform and superior quality.


    Quote:
    Even though the Apollo Twin is an amazing interface, plenty of other makers out there offer the same quality of preamps, converters, etc. for less money (a lot less in some cases). Audient, RME, Focusrite are just a few of them.
    Agreed. I personally use RME with a UAD card and Native plugins. The Apollo is nice for the near zero latency console and software preamp emulations for those that desire that. I personally have more of a need for lower overall latency for softsynths etc. which is why RME is a better choice for me. Horses for courses etc

    Quote:
    In my opinion it generally doesn't make much sense to invest in a proprietary dedicated DSP system. Your laptop or desktop has a hundred times more processing power than a UA interface or satellite and you pay a lot less money per FLOP of processing power. And as opposed to the UA DSP chips, I can use my Kaby Lake core i7 for any task, not just to run the audio plugins of one company. Native plugins are the way forward.
Again were back to the power argument which to me is pointless.
I buy UAD for certain plugins and others for the near zero latency preamp console of which the Sharc chips are more than powerful enough, especially coupled with Native. UAD was never meant to take the place of your PC's processor but rather a copy protection dongle that also off loads DSP (I wish iLok could do that).

Anyway back to the OP. The Apollo Twinn is a nice interface with nice converters and nice preamps and really nice onboard DSP (the best in that regard if you ask me). Metric Halo has even better converters and preamps and really nice onboard DSP (nobody seems to complain about the lack of power of their onboard DSP for some reason) but doesn't have the variety that UAD does or the near zero latency console feature. Antelope is another option with great converters and onboard DSP (FPGA) which is even weaker that UAD's Sharc chips (again no complaints about power there either for some reason).
Old 12th May 2017
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Steven Slate´s announcement to release a smaller version of his upcoming VSR-8 interface. Would be disappointed if Steven releases a downsized version like the Twin Mk2 so he wouldn´t cannibalize its bigger brothers and sisters.

I was eying the Mk2 for TB until Steven spread the news that he will deliver PCI-e for PC. Best of both worlds for lowest possible latency.
Old 12th May 2017
  #7
Lives for gear
 
audientworld's Avatar
Seen our named bounced around, so here's our two cents

Our flagship interface, the iD22 is competitively priced against these models at €399!

For this price you get an unrivalled Class A console grade preamp, excellent converters, Many more I/O options than its competitors, low latency and excellent post sales support!

Please feel free to quote or direct message us if you would like any more information!

Audient Out!
Old 12th May 2017
  #8
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audientworld View Post
Seen our named bounced around, so here's our two cents

Our flagship interface, the iD22 is competitively priced against these models at €399!

For this price you get an unrivalled Class A console grade preamp, excellent converters, Many more I/O options than its competitors, low latency and excellent post sales support!

Please feel free to quote or direct message us if you would like any more information!

Audient Out!
Yep to all the above. But USB 2? Crackle crackle? Neh
Old 12th May 2017
  #9
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by audientworld View Post
For this price you get an unrivalled Class A console grade preamp,
I have to ask you. Since when has any preamp ever made, been anything else than class A?
Old 12th May 2017
  #10
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Why would anyone NOT buy the Apollo Twin MKII?

Because of the godawful "Console" latency workaround. Not just Apollo -- the other brands have their versions of it, and they all suck.

Spend some time working on a PT TDM system, or anything else where you can just put a track in record-ready or input and the signal goes directly through the DAW with no apparent latency and you'll see what the fuss is about.

Someday soon, hopefully, we'll all look back on this period of recording history and laugh. Or groan as we're hauling our outdated interfaces to the Hazmat.
Old 12th May 2017
  #11
Gear Nut
 
Rapollo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Why would anyone NOT buy the Apollo Twin MKII?

Because of the godawful "Console" latency workaround. Not just Apollo -- the other brands have their versions of it, and they all suck.

Spend some time working on a PT TDM system, or anything else where you can just put a track in record-ready or input and the signal goes directly through the DAW with no apparent latency and you'll see what the fuss is about.

Someday soon, hopefully, we'll all look back on this period of recording history and laugh. Or groan as we're hauling our outdated interfaces to the Hazmat.
Or use a CPU efficient DAW like Reaper with an RME interface at 96khz and a reasonably low buffer and you'll have just as good latency and processing due to quality of the drivers and software. Presuming you've not got a bunk machine at least. Recording these days is pretty great I think :D Or at least I've never had any latency issues or complaints with this setup!

Apollos latency is pretty meh anywhere outside the console despite the "thunderbolt is the fastest" marketing. It gets my backup when any company implies they are lower latency purely because of the connection protocol. Any sort of USB interface with its own drivers can do near zero-latency/direct monitoring with some FX.

You can track through plugins and it looks pretty, that's what you really pay for with UA with any of the interfaces. Most other interfaces in that price range (and sometimes cheaper) have just as good if not better preamps, converters and drivers.
Old 12th May 2017
  #12
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlavB View Post
Yep to all the above. But USB 2? Crackle crackle? Neh
What has USB 2.0 to do with anything?


I wouldn't personally buy Apollo but that's just me.
Old 12th May 2017
  #13
Here for the gear
 

Alright, many thanks everyone, this has been extremely helpful. I see now that there are indeed a couple of reasons why, as I put it in my somewhat provocative question, not everyone wants to buy the Apollo Twin. I get that once you are in the UAD ecosystem there is a risk of falling for the temptation of buying more of their stuff, rather than go looking for the option which is actually the best value for money. I also understand from what you said that the Apollo is a good choice in terms of low latency only when the UAD plugins are used (i.e. when the DSP is in action), but not with other manufacturer’s plugins, in spite of the Thunderbolt connection. This is particularly problematic given that the on-board processors themselves, as has been pointed out here, are so outdated. So with the Apollo, I might end up with the UAD plugins running less than smooth (especially if I were to opt for the duo version, rather than the quad) AND other plugins running less smooth than they would do with a different machine. Finally, while a minor issue seemingly, one of the most worrisome things for me is the point on the one-knob design that Alexe made. Does this mean I have to press a button between controlling my headphone and controlling my input? It seems to be pretty obvious from a look at the machine, but really who DOES want that?

I should say that I like, in general, the attitude put forward by Alndin, which basically comes down to using UAD for the good stuff, but not for the bad stuff. However, as things stand, this only works if you buy a UAD-device in the first place. Right now, I am inclined to go native and use a different machine (such as the Clarett. Any particular opinions on that one?).

Thanks again!!
Old 12th May 2017
  #14
Gear Head
 

Here is my 2-cents on using the Clarett to record guitar and more.
When I am not recording with a real amp -- I do one of the following:

1) I use Amplitube Fender Collection 2 ($19) for IOS. This is plugged into a UR44 which I had lying around. I route the line outs of the UR44 into the line in (5 & 6) of the Clarett. This provides a low latency amp sim. I can't hear the latency.

2) I use Anvil plugin or the free Bias plugin that Focusrite provides -- on an Aux bus. I set the bus to pre fader and also lower channel fader for the track to zero.
I also add Valhalla Vintage Verb to the aux channel. The latency again is not noticeable.

Both options run fine with NI Drums and other instrument plugins.

I hope this helps you with your decision
Old 12th May 2017
  #15
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teofunk View Post
What has USB 2.0 to do with anything?


I wouldn't personally buy Apollo but that's just me.
Audient using 2.0, a tech that is almost 20 years old. I used one and it couldn't handle low enough buffers to work comfortably. People complaining about UA using old tech, but USB2 is ridiculous.
Old 12th May 2017
  #16
Gear Head
 
kenny1smoke's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlavB View Post
Audient using 2.0, a tech that is almost 20 years old. I used one and it couldn't handle low enough buffers to work comfortably. People complaining about UA using old tech, but USB2 is ridiculous.
If that were the case all 213 USB audio interfaces that Sweetwater sells on their site would be useless and "ridiculous".

I had an Audient id14 for a while that worked flawlessly, had great preamps and was easy to use. Judging by the 105 reviews with 5 stars on Sweetwater I would think some other people agree with me. THAT INTERFACE USES USB2.

I have a friend with an RME Babyface Pro that he loves. I've heard it and it sounds great. He's never told me of anything that was bad about it and he's pretty loyal to RME because of his good experience with it. THAT INTERFACE USES USB2.

I've used many interfaces over the years that use Firewire, USB, Thunderbolt and have a Dante system in our studio. I have an Antelope Zen Tour now that I love everything about. IT'S ALSO USB2 when using it on PC.

At the end of the day you should just read some reviews on what you're interested in and make the best choice you can based on what you will use it for. There seems to be more negative posts on Gearslutz in general about products when people are simply asking for information. I don't think you'll be dissapointed with any of the products you're looking at. You will however, at some point, want something newer and better/cooler because the technology in this field changes quickly.

That's just my opinion and hopefully it helps.
Old 13th May 2017
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlavB View Post
Audient using 2.0, a tech that is almost 20 years old. I used one and it couldn't handle low enough buffers to work comfortably. People complaining about UA using old tech, but USB2 is ridiculous.
It's not USB 2.0 that makes the Audient latency figures crap. It's their drivers that utterly suck (and which I am firmly advising against any audient sound cards).

There are quite a few very old USB 2.0 interfaces that manage very good latencies.

Heck, at home I now use my Yamaha THR10 digital practice amp as my playback soundcard and it does a superb job at 64 samples buffer (only does 44.1kHz though). I can tax my CPU to way beyond 70% and not have to touch the buffer setting. Old USB 2 using RME hardware can do even better.. down to 32 samples if my memory serves me.

Anyhow, point is, you are completely wrong about the USB tech being a factor. It's not.
Old 13th May 2017
  #18
Lives for gear
 
projektk's Avatar
 

Don't buy the twin for processing power unless you plan to build an Apollo chain with many processors. Buy the Apollo because it's stable, sounds great and unison is where it's at. For low IO the duo is all you need to really take advantage of their unison plugins. I feel this separates it from other desktop interfaces. I love my analog classics but yes you will use them quick and see them more as outboard gear meaning limited units to use on a project. Buy Waves Gold, subscribe to Slate Everything and the Apollo Duo MKII is perfect at that point.
Old 13th May 2017
  #19
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teofunk View Post
What has USB 2.0 to do with anything?


I wouldn't personally buy Apollo but that's just me.
USB is the worst protocol for Audio. MADI is the best, Daunte is the new kid on the block, Firewire is hit or mis, ADAT optical is not the best word clocking, AES is good, Spdif is mainly 2 track and ok. I'm PC so I don't know anything about thunderbolt, but I see that as an upgraded USB for mac.

USB can work, but can also cause problems as USB is used for just about everything on a PC, the USB bus gets jammed up all the time.
Old 13th May 2017
  #20
Gear Nut
 
Rapollo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
USB is the worst protocol for Audio. MADI is the best, Daunte is the new kid on the block, Firewire is hit or mis, ADAT optical is not the best word clocking, AES is good, Spdif is mainly 2 track and ok. I'm PC so I don't know anything about thunderbolt, but I see that as an upgraded USB for mac.

USB can work, but can also cause problems as USB is used for just about everything on a PC, the USB bus gets jammed up all the time.
Tell that to RME :P I've had two USB 3 (Presonus & Focusrite) interfaces and one thunderbolt (Apollo) and I've had the least - zero in fact issues with latency and driver stability with my USB 2 Babyface Pro. CPU usage is even better just because the drivers are more solid under load.
Old 13th May 2017
  #21
Gear Maniac
 

USB 3 is TEN times as fast as USB 2, why would anyone buy into technology from 2000 when there's so much better options available?
Old 13th May 2017
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
USB is the worst protocol for Audio. MADI is the best, Daunte is the new kid on the block, Firewire is hit or mis, ADAT optical is not the best word clocking, AES is good, Spdif is mainly 2 track and ok. I'm PC so I don't know anything about thunderbolt, but I see that as an upgraded USB for mac.

USB can work, but can also cause problems as USB is used for just about everything on a PC, the USB bus gets jammed up all the time.
ED, can you please stop spreading that BS with misleading generic conclusions? Sorry for being harsh, but I've already replied couple of times with some reasoning about apple to orange comparisons and importance of the particular audio interface implementation.

Michal
Old 13th May 2017
  #23
Gear Nut
 
Rapollo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlavB View Post
USB 3 is TEN times as fast as USB 2, why would anyone buy into technology from 2000 when there's so much better options available?
Because as I just previously stated, the quality of the driver software trumps the protocol.

The protocol has very little to do with RTL past the drivers which is why RME devices using lowly USB 2 (which they do for cost-efficiency) can get better performance and latency than most Thunderbolt devices.

Whatever gets the desired result. The USB3/Thunderbolt = lowest latency marketing is a con. And I know so cause I've fallen to that con, twice!
Old 13th May 2017
  #24
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by tks900 View Post
Hi everyone,
I am new to the forum and upgrading from a Line6 UX1 interface to something a little sweeter. I only record Guitar and Vocals.
I had first put my eyes on a Focusrite Clarett 2Pre, especially due to its low-latency Thunderbolt connection and the widespread praise for its sound. However, I have lately discovered and then read more and more about the Apollo Twin MKII (Yes. I'm new.). From what I understand ..

- the sound of this machine is equal if not better than the Focusrite (and many other competitors)
- the Apollo gives you access to the UAD plugins which otherwise you wouldn't have
- the Apollo differs from other interfaces in that the plugins use processing power from the machines themselves, rather than the computer. And I rarely need to minitor my comp usage as I get a system powerful enough for my musical needs.
- however, while you can use UAD plugins only with their machines, you can use any other plugin with them as well
- the Apollo Twin comes with the Realtime Analogs Classics Bundle, which isn't absolutely top-notch, but more than enough for beginners and actually quite comprehensive in terms of the stuff you really need to get going

Now, as suggested in the title, I don't understand why anybody would buy anything else? Of course: The price tag is an issue for many, but let's face it, we are talking about an expensive hobby here. The Apollo is ~800 € here, the Clarett is ~400 €, and most people would agree that the interface is the most important device in your whole setup, is it not? What is more, the bundle that comes with the Apollo contains a lot of stuff that you would otherwise have to buy with the Clarett. So really, the price difference is marginal, if indeed there is one at all.

What is it then? The missing MIDI-connector? Can't I plug in a MIDI keyboard directly into the Computer? Or what is it? Thanks very much for your help and opinions.

I directly compared an RME Fireface UC, RME Babyface and Apollo Twin on PC, greatly preferred the RME Fireface over the other 2. Didn't like UAD's plugins one bit. UAD have had a good idea to have their interface handling plugin processing power, but in practice your dealing with a limited amount of processing power in the interface, meaning you end up having to monitor the usage of both computer and interface, as opposed to just computer.
The Marshall plugins didn't sound very Marshall to me.

But that was my experience, there are plenty of other musicians having a blast with the Apollo.

Try a couple of interfaces in your system if you can.

You want your MIDI and all audio connected to the interface, so that the interface is handling the audio processing of your system. Makes for a smoother, faster system.

Last edited by Terence T; 13th May 2017 at 01:59 PM..
Old 13th May 2017
  #25
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapollo View Post
Tell that to RME :P I've had two USB 3 (Presonus & Focusrite) interfaces and one thunderbolt (Apollo) and I've had the least - zero in fact issues with latency and driver stability with my USB 2 Babyface Pro. CPU usage is even better just because the drivers are more solid under load.

Using USB2 with my RME Fireface UC at 24 88.2, low latency with flawless operation.
Old 13th May 2017
  #26
Gear Maniac
 

I went thru the same process and ended up buying the Apollo Twin Quad. All the better interfaces have the same specs, arguing over a few db of noise or a couple ms of latency is meaningless. My decision came down to tracking, and with the various input chain plugins, there isn't a quality equivalent on the market. Most of my UAD plugins I bought are for the express purpose of either tracking or master bus use, so I don't care about the limited DSP I have. (I have a full complement of native plugins already from Fabfilter, Waves, etc for applying to multiple tracks) The console takes some getting used to, but once set up saves a lot of time for part time hobbyists like me. ( for example, for my Neumann TLM-102 I have a preset Neve 1073/1176/LA-2A chain setup that I really like and can recall in an instant...) It mainly comes down to how you want to work with your interface and DAW, what plugins you intend to use, etc.
Old 13th May 2017
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Never seen a product that would suits everybody!! In the end you have to try it for yourself to be sure. I went from RME to Apollo 2 years ago and I wouldn't go back for serious production. I also have an Apogee One and it's quite cool(USB2). But the RME babyface is a brilliant product and served me well for over 6 years without breaking a sweat.

Don't know why people say the Apollo driver isn't good under load, it's performing as well, not better not worse, as the RME. Hopefully these people are talking from experience and not just from forum reading. A lot of time, people have opinions on things they don't even own. As an example, if you hear people say UAD plugins are expensive, they're either compulsive buyers not waiting for sales and coupons or they never been on the UAD train and are talking nonsense they read on forums from people who also don't own UAD devices.

KA
Old 14th May 2017
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlavB View Post
USB 3 is TEN times as fast as USB 2, why would anyone buy into technology from 2000 when there's so much better options available?
i think you are confusing bandwith with latency.
Old 14th May 2017
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
USB is the worst protocol for Audio. MADI is the best, Daunte is the new kid on the block, Firewire is hit or mis, ADAT optical is not the best word clocking, AES is good, Spdif is mainly 2 track and ok. I'm PC so I don't know anything about thunderbolt, but I see that as an upgraded USB for mac.

USB can work, but can also cause problems as USB is used for just about everything on a PC, the USB bus gets jammed up all the time.
interesting... theories.
Old 14th May 2017
  #30
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Why would anyone NOT buy the Apollo Twin MKII?

Because of the godawful "Console" latency workaround. Not just Apollo -- the other brands have their versions of it, and they all suck.

Spend some time working on a PT TDM system, or anything else where you can just put a track in record-ready or input and the signal goes directly through the DAW with no apparent latency and you'll see what the fuss is about.

Someday soon, hopefully, we'll all look back on this period of recording history and laugh. Or groan as we're hauling our outdated interfaces to the Hazmat.
Manufacturers going from PCI to USB interfaces really was a step back wasn't it?
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