The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Apollo Twin Vs The World
Old 30th May 2018
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Apollo Twin Vs The World

Hey guys,

I think I must have read all of the 'vs' discussions on here but I'm still not quite sure.

I have an Apollo Twin MkII sitting on my desk at the moment (with plastic wrapping still on it) and have been trying it for the last few days. I bought it from the shop by the recommendation of the guy in there - I was previous to this weighing up the Clarett 2 pre (and 4 pre) and Babyface Pro.

My needs will be pretty varied. I make in the box type music, with live layered into it often. I like to travel bringing laptop with me and producing things on the fly.

I think it's brilliant, like all of the reviews are mentioning, but there are some points that are nagging at me:

1. Mic I/O will 'top' out at 10, if I was to expand via SPDIF, and even then can only record at 44.1 - I'm moving to a studio imminently and I'd like what I buy now to be future proof - my worry is i'll need to invest another $2000 to get the 8 more mic 'ins' for when 3 mics or more are used that actually wouldn't be used all that much anyway.

2. Interfaces like the Presonus Quantum 2 have 4 mic ins which will allow me to go longer without needing to get an additional rack for the twin also this is much better for location recording (where typically a stereo pair, and one or two spot mics is a convenient setup)

3. The twin's plugins are what we all buy them for - right? But I dunno, sure they sound good, but I also think that being tied to an ecosystem feels a little strange to me - esp if I was producing some of the records I make on the go.....perhaps once my studio is built up a little more I can get a satellite if I really want to take the Universal Audio plunge? That way I don't have a proprietary system defining my future purchases? But as a 'starter pack' I'm wondering whether it's the right move?

4. Little features like talkback mic, and general control-room suitability obviously lean towards the Apollo Twin.

So - I guess what my question is, as I become more experienced, will I learn to love the UA Twin with it's plugins, or should I take it back and go for the PreSonus Quantum 2, which gives me the much fuller feature set? Issue is I know it's not just about comparing features in the world of sound - what I want is the thing that gives me THE BEST sound and futureproof-ness moving forward.

The digital to analog converter for monitors is also particularly key here - it will be my workhorse for the next year (I want it to last 12 months before needing to build things out realistically).

Any light you have to shed on this tricky subject would be very much well received!

Many thanks,

Gabriel
Old 30th May 2018
  #2
The twin is by far the most popular travelling interface i see.

It’s well built - you’ve got proper relay switching, it’s one box (no breakout cables to forget), you have a proper control room section (mono, dim, 2 sets of speakers etc).

The ins are expandable - yes only to 10 max, but if you need more than that then you’d probably be looking T a bigger interface to start with.

The plugs - yes they’re great, unless you’re on a twin quad you’ll probably want more power at some point - but you can record through them - so you’ve got virtual 1073s and the like, virtual tape sims...or just monitor through them (great for guitar at low latency). The cue mixer software is the next best thing to pro tools HD.

The presonus - I’ve never used one, never seen one in the flesh, can’t comment. If I were looking at something other than the twin, I’d look at Apogee for similar build and quality minus the plugins (the quarter maybe). I have an ensemble in our writing room for traveling producers.
Old 30th May 2018
  #3
Gear Head
 

If you want THE BEST possible sound, no soundcard on earth will be enough on its own. You'll need separate preamps, there's no way around it. And than you'll need something like the burl mothership, antelope or apogee or whatever high end multichannel converter. That's gonna cost you way more than 2k! A real API-ish or Neve-ish preamp alone is easily more than 1k, not to mention cables, patchbays and what not. (And maybe the Antelope M10 clock?!)

That being said: most mid-priced AD/DA's like the Apollo's are really good these days. As long as you're strictly in the box the sound card doesn't really matter anyways as long as you've got 2 decent outs for monitoring. Both interfaces you mentioned probably gonna outperform your monitors and acoustics by far. As for the preamps: once you start multitracking more than 3 mics, you might wanna look at different preamp/mic combinations anyways.

Weather you wanna use UAD Plugs is another question. I don't use an apollo but got a satellite. I really like some of the UAD Plugs. It's true, they are expensive and you can't really take them on the road. I guess I could live without them but I'm glad I don't have to. If you plan to use them, the apollo is pretty good value as you don't have to buy two peaces of gear. If you don't need them - go with something else.

If you're going to build a studio, my strong advice would be as follows: safe as much money as possible for acoustics and don't worry about conversion. Really, it's not that it doesn't matter at all but there are far more important factors such as monitoring, ergonomics, skills.. and most important ACOUSTICS! Don't develop what's called "converter shame". Believe me, if it doesn't sound good, its probably not because of the the converter.

Hope that helps...
Old 30th May 2018
  #4
Lives for gear
 

I highly recommend the Quantum2, I'm finding it to be excellent, very impressed even comparing it to much more expensive units.
Old 30th May 2018
  #5
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anon View Post
I highly recommend the Quantum2, I'm finding it to be excellent, very impressed even comparing it to much more expensive units.
Hmm yes this is what I'm thinking - Quantum 2 seems to have a lot going for it - but i'm also wary - it's almost too good to be true? Where is it's downsides? Does it have all of the features but skimp on quality somewhere? This is what I'm thinking....?!
Old 30th May 2018
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabrielghost View Post
Hmm yes this is what I'm thinking - Quantum 2 seems to have a lot going for it - but i'm also wary - it's almost too good to be true? Where is it's downsides? Does it have all of the features but skimp on quality somewhere? This is what I'm thinking....?!

I haven't found any downsides, I just set everything up in my daw and it works great, it's built well and feels good, as I said in this thread

The Quantum sounds clear and wide and deep it is very good, the HP is better than the Apollo but still could be better IMO and DA could also be better but in the end it's still very good and I'm very happy, and I'm very fussy and used to very high-end units, the AD is very good and the Preamps are nice, the guitar inputs are very good, I guess if you can't record and mix great-sounding tracks with this then you won't with anything.
Old 30th May 2018
  #7
Couple of corrections/amendments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabrielghost View Post

1. Mic I/O will 'top' out at 10, if I was to expand via SPDIF, and even then can only record at 44.1 - I'm moving to a studio imminently and I'd like what I buy now to be future proof - my worry is i'll need to invest another $2000 to get the 8 more mic 'ins' for when 3 mics or more are used that actually wouldn't be used all that much anyway.
You expand it to 10io via ADAT, and it tops out at 48k. In practice - that really doesn't matter.

2. Interfaces like the Presonus Quantum 2 have 4 mic ins which will allow me to go longer without needing to get an additional rack for the twin also this is much better for location recording (where typically a stereo pair, and one or two spot mics is a convenient setup)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabrielghost View Post
3. The twin's plugins are what we all buy them for - right? But I dunno, sure they sound good, but I also think that being tied to an ecosystem feels a little strange to me - esp if I was producing some of the records I make on the go.....perhaps once my studio is built up a little more I can get a satellite if I really want to take the Universal Audio plunge? That way I don't have a proprietary system defining my future purchases? But as a 'starter pack' I'm wondering whether it's the right move?
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrawelt View Post
Weather you wanna use UAD Plugs is another question. I don't use an apollo but got a satellite. I really like some of the UAD Plugs. It's true, they are expensive and you can't really take them on the road. I guess I could live without them but I'm glad I don't have to. If you plan to use them, the apollo is pretty good value as you don't have to buy two peaces of gear. If you don't need them - go with something else.
I don't really understand these points. Why can't you take them on the road? Everyone else does! One of the best things about UAD plugs for me is that I can set up and mix in any studio, with my rig.

Quote:
Originally Posted by extrawelt View Post
So - I guess what my question is, as I become more experienced, will I learn to love the UA Twin with it's plugins, or should I take it back and go for the PreSonus Quantum 2, which gives me the much fuller feature set? Issue is I know it's not just about comparing features in the world of sound - what I want is the thing that gives me THE BEST sound and futureproof-ness moving forward.
No interface is futureproof really (certainly not little ones); none are the BEST sound as has been pointed out. None however will really let you down there.

The good thing about the Twin is that you can use it as a remote for an Apollo 8/16/ expanded setup if you do go that path. It's a really well integrated system.
Old 30th May 2018
  #8
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Couple of corrections/amendments:

I don't really understand these points. Why can't you take them on the road? Everyone else does! One of the best things about UAD plugs for me is that I can set up and mix in any studio, with my rig.
.
I guess I can clarify that. Yes, of course you can take them from one studio to another.
But it's no fun working with UAD if you are actually on the road. Can't work outdoors, on planes or tourbusses, hassle to work in hotels... Especially if you're a writing producers/artist you wanna be able to open your Laptop and work on the session wherever and whenever you're inspired. Even an iLok can be frustrating but as least it's small and doesn't need external power supply.
Lets say Mixing Engineer on the road = UAD ok
Artist/Producer on the road = UAD not ok
Old 30th May 2018
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrawelt View Post
I guess I can clarify that. Yes, of course you can take them from one studio to another.
But it's no fun working with UAD if you are actually on the road. Can't work outdoors, on planes or tourbusses, hassle to work in hotels... Especially if you're a writing producers/artist you wanna be able to open your Laptop and work on the session wherever and whenever you're inspired. Even an iLok can be frustrating but as least it's small and doesn't need external power supply.
Lets say Mixing Engineer on the road = UAD ok
Artist/Producer on the road = UAD not ok
Yeah, I suppose.

If that's the focus, you need to stick to small, buss powered interfaces. It's really no hassle working most places, after all much of the time a laptop will need power too! I've certainly had no issues working in hotels.
Old 10th July 2018
  #10
Here for the gear
 

I'm torn myself, I've had a Twin MkII and about $1k in plugins for about a year now and everything is amazing, but you're pretty much locked in unless you wanna forfeit your plugin investments. I recently built a PC and it was a bit of a pain to get the Twin working smoothly with it. It works now, but if you are considering switching it's difficult to justify sinking dollars into the plugins, which then makes it difficult to justify sinking money into a Twin itself.
Old 11th July 2018
  #11
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
I just sold my Apollos (Duo 8 silver and Twin silver) and switched to a Presonus Quantum rig (plus DP88). I couldn't be happier. I'm using a Satellite Quad to hang on to my UAD plugins which have become a significant investment by now.

I don't miss the unison stuff at all and I don't miss the UA Console. I really don't miss the Twin I found it's I/O to be quite lacking in terms of numbers. I feel glad to be "unlocked" from the UA hardware, even though I still have the satellite. It feels less constraining.

I think the Quantum sounds better than the silver Apollos, conversion wise. I have never owned a MK II. Latency is almost as low as you can get at any price.

Quantum is much easier to use and set up since it has no software mixer, you just use your DAW for cue mixing and routing etc it's incredibly simple. This is the easiest rig I have ever used.

To me the Twin makes sense as a standalone all-in-one box. It ticks all the boxes. If you already have, or if you plan on having, an expanded system with multiple converters, preamps, monitor control, etc, then the Twin really doesn't make any sense at all in my opinion. To me it's tailor made for the small 1 person type of minimal studio.
Old 11th July 2018
  #12
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
I just sold my Apollos (Duo 8 silver and Twin silver) and switched to a Presonus Quantum rig (plus DP88). I couldn't be happier. I'm using a Satellite Quad to hang on to my UAD plugins which have become a significant investment by now.

I don't miss the unison stuff at all and I don't miss the UA Console. I really don't miss the Twin I found it's I/O to be quite lacking in terms of numbers. I feel glad to be "unlocked" from the UA hardware, even though I still have the satellite. It feels less constraining.

I think the Quantum sounds better than the silver Apollos, conversion wise. I have never owned a MK II. Latency is almost as low as you can get at any price.

Quantum is much easier to use and set up since it has no software mixer, you just use your DAW for cue mixing and routing etc it's incredibly simple. This is the easiest rig I have ever used.

To me the Twin makes sense as a standalone all-in-one box. It ticks all the boxes. If you already have, or if you plan on having, an expanded system with multiple converters, preamps, monitor control, etc, then the Twin really doesn't make any sense at all in my opinion. To me it's tailor made for the small 1 person type of minimal studio.
How do you do DAW-buffer-independent low latency monitoring then without a cue mixer?

And actually - the Twin integrates amazingly well with an expanded Apollo system - it can essentially be used as a remote/guitar DI input for a rackmount Apollo system (UAD have some good videos on this). I personally think if you need an expanded system it makes sense to stick to one manufacturer/system - the whole multiple converter/interface hodgepodge doesn’t work for me.

The conversion quality..well, I’ve never heard the quantum, but it’s difficult to compare accurately without careful attention to a fair test.
Old 11th July 2018
  #13
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
How do you do DAW-buffer-independent low latency monitoring then without a cue mixer?

And actually - the Twin integrates amazingly well with an expanded Apollo system - it can essentially be used as a remote/guitar DI input for a rackmount Apollo system (UAD have some good videos on this). I personally think if you need an expanded system it makes sense to stick to one manufacturer/system - the whole multiple converter/interface hodgepodge doesn’t work for me.

The conversion quality..well, I’ve never heard the quantum, but it’s difficult to compare accurately without careful attention to a fair test.
You can't do "DAW-buffer-independent low latency monitoring" at all, you are "stuck" with the, in my system, less than 2 ms of latency from the interface. Some might not be down with this, but for me, it works totally fine. It's how the Quantum is designed. Yes that's right, less than 2 ms of round trip latency at 64 buffer.

What you said is true here, my rig is more or less full Presonus from the Quantum to the DP88. Along with whatever is on the SPDIF at the time but that's always something different.

I wasn't happy with the Apollo rig for one reason because I couldn't work at 96K without cutting my ADAT channels in half on the Twin. And on the other hand, it's completely lacking an ADAT output which is a huge loss if you need outputs.

The hodgepodge thing got old for me too. I used to run a UA/Focusrite rig that was a little bit of a headache. Always having to babysit the driver settings. I prefer to keep it streamlined and simple these days. The Quantum excels at that.

The Apollo was not really a good do-all Windows interface either, in terms of using my Foobar2000 for listening to music, which I do all the time, YouTube videos, etc. It always had some glitch or workaround. Specifically it didn't seem to want to automatically change sample rates. It was clunky. The Quantum slips seamlessly into my everyday workflow, from recording to casual computer stuff.

Regarding the sound of the conversion, I can tell you plainly that I prefer the Quantum sound to the silver UA. There is no real question for me. I've lived with each of them long enough to know how they sound. UA is not one of the more neutral AD/DA out there. The UA tends to hype the mids in some way and smooth the top in a way you may or may not prefer. To be fair, my Apollo recordings still sound great today, it is a good signature sound. The Presonus sound is more neutral and generic, which to me is a good thing. It's also pleasantly deep, wide, revealing, and all of that. It asserts itself as more of a blank slate.
Old 12th July 2018
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
You can't do "DAW-buffer-independent low latency monitoring" at all, you are "stuck" with the, in my system, less than 2 ms of latency from the interface. Some might not be down with this, but for me, it works totally fine. It's how the Quantum is designed. Yes that's right, less than 2 ms of round trip latency at 64 buffer.
Right. That's great until you have to raise the buffer.

I did a full tilt writing session the other day with my Twin. Lots of instruments running in real time, but left the buffer at max and just used Console for monitoring live. Didn't think about the buffer once - for single track recording, it was almost as good as an HD rig! I'd often rather be on an HD rig, but for sessions like this I'm pretty happy.

The point is also - that when you've got a cuemixer, you can do it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
What you said is true here, my rig is more or less full Presonus from the Quantum to the DP88. Along with whatever is on the SPDIF at the time but that's always something different.

I wasn't happy with the Apollo rig for one reason because I couldn't work at 96K without cutting my ADAT channels in half on the Twin. And on the other hand, it's completely lacking an ADAT output which is a huge loss if you need outputs.
That's fair enough too, but it's more a lack of features on the thing you bought rather than a lack of expandability. To get 8 i/o at 96k, buy an Apollo 8 and you'll get seamless integration!

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
The Apollo was not really a good do-all Windows interface either, in terms of using my Foobar2000 for listening to music, which I do all the time, YouTube videos, etc. It always had some glitch or workaround. Specifically it didn't seem to want to automatically change sample rates. It was clunky. The Quantum slips seamlessly into my everyday workflow, from recording to casual computer stuff.
Can't comment there, I'll take your word for it! Don't use PCs at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
Regarding the sound of the conversion, I can tell you plainly that I prefer the Quantum sound to the silver UA. There is no real question for me. I've lived with each of them long enough to know how they sound. UA is not one of the more neutral AD/DA out there. The UA tends to hype the mids in some way and smooth the top in a way you may or may not prefer. To be fair, my Apollo recordings still sound great today, it is a good signature sound. The Presonus sound is more neutral and generic, which to me is a good thing. It's also pleasantly deep, wide, revealing, and all of that. It asserts itself as more of a blank slate.
I struggle with this sort of thing to be honest. If I sit down, make a careful effort to level match and conduct some sort of a fair test, sure I can tell the difference in conversion. On a different day, coming in cold, and even more so in a different room, all bets are off! I work on maybe 4 different converters in 3-4 different spaces all the time, and I really couldn't tell you the characteristics of each - too many variables involved!
Old 21st September 2019
  #15
Gear Head
 
Bassole's Avatar
 

I'm building my music production system up now and after reading the discussion above was wondering if it was possible to run both the PreSounus Quantum 2 and the UAD Twin MkII Quad at the same time into the Presonus Studio One DAW (through a 2018 Mac Mini with Thubnderbolt 3)? I believe this would allow me to get 6 total mic inputs (2 of which are UA's Unison) and also get access to the UA Plug-In Suite? Any potential issues with hooking up & simultaneously recording through both interfaces at the same time?
Old 21st September 2019
  #16
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
If you get it to work, I would expect some possible phasing issues if you try to multi mic something spread across both interfaces. I have no idea how aggregate audio works or whatever it's called, I've never used a mac.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassole View Post
I'm building my music production system up now and after reading the discussion above was wondering if it was possible to run both the PreSounus Quantum 2 and the UAD Twin MkII Quad at the same time into the Presonus Studio One DAW (through a 2018 Mac Mini with Thubnderbolt 3)? I believe this would allow me to get 6 total mic inputs (2 of which are UA's Unison) and also get access to the UA Plug-In Suite? Any potential issues with hooking up & simultaneously recording through both interfaces at the same time?
Not in the way you're hoping - you could sort of bodge it perhaps with the aggregate driver, but then you lose the UAD Console (and it's low latency monitoring setup), or maybe you could still use it sort-of, but only for some inputs...it's basically not an integrated system.

You'd also need a mixer to monitor both sets of outputs.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #18
Gear Addict
 

Integrating multiple interfaces to the PC is pretty hard with any OS.

I always felt that the point of the Apollo stuff was to DI in and be able to directly monitor with the UA SHARC plugs? That’s important for getting good di guitar performances. It’s great for that. I never really felt the Apollo sound was appropriate for anything else; there’s something going on in the mids and lacks low end. It doesn’t sound full-range to me, even the newer X stuff.

I’d much rather use full, mains powered interfaces from other brands but if you need to use bus power on the go, RME Babyface Pro is the best there is. The Apogee One and Duet are trash ������
Old 22nd September 2019
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Lynx hilo
Old 22nd September 2019
  #20
Gear Head
 
Bassole's Avatar
 

OK, I did as little more research and it looks like the Apollo series have designed their units to be chained together. So, it would be possible to use the Twin MkII Quad with the Apollo x6 which would again provide 6 mic preamps (all 6 of which would be Unison), plus would be getting the additional DSP power from the X6. From what I can tell you can set everything up in the UAD Console and simultaneously record from all 6 mic pres....I think.

Also, looks like in addition to the Analog Classics Pro Plug-In Bundle that comes with the Twin, if you buy both the x6 and Twin from Sweetwater you get 3 free UAD plug-ins. Sounds like that might be the way to go along with picking up the Mac Mini and Logic X Pro setup.
Old 22nd September 2019
  #21
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
That is an expensive frickin' system. But you can bet your bottom most dollar that it will work if you follow UA's spec.
Old 23rd September 2019
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctambulant View Post
Integrating multiple interfaces to the PC is pretty hard with any OS.

I always felt that the point of the Apollo stuff was to DI in and be able to directly monitor with the UA SHARC plugs? That’s important for getting good di guitar performances. It’s great for that. I never really felt the Apollo sound was appropriate for anything else; there’s something going on in the mids and lacks low end. It doesn’t sound full-range to me, even the newer X stuff.

I’d much rather use full, mains powered interfaces from other brands but if you need to use bus power on the go, RME Babyface Pro is the best there is. The Apogee One and Duet are trash ������
I can’t say I’ve done detailed, controlled comparisons, but I nor people I work with never seem to have issues getting good low end out of the Apollo, or Duet for that matter.

We often have producers bringing Twins into the studio where I use Avid HDIOs most of the time. I can’t say there’s a noticeable drop in low end switching between them; even when moving the same backing track. A tiny volume difference and you’re hearing things differently anyway.

I bounce my own mixes between the aforementioned Avids, a symphony and my Twin; I also switch monitors at the same time (different locations), which has a far more significant effect!

Not saying you’re wrong, but a detailed controlled test would be necessary to completely define what you’re hearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassole View Post
OK, I did as little more research and it looks like the Apollo series have designed their units to be chained together. So, it would be possible to use the Twin MkII Quad with the Apollo x6 which would again provide 6 mic preamps (all 6 of which would be Unison), plus would be getting the additional DSP power from the X6. From what I can tell you can set everything up in the UAD Console and simultaneously record from all 6 mic pres....I think.

Also, looks like in addition to the Analog Classics Pro Plug-In Bundle that comes with the Twin, if you buy both the x6 and Twin from Sweetwater you get 3 free UAD plug-ins. Sounds like that might be the way to go along with picking up the Mac Mini and Logic X Pro setup.
Not only that, but you can use the twin as a desktop remote control for the rest of the system (as well as it’s di input), even if you’re not monitoring using its outputs. It’s a very clever, well integrated system.

A lot of money yes, but not expensive compared to an HDX rig, which is really the only thing subjectively “better” for larger recordings.
Old 23rd September 2019
  #23
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I can’t say I’ve done detailed, controlled comparisons, but I nor people I work with never seem to have issues getting good low end out of the Apollo, or Duet for that matter.

We often have producers bringing Twins into the studio where I use Avid HDIOs most of the time. I can’t say there’s a noticeable drop in low end switching between them; even when moving the same backing track. A tiny volume difference and you’re hearing things differently anyway.

I bounce my own mixes between the aforementioned Avids, a symphony and my Twin; I also switch monitors at the same time (different locations), which has a far more significant effect!

Not saying you’re wrong, but a detailed controlled test would be necessary to completely define what you’re hearing.



Not only that, but you can use the twin as a desktop remote control for the rest of the system (as well as it’s di input), even if you’re not monitoring using its outputs. It’s a very clever, well integrated system.

A lot of money yes, but not expensive compared to an HDX rig, which is really the only thing subjectively “better” for larger recordings.
The low end loss was with micing guitar cabs versus other interface (MOTU, Apogee, RME, etc) and their stock pres and converters . I don't like the Apollo's pres and AD conversion for that. I'm sure you can add it back in or change the micing or fiddle with the amp knobs but I'd much rather not think about it at all and just use something else.

The Apollo is awesome for DI with the UAD plugins though.
Old 23rd September 2019
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctambulant View Post
The low end loss was with micing guitar cabs versus other interface (MOTU, Apogee, RME, etc) and their stock pres and converters . I don't like the Apollo's pres and AD conversion for that. I'm sure you can add it back in or change the micing or fiddle with the amp knobs but I'd much rather not think about it at all and just use something else.

The Apollo is awesome for DI with the UAD plugins though.
OK.

I find that in the days of monitoring after conversion, we just (as you say) make corrections as we're listening, so unless doing an A/B, you're not going to notice things like that - you just adjust and move on.

I'd also suggest that small level differences can give the same illusion, but at the end of the day it's what you're comfortable with.

I have to say I rarely record critically with my Twin, it's more for mixing/editing, but when I have, I've not had issues.

I've certainly helped others make enough recordings on theirs!
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