The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Universal Audio Releases New Apollo x4 Thunderbolt 3 Audio Interface
Old 2 weeks ago
  #121
Lives for gear
 
Realtugs's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreRec View Post
Isn't the main difference between the 80/90 and 81/91 just the digital connections?
Thought there was more, but considering when that was... that was a huge difference right there. UAD was thoughtful enough to go from TB2 to TB3 to stay "current." Well... why not make the 11 year and two month old chips even a little more current?

Such a crazy thought, I know.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #122
Lives for gear
 
trock's Avatar
 

I dont know, I am not a tech wiz at all I just know I love my MKII. I love unison and the plugs I have purchased for it. I love the workflow and mostly how incredibly stable the system is. In Cubase on an Imac it just works and works and works, for years now.

I have an octo connected as well and I do use UA plugs for mixing and its great, i don't need the DSP for mixing but I like the plugs, and I combine them with Native ones I like

As a simple singer songwriter, this platform works incredibly well

I came from a 2x6 Apogee Symphony and Couldn't be happier with this setup

So thats my non technical review.

Oh and I may get the X4 soon since its perfect for the couple things I need to plug in
Old 2 weeks ago
  #123
Manufacturer
 
Universal Audio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trock View Post
I dont know, I am not a tech wiz at all I just know I love my MKII. I love unison and the plugs I have purchased for it. I love the workflow and mostly how incredibly stable the system is. In Cubase on an Imac it just works and works and works, for years now.

I have an octo connected as well and I do use UA plugs for mixing and its great, i don't need the DSP for mixing but I like the plugs, and I combine them with Native ones I like

As a simple singer songwriter, this platform works incredibly well

I came from a 2x6 Apogee Symphony and Couldn't be happier with this setup

So thats my non technical review.

Oh and I may get the X4 soon since its perfect for the couple things I need to plug in
Nice! Thanks for the kind words trock and I'm glad you're happy with your purchase.

This is why we do what we do each day.
Old 1 week ago
  #124
Gear Addict
 
PistolP's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
UAD has a user base of 40.000 + and growing. Not many are complaining. Nor do I see a reason why UA should risk losing them with a system that wouldn´t be backward compatible.
First of all I wasn't complaining about the dated chips. I never have. Second, what makes you think a new chip would not be compatible with old plugins or new plugins were not compatible with the old chip? Think of smart phones or computers they all can run older software.. You're not making any sense here
Old 1 week ago
  #125
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PistolP View Post
First of all I wasn't complaining about the dated chips. I never have. Second, what makes you think a new chip would not be compatible with old plugins or new plugins were not compatible with the old chip? Think of smart phones or computers they all can run older software.. You're not making any sense here
Well when they switched to UAD-2 they had to port all the plugins to the new chips because it was not code compatible.
They could of course do the same thing again but it would be a much bigger undertaking given how much their portfolio has grown, and they would need to get the third party developers in on it as well or otherwise they would lose those plugins. And they would most likely not bother compiling new plugins for both UAD-2 and UAD-3 which will leave users who have invested thousands in UAD-2 hardware in the cold.

So it would make the most sense if a new chip is code compatible with the current ones, which doesn't leave them with many choices. The new SHARC+ chips are code compatible so that could be an option.

Old software run on new computers because they are either binary compatible, code compatible or run in an emulation layer. The latter is very resource intensive and would likely not be an option in this case as optimization is so vital.
Old 1 week ago
  #126
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PistolP View Post
First of all I wasn't complaining about the dated chips. I never have. Second, what makes you think a new chip would not be compatible with old plugins or new plugins were not compatible with the old chip? Think of smart phones or computers they all can run older software.. You're not making any sense here
What´s the sense of porting a Bricasti to UAD 3 if it would run on UAD 2 too?
Old 1 day ago
  #127
Here for the gear
 

ADAT clock

Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Audio View Post
The improved clocking on the X series brings the jitter down to sub 10 pico seconds. The Twin X and x4 are in the 50s.
One follow up question on this: I plan on using the x4 as "slave" to my main interface via ADAT at 96kHz. So will this lock to the clock of my main interface (ADAT clock master) and just not use the internal clock of the x4 at all?
Old 1 day ago
  #128
Manufacturer
 
Universal Audio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by majnu View Post
One follow up question on this: I plan on using the x4 as "slave" to my main interface via ADAT at 96kHz. So will this lock to the clock of my main interface (ADAT clock master) and just not use the internal clock of the x4 at all?
Provided you can connect to it via Console and configure it that way, yes.
Old 1 day ago
  #129
Here for the gear
 

x4 over ADAT

Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Audio View Post
Provided you can connect to it via Console and configure it that way, yes.
Thanks. So maybe I should ask whether this scenario is possible at all: "Master" interface Motu 8A (basically has 8 ins, 8 outs and ADAT), connected in two directions via ADAT to an Apollo x4 as "slave". The Motu would be what I record with into the DAW. The x4 would be connected to the computer just to use Console and configure the output to be routed to the Motu.

So: DAW <-> Motu <-> x4

It's bi-directional because I would want to use the x4's headphone outputs for personal monitor mixes.


BTW, the only reason that I use the Motu instead of an x8, is that it allows personal cue mixes via iPads, which saves me a ton of money on a personal monitoring system. Or is anything similar in the pipeline at UAudio?
Old 1 day ago
  #130
Manufacturer
 
Universal Audio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by majnu View Post
Thanks. So maybe I should ask whether this scenario is possible at all: "Master" interface Motu 8A (basically has 8 ins, 8 outs and ADAT), connected in two directions via ADAT to an Apollo x4 as "slave". The Motu would be what I record with into the DAW. The x4 would be connected to the computer just to use Console and configure the output to be routed to the Motu.

So: DAW <-> Motu <-> x4

It's bi-directional because I would want to use the x4's headphone outputs for personal monitor mixes.


BTW, the only reason that I use the Motu instead of an x8, is that it allows personal cue mixes via iPads, which saves me a ton of money on a personal monitoring system. Or is anything similar in the pipeline at UAudio?
It's probably doable depending on the finer details. You'd really have to set it up and experiment. I am not familiar with MOTU hardware or software so I can't speak definitively.

The x4 headphone outs might be a little tricky since they're designed to be addressed via our Cues which you'd not be using. Again, experimentation would be key.

As a rule, we don't discuss future features/products.
Old 1 day ago
  #131
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Audio View Post
It's probably doable depending on the finer details. You'd really have to set it up and experiment. I am not familiar with MOTU hardware or software so I can't speak definitively.

The x4 headphone outs might be a little tricky since they're designed to be addressed via our Cues which you'd not be using. Again, experimentation would be key.
Ok thanks.

I guess if Motu follows the ADAT protocol, it shouldn't matter what brand it is. It's just 4 in and 4 out (I use 96khz) plus a clock.

Well I would send two stereo tracks via ADAT with the final cue mix (one per headphone out) to the x4 and then simply route these to the headphone outs. I hope that is doable.
Old 1 day ago
  #132
Lives for gear
 
andersmv's Avatar
 

@ Universal Audio : I've got an x4 and x8p coming in today. I also have an ADAT expander I'm hooking up to it for a few more channels of I/O. The x8p is obviously going to be the master interface, is it going to make a difference which Apollo I plug the ADAT expander into? Right now, I have a silverface Apollo rack and Twin, so I have to feed the ADAT unit into the Apollo rack and sync it via BNC. But now that the x4 has ADAT in and out, I could plug the ADAT unit into the x4 and sync it via ADAT out. Since the x4 is slaving to the x8p, I'm assuming there isn't going to be any difference where I go in via ADAT?

The only reason I'm wondering is for my own OCD and how the Console app will arrange all my tracks. I would much prefer the layout of having the ADAT tracks on the tail end of the console channels at the far right side. The screen I'll have the Console app on isn't going to be big enough to show me all of my channels without scrolling, so I would rather have those ADAT channels on the right side of the console as I wouln't use them very often and don't mind them being out of sight.
Old 1 day ago
  #133
Manufacturer
 
Universal Audio's Avatar
 

The only difference is the channel order, which you can't change.

But since your x8p is clock master, you should continue to do what you've been doing since you want the external device to be clocked by your master unit.
Old 1 day ago
  #134
Lives for gear
 
andersmv's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Audio View Post
The only difference is the channel order, which you can't change.

But since your x8p is clock master, you should continue to do what you've been doing since you want the external device to be clocked by your master unit.
Can we PLEASE add this in an update? It would be great to rearrange Console channels.

Old 1 day ago
  #135
Here for the gear
 

The unit looks very cool. The question I have is can the preamps be bypassed. I have a Vintech that I really enjoy using.
Old 1 day ago
  #136
Manufacturer
 
Universal Audio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anio221 View Post
The unit looks very cool. The question I have is can the preamps be bypassed. I have a Vintech that I really enjoy using.
When set to line, you pass through a VERY clean amp at Unity. But no, that amp cannot be bypassed.
Old 23 hours ago
  #137
Here for the gear
 

Thank you for answering that. I've been waiting for years for UA to offer true bypass on a small unit. I mainly track vocals and don't need many inputs. Maybe 1 day. Thanks again.
Old 23 hours ago
  #138
Lives for gear
 
andersmv's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anio221 View Post
Thank you for answering that. I've been waiting for years for UA to offer true bypass on a small unit. I mainly track vocals and don't need many inputs. Maybe 1 day. Thanks again.
Get an x6, only 2 unison preamps and 4 inputs that don't go through any preamps. Or grab a cheap PreSonus DP88 like I did and have 8 inputs via DB25 that go strait to the converters.
Old 20 hours ago
  #139
Lives for gear
 
andersmv's Avatar
 

I finally got my x4 and x8p today. I've been running on two silverface Apollos since they first came out, so this was a long time coming! Just pulling up Spotify and playing a few familiar tunes, there's a pretty noticeable difference between the silverface and these X's. The low end was the first thing that stood out (I've got barefoot footprints, so a pretty decent low end), it's SO much tighter and better defined. I've had the Footprints in this room for over a year now, so I know them pretty well. I hate to admit it, but the difference on some kick drums in a few songs wasn't small. The X's really tighten up the low end! I plugged one of my silverfaces back in just to compare back to back, I'm not crazy. The silverface just seemed smeared on a lot of frequency stuff under ~400 hz or so.

The imaging also seems wider. Some hard panned guitars in a few songs went from sounding like they were coming out of my speakers with the Silverface to sounding like they were coming out of my walls with the X's. The other difference is that the X's sound brighter and a bit harsher. I was a little disappointed by that initially, but then I went back to a mix I did last week... It's a song for a friend of mine that is a pretty good engineer as well. He kept telling me the vocal was too sibilant in a few spots and I was just NOT hearing it last week mixing through the silverface. It was clear as day listening through the X's. So that's definitely something I'm going to have to adjust to over the next few weeks. I might not necessarily "prefer" the brighter sound, but it seems to be more accurate and revealing.

I know there's been some conversation in this thread about the dual crystal clocks in the racks vs what's in the x4 and Twin. Granted I have not recorded with either yet, but... I switched between monitoring through the x4 and x8p a couple of times on a song I know really well and I couldn't hear any differences. The x4 is obviously going to slave to the x8p in my setup, but initially I'm not hearing any differences between the two just listening to music.

I was hesitant about moving up and spending so much, but I justified the purchase as simply "future proofing" as the silverfaces are starting to get a bit old. I really wasn't expecting the sound difference to be that significant, but I'm happy to admit I was wrong. The last time I remember hearing such a big leap in sound like this was going from a Digi 002 rack to an Apogee Big Ben way back in the early 2000's. I had a similar experience when I sent my 002 in to Black Lion back then as well. Since then, technology has gotten so good and affordable to the point that everything sounds good, so differences in clocks and converters has been getting smaller and smaller (and harder to justify the huge price gaps between products sometimes). Again, I wasn't expecting this to happen but I'm not complaining!
Attached Thumbnails
Universal Audio Releases New Apollo x4 Thunderbolt 3 Audio Interface-screen-shot-2019-11-13-9.30.50-pm.jpg  

Last edited by andersmv; 20 hours ago at 05:07 AM..
Old 16 hours ago
  #140
Lives for gear
 
cashewcupcake's Avatar
 

Yawn. UA why not take all that profit and make an interface that's actually fresh and cool?
Old 15 hours ago
  #141
Manufacturer
 
Universal Audio's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andersmv View Post
I finally got my x4 and x8p today. I've been running on two silverface Apollos since they first came out, so this was a long time coming! Just pulling up Spotify and playing a few familiar tunes, there's a pretty noticeable difference between the silverface and these X's. The low end was the first thing that stood out (I've got barefoot footprints, so a pretty decent low end), it's SO much tighter and better defined. I've had the Footprints in this room for over a year now, so I know them pretty well. I hate to admit it, but the difference on some kick drums in a few songs wasn't small. The X's really tighten up the low end! I plugged one of my silverfaces back in just to compare back to back, I'm not crazy. The silverface just seemed smeared on a lot of frequency stuff under ~400 hz or so.

The imaging also seems wider. Some hard panned guitars in a few songs went from sounding like they were coming out of my speakers with the Silverface to sounding like they were coming out of my walls with the X's. The other difference is that the X's sound brighter and a bit harsher. I was a little disappointed by that initially, but then I went back to a mix I did last week... It's a song for a friend of mine that is a pretty good engineer as well. He kept telling me the vocal was too sibilant in a few spots and I was just NOT hearing it last week mixing through the silverface. It was clear as day listening through the X's. So that's definitely something I'm going to have to adjust to over the next few weeks. I might not necessarily "prefer" the brighter sound, but it seems to be more accurate and revealing.

I know there's been some conversation in this thread about the dual crystal clocks in the racks vs what's in the x4 and Twin. Granted I have not recorded with either yet, but... I switched between monitoring through the x4 and x8p a couple of times on a song I know really well and I couldn't hear any differences. The x4 is obviously going to slave to the x8p in my setup, but initially I'm not hearing any differences between the two just listening to music.

I was hesitant about moving up and spending so much, but I justified the purchase as simply "future proofing" as the silverfaces are starting to get a bit old. I really wasn't expecting the sound difference to be that significant, but I'm happy to admit I was wrong. The last time I remember hearing such a big leap in sound like this was going from a Digi 002 rack to an Apogee Big Ben way back in the early 2000's. I had a similar experience when I sent my 002 in to Black Lion back then as well. Since then, technology has gotten so good and affordable to the point that everything sounds good, so differences in clocks and converters has been getting smaller and smaller (and harder to justify the huge price gaps between products sometimes). Again, I wasn't expecting this to happen but I'm not complaining!

Congrats andersmv!!

And thanks for the detailed report.
Old 11 hours ago
  #142
Lives for gear
 
shatz's Avatar
Hey again!
I just received my x4 the other day to hook up to my x8p. It is a great combo for sure. I ended up going with these over my Antelope Orion 32 I've used for years. Personally I think the Orion sounded better but like you say the Apollos are more accurate I believe. The mixes translate a lot better with them in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andersmv View Post
I finally got my x4 and x8p today. I've been running on two silverface Apollos since they first came out, so this was a long time coming! Just pulling up Spotify and playing a few familiar tunes, there's a pretty noticeable difference between the silverface and these X's. The low end was the first thing that stood out (I've got barefoot footprints, so a pretty decent low end), it's SO much tighter and better defined. I've had the Footprints in this room for over a year now, so I know them pretty well. I hate to admit it, but the difference on some kick drums in a few songs wasn't small. The X's really tighten up the low end! I plugged one of my silverfaces back in just to compare back to back, I'm not crazy. The silverface just seemed smeared on a lot of frequency stuff under ~400 hz or so.

The imaging also seems wider. Some hard panned guitars in a few songs went from sounding like they were coming out of my speakers with the Silverface to sounding like they were coming out of my walls with the X's. The other difference is that the X's sound brighter and a bit harsher. I was a little disappointed by that initially, but then I went back to a mix I did last week... It's a song for a friend of mine that is a pretty good engineer as well. He kept telling me the vocal was too sibilant in a few spots and I was just NOT hearing it last week mixing through the silverface. It was clear as day listening through the X's. So that's definitely something I'm going to have to adjust to over the next few weeks. I might not necessarily "prefer" the brighter sound, but it seems to be more accurate and revealing.

I know there's been some conversation in this thread about the dual crystal clocks in the racks vs what's in the x4 and Twin. Granted I have not recorded with either yet, but... I switched between monitoring through the x4 and x8p a couple of times on a song I know really well and I couldn't hear any differences. The x4 is obviously going to slave to the x8p in my setup, but initially I'm not hearing any differences between the two just listening to music.

I was hesitant about moving up and spending so much, but I justified the purchase as simply "future proofing" as the silverfaces are starting to get a bit old. I really wasn't expecting the sound difference to be that significant, but I'm happy to admit I was wrong. The last time I remember hearing such a big leap in sound like this was going from a Digi 002 rack to an Apogee Big Ben way back in the early 2000's. I had a similar experience when I sent my 002 in to Black Lion back then as well. Since then, technology has gotten so good and affordable to the point that everything sounds good, so differences in clocks and converters has been getting smaller and smaller (and harder to justify the huge price gaps between products sometimes). Again, I wasn't expecting this to happen but I'm not complaining!
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