Yes I have and I own both so no bias here.

Oh I see, well you might be better on an electronics engineers site, its my impression that this is more for sound engineers that use gear rather than design it, I know Ghannon from UAD gets on here from time to time.

What ever they did in the new box the result is nothing short of outstanding audio performance.

Not really, there are a lot of very technical people on audio forums. It's not expected or required, but it is pretty commonplace to get into those things. Especially very basic things like signal flow which is actually what we "were" talking about. Carry on.

As a producer/mixer I am more interested how the DA sounds. If you ever have time, please do the AB of the new and old and also how does it compare to the digital inputs of the barefoots.

cheers

Its very difficult to do a comparison over the net because the differences may vary depending on the monitor set up and room that the listener is in. I have a treated room and my goto monitors are PMC ALM2's. There is a nice difference between the two units very natural sounding on the new apollo detailed and easy to listen to even at low volumes.

I have heard that as well. What is meant by a more 3D sound? I just worry because I have heard plugins meant to stimulate 3D and it typically adds a verb that sounds boxy.

More 3 D means more three dimensional :-) More depth, more width and more height. It's a more natural sound,where you hear each instrument clearer, in it's own space, with less of the forward push Apollo's have. It's still there, but improved.

New David Crosby...According to Sweetwater, the album was done on a UA Apollo 8. Recorded, mixed & co=produced by Fab Dupont. As ' thin ' as it sounds. The performance is still awesome. That's what counts at the end of the day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXu_cRaQK7A

Sometimes I'm glad non-musicians don't know all about the gear we use to make these songs they like.

So was the "thin" sound due to Apollo's bad quality and or sonics, or Fab's recording and mixing skills, or both?

Just keep in mind - one mans "thin" is another mans clear or lush or exciting. Did you listen and agree?

Not agreeing at all. Just seeking some clarification regarding the statement.

Just gave the Crosby stuff a listen....Sounds pretty incredible to me. I could see how one might view the guitars as thin, but I see them more as super detailed. Sounds very very sweet to me. It leaves a lot of room for all the lush dissonance and harmony. That bass comes in basically perfect balance wise on Things We Do For Love.

Thin doens't have to mean negative. I suppose I could've used a better way to describe the sound. I think anything can be made to sound like everything these days. Without any tweaking to converters, mic pre, etc. For instance...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeIczeQgSbA

I didn't know that it was possible for the apollo line-ins ( twin for that matter ) to sound this way. The bass sounds present and full. Wide frequency range but with girth.We're in a pretty amazing time for gear & a weird time for making music. Go figure. lol

Everything is AMAZING!

[QUOTE=JGM;12164067]So was the "thin" sound due to Apollo's bad quality and or sonics, or Fab's recording and mixing skills, or both?[/QUOTE

It sounds like the Apollo to me. And buy THIN, I don't mean lacking in frequency range. I'm talking about more of a density thing. Like, If I listen to something on a small boombox ( who makes those anymore. lol ) or a jbl/apple speaker, the Apollo doesn't have as much density as say Apogee.

But for some things ( drums ), I really like ( and sometimes miss ) that sound. Because I can tune things higher & it will never sound offending. Bass drum in particular. I've noticed the same drum, pre-amp with the same mic through an apollo sounds noticeably thinner, wider & softer. Whereas the apogee ensemble has this low end bump/girth.

To each their own. Like I was saying, I could've worded the description better. I certainly didn't mean to make a bad comment about the apollo. I was stating that the FUTURE is amongst us. Wether we like it or not. lol ...More albums by MAJOR artist are being made with inexpensive gear. I love it personally.

Just get it done.

Did they used the Apollo pre's or external pre's ?

I'm not sure. I mean, it sounds like an Apollo. But who knows. Sweetwater could be on some snake oil. Maybe ' used ' means during practice. Lol

The recording sounds great either way. I'll say this, the Apollo had helped me with learning how to shape the sound I want. Bouncing mix after mix until it felt right had helped my ear tremendously. It's a great tool.

Snake Oil!! Damnit Sweetwater! lol

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Funiversalaudioinc%2Fposts%2F10155309892043357&width=500" width="500" height="565" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

Guess what? They upgraded the conversion again lol. Now do you think the original conversion we spoke of was so great?