I, for one, just want to pass on a... thanks for the clarification... to you, Graham...

Somebody noticed.

Be well

Hi @ Grahamdwc !

Actually, I have known both Marcel and the fact that he writes under Clybourne for years. In fact we are still in frequent communication.

Marcel (Clybourne) was using his profile both to reach out to customers here as well as to share his personal opinion and visions. Purportedly, this might have caused confusion in particular cases, but I am sure he was not aware of this and he meant well.

My point is that comments on a forum without supporting official statements from the company (official channels), should NOT be taken as a promise. You also shouldn't take my comments as official statements, since I do share my personal opinion quite often and this is not an official communication channel for Antelope.

You kind of made it read like you thought he was a regular member on Gs just sharing his thoughts...

In that case, to save any further confusion for our members, I suggest you stop sharing your ‘personal opinions’ immediately while posting via Antelope accounts on Gearslutz.

Thank you,
Graham

Oh, please. Just own up to the bad practices of your company.

I’m surprised Antelope would allow an employee (Marcel) to continually post here while pretending to be a representative of the company. Much in the same way you are. Much in the same way Lubomir did. Antelope’s “unofficial” presence seems to be the only presence here. I’d suggest you guys get it together and

1) Fix the outstanding problems that have been discussed repeatedly on this forum.
2) Deliver on promises made to customers by your employees. Claiming they didn’t represent the company at this point is ridiculous. Multiple posts, multiple employees over multiple years makes them company reps.
3) Stop releasing new products. The perception is your existing products don’t work reliably for enough people. No sensible person would buy anything new from Antelope after doing basic research. Many people have stated this on Gearslutz.
4) Develop some humility as a company. Antelope comes off as way too arrogant considering the type and volume of problems they have. Your customers aren’t the one’s with problems, you are. I’d suggest you start looking at it that way.

Just as an FYI, AFX2DAW was promoted as something that would be free. When it was released at $400 I thought to myself. “No way. $100 I could see, they must have underestimated development costs. But $400? **** off. That’s insulting.” This kind of thing really rubs people the wrong way. Given all of the above, why would I give you guys any more money?

Feel sorry for all the people having so many issues but the sad drama from Antelope simply seems to just = Utter Failure as a product and a company. I know 4-friends with Antelope interfaces and they all constantly have major problems, 2 of them tell me near complete unusable.

The fact they keep pushing out new product is because they are not able to fix problems with the previous bad designs of hardware and software. But they do seem to keep trying to put a bandage on an wound that will never properly heal. Glad I was smart enough to not give them my money.

Yes, looking at this new product-page one really gets the feeling they are obtuse on purpose.

Perhaps they do it in an attempt to wiggle around the fact that their vst-bridge still isn't ready for prime-time (only avalaible for Thunderbolt on OSX), so all this processing power is more or less useless if you're on Windows or an older Mac...

I posed that exact question to Antelope via a support call not long after I ordered the Discrete 4, and they said there was no limit. Of course I didn't believe it, so posted the question to Marcel in the forum post here:

Antelope Discrete 4 Interface for $899

You can see his reply, but for simplicity sake here's the question and answer:

Question: 2. Do you have an 'effects count' similar to UAD, showing about how many instances of each effect you can run simultaneously? (like this link shows)

Answer:Which makes for an interesting conversation... Either what Marcel said was true and there's no reason to "upgrade" to more DSP's for AFX, or its untrue and there's a whole new can of worms.

I have the Discrete 4 and don't use any of the AFX on the two mono channels. For one the routing is an absolute pain, but most importantly they're too limiting for just 2 mono channels, and I stated dozens of times I won't spend another dime with Antelope till I get what I already paid for, which is AFX2DAW for windows that works, and confidence in their company.


I can deal with Antelope's crappy UI, I dealt with sticking with the hardware even after it failed once, I've dealt with disappointment with Antelope being removed from Sweetwater and knowing the embarrassment to Antelope and shaking my head at their subsequent spin. I've dealt with them in these forums, other forums, and via chat support being purposefully obscure or unhelpful, or sometimes even demeaning. Dealt with initial early adoption woes, no manuals, broken updates, verge shipment issues, patiently waited for TB for windows, on and on... Yet I've set that all aside because, quite honestly, I believe in the product. I don't have much faith in the producers of the product, and am fearful of the product's life-span, but I dove in and want to believe in them.

All this makes me really glad I didn't got for the Discrete 4 but instead the Audiofuse. I somehow still had them on my radar and was really interested in the Synergy 4, but reading through this thread....

Wow, just wow. So now the new spokesperson of Antelope claims that what the previous spokesperson said was just his personal opinion and he in fact didn't actually represent his company back then.

There's shady and then there's this.

Puts the whole Aardvark debacle (unsolved driver issues and all) and the claim that Igor had naught to do with it all (despite it being his company) in a new light, no?

But if things get worse Igor can still start over with Albatross Audio, I guess.

You made the right choice lol. Especially seeing the latest spin they're posting.

I'd be so anxious that my investment would eventually turn into "well yeah we said that our gear works, but we were kinda feeling unofficial at the time, so....".

Doesn't matter how good the hardware sounds if the software doesn't work and the company wants to fight you for it.

Does the discrete work on mac thunderbolt 1 ?

unbelievable!
much appreciated for sharing your honest experience
I almost pull the trigger today and purchase a discrete 4
you are not the only one having problems making this interface to work by reading other posts online..
Jeez, I honestly have enough from manufacturers selling their products in beta, while not being ashamed to attract people with fake old fashion consumer videos like the one some posts above..
At this price tag I find this game completely unacceptable
Thanks for sharing your experience

It's been over two weeks.

Sooo glad I went UA, was sooo close to zen and then...

Just my input as I’m proper ####### at antelope.

Bought a discrete 8 in jan 2018, thunderbolt port died by July 2018. They replaced the unit which worked fine until a couple of months ago when online support proved both reamp ports faulty. The only issue is antelope said they won’t replace the unit despite it being less than a year old and I have to pay shipping to send it away to be fixed. They said they could send me a loaner unit so no downtime but actually changed their mind to say I have to send my unit back first = downtime.

To be fair Sams comms have been great and I can’t fault him but the company policies and helping me after 2 faulty units is shocking. They told me to go back to the UK supplier but they seem to be ignoring me despite many comms (probably conspiring between them) as now it’s gone past a year on this second unit whilst trying to sort.

I’m not going to send it back I’m going to use it until it dies (probably in about 6 months). The software is buggy. I get various weird issues and glitches now and again and I would never buy another Antelope product which is a shame as it sounds sweet and has loads of i/o.

Gonna be a loss to me but I will not waste another minute dealing with them.

Just my 2p

This is getting ridiculous.

I remember when Antelope "arrived" at the DSP scene. With bold marketing nonsense. Some of their people at GS tried convincing us that their FPGA DSP effects are not software effects but hardware effects instead. Huh?

Because they run on FPGA. After i asked him how's that different then UA effects running on SHARC it was all about semantics then. (note that i do realize FPGA is different processing unit but it is just that - a processing unit)

I keep reminding him that this is not true to world statement but he was pushing hard until more people jumped on him.

Then few years later here in this very thread they announce revolutionary DSP unit but for some reason they "forget" the DSP chart. One can say this is error. I call it shady tactics. (Antelope Audio introduces Discrete 4 Synergy Core - DSP & FPGA Audio Interface).

Why would i trust a company which is selling me revolutionary DSP unit but they don't want to tell me how is it performing?

I just visited their "official" channel website. No it still isn't there.

https://en.antelopeaudio.com/product...-synergy-core/

but perhaps it's under features and specs
https://en.antelopeaudio.com/product...pecs/#features - no it isn't..

at this point i said to myself ok maybe it's under "real time fx"

https://en.antelopeaudio.com/product...al-time-fx/#fx - but of course it is not..

Oh i see i should trust some Google document posted by some users here. Wait but this isn't their official document...or it is ?

This is why whole thread is ridiculous.

They are selling DSP unit without telling you true performance. That's enough thank you. Lost my interest for good.

Hell even now deceased TC Powercore had DSP chart. UA have clear solid DSP chart.

Actually this is not that accurate. I found a faq on their site which tells some things about this


Quote:
HOW MANY AFX2DAW PLUGINS CAN I LOAD IN ONE DAW SESSION?
You may load up to 16 AFX2DAW plug in instances per session.
Quote:
HOW MANY AFX PER INSTANCE CAN I USE?
The AFX2DAW Plug in, works as mirror to your FPGA Based Effects.
It loads up to 4 effects per plug in instance.
Quote:
IS AFX2DAW MONO OR STEREO?
It can be used on mono or stereo channels.
Quote:
HOW MANY EFFECTS PER MODEL CAN I LOAD WITH MY AFX2DAW?
It can load the same amount of effects as your Discrete FPGA Engine. The amount of processing power left is marked on the side to each effect when the cursor of the mouse is hovered there.
Quote:
CAN I USE THE AFX2DAW SOFTWARE UNDER USB?
AFX2DAW is currently available only through Thunderbolt for Apple OS X.

Actually this is still highly inaccurate and doubtful.

Up to 16 plugins what mono or stereo? Up to 16 plugins on what ASIO buffer? 256, 512, 1024??? Up to 16 plugins on what frequency rate? 44khz, 96khz just what are these numbers based on??

What's the roundtrip of these devices once when they are inserted at DAW? Real time is impossible. That's ok but what's the roundtrip then?

Come on this can't be serious and professional !!! I am not asking something obscure, these are the values any recording professional would like to know. Go over UA they have all these question answered PER PRODUCT and PER PLUGIN.

I can give Antelope only a for hiding or not publishing real numbers. And where do i find your link? You see, why do i have to rely on forum information, why this is not clearly put on a product page when Antelope employee told me me in this very thread that this (Gearslutz) is not their official channel for information and information provided here should not be taken serious.

Wow I was considering buying an Antelope Discrete 8 Synergy Core interface but this thread has completely put me off. Think I’ll get a Presonus Quantum instead!

Planned to buy a discrete 4 synarge core. I will not. I suggest everyone to vote $ against Antelope. Perhaps they do not need to engage in professional equipment.

I don't think ASIO buffer / latency has anything to do with these plugins because they are using FPGA. Their latency should be below 1ms if I understand correctly.

https://en.antelopeaudio.com/products/afx2daw/#faq

Impossible not, but hard, yes. Behringer, the epithome of cheap clones has managed to have some respect with some products, people nowadayss are not automatically barfing when hearing their name.

Sad thing is their hardware is enticing, so it's not all lost, but they have to work especially hard fixing all their software on all their old products to have a hope of getting a good rep. Right now I am not even considering buying a Discrete Synergy, although at one point I was almost convinced it will be my next interface. Hardware wise I still like it, but ITB needs both parts to function, both software and hardware.

I refrained from posting this a few weeks ago, but now that we're all piling up...

SAME situation as a few posts back occured with my amigo and his Zen. Constant hiccups and glitches, talkback almost never worked on the thing, firmware issues crippling the unit or making it entirely useless, then they said he could send it in and once they received it they'd send him a temporary replacement aka downtime on a box that was practically new. Sessions never went smoothly. AFX never came out for it. Such a shame because the pres and converters sure did sound pretty.

He bit the bullet and bought 3x Apollos. No issues.

Zen Tour is/was one of their best releases, had great potential and at a solid price point, currently own one and still functioning great, some mishaps here and there. Discrete was very left field, the mics I understood...I guess..

I was hoping for extensive development on the unit or even a Zen Tour (Mini) at a $700-$900 price point that would have done great in the market imo..

I got the Zen Tour when it first released, excitedly waiting for AFXDAW support, I even had some UAD people interested, but after the $400 announcement...

Hi!

Here's the official FPGA effects load table - https://support.antelopeaudio.com/su...cts-load-chart

The Discrete 4 & 8 (previous generation) have a limitation that is - up to 8 channels strips with 4 effects per strip on the Discrete 8 and up to 4 channel strips with 4 effects per strip on the Discrete 4. The Discrete 4 & 8 Synergy Core have a limitation that is - up to 8 channels strips with 8 effects per strip on the Discrete 8 and up to 4 channel strips with 8 effects per strip on the Discrete 4. This only represents the FPGA effects that are currently released, the new Synergy Core effects that will utilise the DSP processors (Synergy Core platform) will introduce a new instance count.

If the listed effects in the table are available for your Antelope device, then you can load as many as listed in the table simultaneously (bear in mind that the table with effects showcases how many you can load when there are none loaded). The instance count for the effects doesn't change with the sample rate, so you always get this amount.

*Important note - this table represents only the current FPGA effects and will be updated in the future with any new ones.

No you are guessing. "Their latency should be" is not what it is.

I just checked and yet again wasted my precious time trying to find to what you are referring to with that link to their FAQ. It's not your fault for them not having info but why do you post a link to something which doesn't tell me anything?

In their FAQ question they absolutely have ZERO information about latency. ZERO. I being naive idiot opened all questions. No info. But i browsed up trying to find at least something.

What you think about "they should" is not what it could be on top of that you do realize that it's practically impossible to have sub 1ms processing when you are sending from DAW to processing unit then back to DAW. And ASIO buffer DEFINITELY has impact on latency monitoring.

You see exactly that marketing **** which they intentionally put out - is making people post nonsense in forums. It's FPGA so it must be below 1ms. It's FPGA it's superior. It's not DSP it's FPGA...

Why do you think a bridge plugin which is sending sound signal from your daw to their interface, processing there and then getting back to your DAW wouldn't be affected with your processing buffer - assuming they deliver it to windows which can only be practical under ASIO environment.

Actually I am betting that their marketing nonsense about near zero latency with DAW plugin is actually sole reason why they can't keep up to deliver Windows version. Because it's impossible to have ASIO buffers and at the same time process and monitor below 1ms latency.

Because it's FPGA? Oh really. Give me some reference. How and where did you started to believe this has to be truth? I want some link.

They say at the top of a page "near zero latency" but that can be anything between zero and as much as 8ms if you ask me.

This is really getting hilarious (i mean whole concept of unreliable informations).

Finally some representative finally added up some chart which again is a joke.

NOT ALL LISTED FX ARE AVAILABLE FOR EVERY INTERFACE - but they don't tell you which ones? What session rate? Is this chart valid for 44khz? 96khz? What?


Do i read this correctly. On all interfaces you can run only 1 like Single 1 reverb in total. What the hell? So that's superiority of FPGA. 1 reverb.

Ok then. I see i am turning to be negative dickhead then so be it. I can't believe that after so much time and negative critics they still refuse to provide exact values any professional even amateur would like to know.

It's like...ahh they want some answers. Ok throw them some bones and let them dig something. We never provided them real info so later on they can't blame us...which is actually what already happened to some people.

Look another nonsense. They proudly headlined "99 instances total" in that chart for what reason? Which when you think twice is a lie! By reading that chart someone could believe that assuming you buy all their plugins you can run 99 instances total on single interface but number 99 is actually number of listed effects in that list. But they can always tell you something like: hey...NOT ALL LISTED FX ARE AVAILABLE FOR EVERY INTERFACE we made that clear.

Why on earth they can't copy UA or even now deceased Powercore DSP chart concept. Where you knew each plugin consumption on every frequency rate. UA make it perfectly clear abut processing delay for EVERY product they have.

Hi!

Thank you very much for your post as it poses a lot of important questions, which I would be more than glad to answer.

Firstly, let me explain why we have no articles and detailed information about latency. With interfaces of this caliber which support both Windows and MAC OS, both via USB and Thunderbolt, you get a lot of variables. Different USB chipsets on different motherboards, different Thunderbolt cards, with each BIOS firmware and motherboard altering a lot of the dependencies, as well as different cables, a wild variety of processors, etc. - all of these things affect the latency and different builds will have different results. If we were doing only USB or only Thunderbolt just on MAC OS for example, we would be able to give estimates for different computers, as the configurations are not that varied. However, providing estimates would be misleading in our scenario as it might not be achievable on each and every configuration.

Sub-1ms round-trip is advertised for our new Windows Thunderbolt driver. An external tester has achieved it and it is practically possible, I have been able to achieve it as well in my home studio on 192kHz with a 32 sample buffer. Other users have achieved it too and it is pretty realistic on most modern computer configurations - Antelope Audio Announces Thunderbolt™ Beta Driver for Windows

The FPGA chip introduces less latency when processing effects because of the way it is constructed and the logical operations are processed. With DSP processors you get task after task where with the FPGA you can do multiple tasks at the same time. Let me explain with an example how our FPGA handles the effects processing and an estimate for the latency that is introduced. The internal processing of the signal from the USB/Thunderbolt takes up to 7 samples one way, so 14 samples maximum to get into the FPGA and back to the USB/Thunderbolt (in the longest possible scenario, meaning that most of the time it takes less). One of our compressors will take 2 samples to be processed. If we add another compressor we’ll get 2 more samples introduced, so 4 samples latency is introduced for 2 compressors. If we include the trip to and from the FPGA, we get 18 samples in total. The FPGA processes the signal sample by sample, so when one sample is processed it directly goes out of the FPGA, this is the fastest processing possible with the lowest latency possible on chips built in audio interfaces. Overall, such low latency figures are achievable only with the FPGA when it comes down to processing effects, because of the sample by sample processing. A DSP however can hardly achieve such numbers, because it cannot process sample by sample due to its nature, it takes task after task, and in most scenario it pre-buffers 16/32/64 samples of information to process, this and also when running a lot of things simultaneously is a weak spot which introduces more latency.



As for the effects table - when I posted the table here I said that - “The instance count for the effects doesn't change with the sample rate, so you always get this amount.*“
And yes, you can run a single reverb, since we only have 1 reverb for now and it is designed only for monitoring purposes via the built in virtual mixer, it is not used as the other effects are and we could run more of it, but again - this reverb is not designed to be used for anything else besides monitoring.

As for the 99 instances total, interfaces like the Zen Tour have all of these effects and can run all of the 99 instances. For some of our interfaces, not all of the effects are released, that’s why there is a notice in the table. You can check which effects are available for which unit here - https://support.antelopeaudio.com/su...lability-table
This table will be updated with the new interfaces until the end of the week.



A DSP chart is not possible when using FPGA chips, a specific effect doesn’t take a specific amount of resources as it is with the DSP and that’s why we made the table this way, this is the most clear way to understand how many effects you can run, just because you cannot visualise this with percentages, the way these processors work and the logical operations they use are completely different when compared to a DSP and the possibilities of visualising them.



I hope that I have answered most of your questions - if something is left unclear, please message me or reply, I will be glad to answer.

Thank you. Yes you did.

It was very insightful reply from you. I apologize for being patronizing dickhead - as you can see i lost my temper asking for such rudimentary stuff again and again. I was irritated by cycling through pages and pages and not finding what i needed. On top of that i see i was wrong on many accounts (i can't say i am not impressed by insanely low latency processing in your FXes).

Regards