join now
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Universal Audio Apollo interface
Old 18th April 2012
  #2341
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
That would most likely be due to the Apollo not reporting the AD/DA latency to Cubase via the AU driver. If that is the case the AD/DA's have far higher latency than say RME .

Can you please post the reported I/O values in Cubase for each respective buffer setting from 032 thru to 512.

Thanks in advance

My old RME had a recording offset of 13 samples that also had to be manually calibrated in cubase.

If I set up a hardware insert in cubase with the apollo (eg a compressor) and ping it with the external plugin, I get a value of 1.83ms or 88 samples. Not sure why there's an extra sample discrepancy compared to the loopback test.

These are the Apollo figures at 48k in cubase 6.5

32 i: 3.438ms o: 2.396ms

64 i: 4.104ms o: 3.063ms

128 i: 5.438ms o: 4.396ms

192 i: 6.771ms o: 5.729ms

256 i: 8.104ms o: 7.062ms

384 i: 10.771ms o: 9.729ms

512 i:13.438ms o: 12.396ms

Just for interest's sake, here is a screenshot of the loopback test at 44k, with the 87 sample recording offset set in cubase. The top is the reference file and the bottom is the resampled file. As you can see the recorded file doesn't look so hot. I tried a few different (new) good quality cables with the same results. Not sure what to make of this..

Old 18th April 2012
  #2342
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post

32 i: 3.438ms o: 2.396ms

64 i: 4.104ms o: 3.063ms

128 i: 5.438ms o: 4.396ms

192 i: 6.771ms o: 5.729ms

256 i: 8.104ms o: 7.062ms

384 i: 10.771ms o: 9.729ms

512 i:13.438ms o: 12.396ms
Thanks for that , much appreciated.

Just to be 100% clear, can you confirm the extra 87 samples need to be added to those respective figures for the true RTL ?

So for example - 032 @ 48 : In - 3.438 / Out - 2.396 / RTL - 5.834 ms / 280.032 Samples + 87 samples = 367.032 - True RTL : 7.646 ms.

I have helped develop a RTL measuring utility for Windows but unfortunately don't know of anything similar for OSX, but you should be able to confirm the measurement using your loopback method. It doesn't need to be done on all of the setting, maybe just a few to ensure you are getting a consistent variable for the AD/DA measurement.

Old 18th April 2012
  #2343
Lives for gear
 
clonewar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
Just for interest's sake, here is a screenshot of the loopback test at 44k, with the 87 sample recording offset set in cubase. The top is the reference file and the bottom is the resampled file. As you can see the recorded file doesn't look so hot. I tried a few different (new) good quality cables with the same results. Not sure what to make of this..
That seems odd/bad for a first generation loopback. Did you have any plugins active in the Apollo console?
Old 18th April 2012
  #2344
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnkenn View Post
I was just looking that up. Many speculate that there's not enough bandwidth with the pcie card. Don't know...but I bet Apple doesn't want it to happen...
I too have ready (many) articles stating fairly definitively that there won't be a PCIe TB Card due to lack of bandwidth...
Old 18th April 2012
  #2345
Lives for gear
 
Strange Leaf's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by miscend View Post
Lol
Explain whats going on in your head please.
Old 18th April 2012
  #2346
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by superwack View Post
I too have ready (many) articles stating fairly definitively that there won't be a PCIe TB Card due to lack of bandwidth...
Intel has said there will not be PCIe Thunderbolt cards, it will only come on OEM motherboards. Thunderbolt IS PCIe bundled together with DisplayPort, designed to bring PCIe expansion and bandwidth to computers without PCIe slots while consuming minimal real estate - very important in ultra-thin computers like a MacBook Air.

UA could theoretically come up with an option for Apollo's TB expansion slot which would allow connection to a PCIe card (much like the old UAD-1 Xpander) that would give the full bandwidth speed of TB (albeit without the DisplayPort or daisy chaining), but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Old 18th April 2012
  #2347
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Thanks for that , much appreciated.

Just to be 100% clear, can you confirm the extra 87 samples need to be added to those respective figures for the true RTL ?

So for example - 032 @ 48 : In - 3.438 / Out - 2.396 / RTL - 5.834 ms / 280.032 Samples + 87 samples = 367.032 - True RTL : 7.646 ms.

I have helped develop a RTL measuring utility for Windows but unfortunately don't know of anything similar for OSX, but you should be able to confirm the measurement using your loopback method. It doesn't need to be done on all of the setting, maybe just a few to ensure you are getting a consistent variable for the AD/DA measurement.

Yes, I have to have the 87 sample offset added to get an accurate loopback at any of the buffer settings.
Old 18th April 2012
  #2348
Quote:
Originally Posted by clonewar View Post
That seems odd/bad for a first generation loopback. Did you have any plugins active in the Apollo console?
no plugins inserted, i'm quite baffled by this.. it certainly isn't an encouraging result… perhaps some other users could do some loopback tests and see what kind of resuts they're getting.

I'm also wondering if anyone else is having to adjust recording offset to get correctly time aligned recordings weith the apollo..? or am I the only one who has done a loopback test??
Old 18th April 2012
  #2349
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WindowSills View Post
Intel has said there will not be PCIe Thunderbolt cards, it will only come on OEM motherboards. Thunderbolt IS PCIe bundled together with DisplayPort, designed to bring PCIe expansion and bandwidth to computers without PCIe slots while consuming minimal real estate
That is correct for the first generation of chips currently being used in iMacs, Macbooks , Intel would not allow the option of a TB PCIe expansion card , specifically due to the fact that the DisplayPort had to be directly plumbed at the motherboard level and that would it be impossible to implement both PCIx4 and PCIe x16 .

However with the second generation TB chip which has been adopted and is being rolled out ( albeit very slowly) by the 3rd party OEM/ODM PC manufacturers , Intel will in fact allow a PCIe expansion card and to separate the 2 aspects.

The logistics of running both the separate PCIe x4 and PCie x16 ( DP) channels in some instances is achieved by a header on the motherboard - i.e the PCIe x4 is achieved by a standard interconnect into a PCIe x4 slot , the separate PCie x16 is via a connection cable from the card to the header on the motherboard. If the header is not available on the motherboard , the PCIe x4 expansion will still be available sans the PCIe x16 aspect for displays - which will be fine for many.

PCIe TB expansion cards are coming , how they ultimately perform will be the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
Yes, I have to have the 87 sample offset added to get an accurate loopback at any of the buffer settings.
Thanks Mate, duly noted and very much appreciated.
Old 18th April 2012
  #2350
Another discovery.. when doing the loopback test using ADAT, there is a 63 sample offset that needs to be compensated for manually. This implies that using digital and analog inputs simultaneously could be a problem since the analogue and digital inputs have different sample offsets. I'm going to try and test it myself using the console "input delay compensation" and see if the UAD driver is actually able to maintain time alignment during a mixed analog/digital recording session...
Old 18th April 2012
  #2351
Lives for gear
How are the Windows drivers? Are they even out yet?

This looks like a cool "tax refund" toy, not to fond of my current interface.
Old 18th April 2012
  #2352
Lives for gear
 
euphoria89's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
How are the Windows drivers? Are they even out yet?

This looks like a cool "tax refund" toy, not to fond of my current interface.
Not out yet. No date for them specifically.
Old 18th April 2012
  #2353
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
That is correct for the first generation of chips currently being used in iMacs, Macbooks , Intel would not allow the option of a TB PCIe expansion card , specifically due to the fact that the DisplayPort had to be directly plumbed at the motherboard level and that would it be impossible to implement both PCIx4 and PCIe x16 .

However with the second generation TB chip which has been adopted and is being rolled out ( albeit very slowly) by the 3rd party OEM/ODM PC manufacturers , Intel will in fact allow a PCIe expansion card and to separate the 2 aspects.

The logistics of running both the separate PCIe x4 and PCie x16 ( DP) channels in some instances is achieved by a header on the motherboard - i.e the PCIe x4 is achieved by a standard interconnect into a PCIe x4 slot , the separate PCie x16 is via a connection cable from the card to the header on the motherboard. If the header is not available on the motherboard , the PCIe x4 expansion will still be available sans the PCIe x16 aspect for displays - which will be fine for many.

PCIe TB expansion cards are coming , how they ultimately perform will be the question.



Thanks Mate, duly noted and very much appreciated.
This must be what the Admin on the UA forum was referring to. He said there will be a PCIe TB expansion but that it won't support video. Which is totally fine as for as I'm concerned. I'm sure thunderbolt will be necessary to connect multiple Apollos. I would love to be able to do that without having to buy a new Mac. This is my main concern with the Apollo. I wish UA would give us some more info about running multiple units and a time frame.
Old 18th April 2012
  #2354
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dankin View Post
This must be what the Admin on the UA forum was referring to. He said there will be a PCIe TB expansion but that it won't support video.
Yep , that would be it... :-)

This is what many of us in the tech industry were hoping for the first gen TB chip rollout, but Intel dug there heels in and wouldn't allow the separation of PCIe x4 and DisplayPort - ( I suspect there was more than a little politics involved with a certain fruit themed manufacturer ).

With the new gen they are loosening the reigns. IMO they realised that to get a greater foothold the PCIe x4 interconnect is of far more interest over the DisplayPort.

Re running multiple Apollos, we have no idea how one runs under TB, let alone multiple. I am most interested in what if any benefit is delivered in regards to the I/O and RTL values as the current numbers under FW are substantially higher than some of the better units offered by the competition.

Also, we still have no idea how the unit actually scales at those values comparatively either , but that doesn't seem to be the focus for the majority here, so looks like I'll pick up that ball when the time comes on my dedicated threads.

Old 18th April 2012
  #2355
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
Another discovery.. when doing the loopback test using ADAT, there is a 63 sample offset that needs to be compensated for manually.
Really ??

You have to wonder what is going on there , via analog the non reporting of the AD/DA could explain the variable , and because it was consistent across all of the buffer values, it was a good bet that the 87 samples was the RTL of the AD/DA.

This however is really odd unless the 63 samples is the arbitration overhead attributed to simply processing the I/O thru the FPGA/DSP. That would leave 24 samples for the AD/DA - which is not inconceivable as the better AD/DA from competing manufacturers have similar latencies.

Either way, the unit is not reporting correctly to the DAW host.

Old 19th April 2012
  #2356
Gear Fiend
 

Apollo Demos - Realtime Tracking With Plugs and Pre/Di/Converters

Old 19th April 2012
  #2357
mixingtable.com
 
mitzush's Avatar
walnut rack for the Apollo

Hi Apollo owners, I'm just wondering if anyone would be interested in a luxury rack/box for thier Apollo. Not the usual flightcase affair but something more stylish and well finished, made in solid walnut, possibly engraved?

We could do a one unit box if there are people who are using it without any other outboard, or more units if otherwise desired.

PM me with your requests as I wouldn't want to de-rail this thread.

Enjoy your Apollo's

Cheers, Pete
http://mixingtable.com
Old 19th April 2012
  #2358
Lives for gear
 
kreeper_6's Avatar
 

Anybody know if the outputs are DC coupled?
Old 20th April 2012
  #2359
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Really ??

You have to wonder what is going on there , via analog the non reporting of the AD/DA could explain the variable , and because it was consistent across all of the buffer values, it was a good bet that the 87 samples was the RTL of the AD/DA.

This however is really odd unless the 63 samples is the arbitration overhead attributed to simply processing the I/O thru the FPGA/DSP. That would leave 24 samples for the AD/DA - which is not inconceivable as the better AD/DA from competing manufacturers have similar latencies.

Either way, the unit is not reporting correctly to the DAW host.

another oddity, the MON L/R inputs have a different offset (71 samples)
The headphone inputs also have an offset of 71 samples.

After rebooting, the offset figures changed to 4 samples (a big difference), however adjusting the recording offset in cubase does not affect the offset of either the MON or HP inputs… and in fact creates further new offset figures! (now 79 samples) I suppose this must be a miscommunication between cubase and the apollo.

This means if I want to print my MON L/R or HP inputs to cubase via console, I have to manually align the recorded files. Some strange stuff going on here.
Old 20th April 2012
  #2360
Gear interested
 

Old 20th April 2012
  #2361
Gear interested
 
Cjoe707's Avatar
 

just curious, does everybody else's apollo front led panel flash when its powered on?
Old 20th April 2012
  #2362
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
another oddity, the MON L/R inputs have a different offset (71 samples)
The headphone inputs also have an offset of 71 samples.

After rebooting, the offset figures changed to 4 samples (a big difference), however adjusting the recording offset in cubase does not affect the offset of either the MON or HP inputs… and in fact creates further new offset figures! (now 79 samples) I suppose this must be a miscommunication between cubase and the apollo.

This means if I want to print my MON L/R or HP inputs to cubase via console, I have to manually align the recorded files. Some strange stuff going on here.
That's odd because when recording MON L/R in Pro Tools, if you turn it up it's perfectly phase aligned!

Maybe it's being correctly compensated in Pro Tools.
Old 20th April 2012
  #2363
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cjoe707 View Post
just curious, does everybody else's apollo front led panel flash when its powered on?
Nice little disco
Old 21st April 2012
  #2364
Gear interested
 

Question for anyone able to confirm an answer. I'm wondering since Apollo has 8 line inputs, am I able to use external preamps like SSL Alpha's or Vintech pre's into the Apollo interface for the purpose of using the latency feature for tracking with plugins on each of the inputs? Basically I'm looking to track a drum kit & I noticed that the Apollo unit only comes with 4 mic pre's.

Thanks!
Paul
Old 21st April 2012
  #2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeGus View Post
Question for anyone able to confirm an answer. I'm wondering since Apollo has 8 line inputs, am I able to use external preamps like SSL Alpha's or Vintech pre's into the Apollo interface for the purpose of using the latency feature for tracking with plugins on each of the inputs? Basically I'm looking to track a drum kit & I noticed that the Apollo unit only comes with 4 mic pre's.

Thanks!
Paul
Yes, you can use external preamps through the line inputs.
Old 21st April 2012
  #2366
Lives for gear
 
bigbone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeGus View Post
Question for anyone able to confirm an answer. I'm wondering since Apollo has 8 line inputs, am I able to use external preamps like SSL Alpha's or Vintech pre's into the Apollo interface for the purpose of using the latency feature for tracking with plugins on each of the inputs? Basically I'm looking to track a drum kit & I noticed that the Apollo unit only comes with 4 mic pre's.

Thanks!
Paul
That's from UA tech support.

That will work great. You just take the line outputs of the external preamp into the Line inputs 5, 6, 7 and 8 and you can then use the 4 Apollo preamps and the Daking preamps for a total of 8.
Old 21st April 2012
  #2367
Gear interested
 

Awesome thanks for the response. I had another quick question in regards to my previous question. I was wondering if it's possible to use the 4 included mic pre's on the Apollo unit while also simultaneously using the 8 line inputs for separate external mic pre's for a grand total of 12 mic pre's for tracking?
Old 21st April 2012
  #2368
Lives for gear
 
euphoria89's Avatar
 

No, it's either the 4 in-built mic pre's or line ins. You can only get 8 in total.
Old 21st April 2012
  #2369
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by method1 View Post
Some strange stuff going on here.
The inconsistencies are not making much sense.

Definitely worth asking the question via the official support channels and give us a heads up what they come back with.

Old 21st April 2012
  #2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCallMeGus View Post
Awesome thanks for the response. I had another quick question in regards to my previous question. I was wondering if it's possible to use the 4 included mic pre's on the Apollo unit while also simultaneously using the 8 line inputs for separate external mic pre's for a grand total of 12 mic pre's for tracking?
8 total analog inputs but you can also add 8 digital inputs on the optical if you have additional converters with ADAT optical out. This way you could record up to 16 inputs (8 digital and 8 analog)
Loading mentioned products ...
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to Gearslutz Pro Audio Forum!

Registration benefits include:
  • Ability to make and reply to posts
  • 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 lifetime access to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20
  • List your eBay auctions 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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Chieftain Jake / Low End Theory
14

Forum Jump