UA Apollo

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
User avatar
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

UA Apollo

Post by digitaldrummer » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:06 am

This looks awesome. I really have not seen much new in the way of DAW interfaces recently--but this is cool...

moves faders with mind
Posts: 2631
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:40 pm

Post by kslight » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:12 am

Looks interesting for sure...price though?

Also why do manufacturers these days make all the interfaces have mic preamps with digital control....? Does anyone like this feature? I find it really irritating and cheap, especially on the more expensive interfaces (which I'm seeing this around $2000 online). I can kind of see it on the cheapies, but a little hands on control would be nice on the expensive units!

User avatar
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Post by digitaldrummer » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:24 am

MAP is roughly $2000 for the duo and more for the quad. Not cheap, but if the clock, converters,and pres are usual UA quality and you get a built in uad-2 its not so bad.

As for the digital controlled pres, my understanding is its more precise than an analog pot. I would also prefer a knob even if it was still digital controlled but I can probably live with the one shared knob.


User avatar
Nick Sevilla
speech impediment
Posts: 4901
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles California USA

Post by Nick Sevilla » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:49 pm

digital control= 0.1 dB value changes, typically.
Realizing vibratory excursions from a paper widget.

User avatar
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:08 pm
Location: so close to hell you can see sparks

Post by blungo2 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:10 pm

I'm very skeptical, but only because i just bought a UFX...

User avatar
suffering 'studio suck'
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:21 am

Post by Jitters » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:49 am

Only 8 in though? :?

alignin' 24-trk
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Post by mangoose » Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:24 am

Jitters wrote:Only 8 in though? :?
plus 8 adat

chris harris
speech impediment
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Norman, OK

Post by chris harris » Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:22 am

It's still pretty lame of them to claim 24 outputs when 4 or them come from 2 stereo "headphone outs" and 2 of them come from dedicated monitor outs. You'd need 2 of these interfaces to do any serious OTB mixing.

This is a decent option for ITB studios where tracking large bands is a rare occurrence.

User avatar
dead but not forgotten
Posts: 2123
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 5:44 am
Location: Louisville KY

Post by T-rex » Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:37 am

I can not understand why we can't get more than two true 24 in and out interfaces on the market. The only two I know of is the MOTU and the SSL/what ever they were before SSL bought them.

With that said, I think this would be pretty brilliant for most people who don't track more than 16 tracks at a time and mix in the box. Hook up any adat smux to it and you have 16 ins, a bunch of monitor outs, monitor controls and a UAD card to boot.

The BURL audio guys did the converters on their old unit so I would be curious how the converters sound this time and who built them, although I am sure they are good.

What is really weird to me is that they are toting how great it is to track through the plugins which I think is awesome. But I don't think the majority of people make those decisions up front. If they were a virtual instrument company totally, but eq and compression I am ont so sure.

Anyway, its a pretty brilliant device if it works as advertised. Which in my experience the UAD stuff always does.

takin' a dinner break
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:26 am
Location: Beautiful Northern Michigan

Post by Sculli » Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:24 pm

I'm seriously considering sending back my Symphony I/O in favor of the UA Apollo. If the conversion is up near the 2192. I'm all over this! To be able to record with my Studer and other UA plugs would be the shit. With little to no latency. Yes!!! With the SSL or NEVE plugs you could have a virtual console. But I like mixing ITB. Nothing works for everyone. imho

re-cappin' neve
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:11 pm
Location: around somewhere

Post by nestle » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:37 pm

Man, this unit has really caught my eye. I bought the laptop duo last year mostly for the EMT 140 plate, then began started trying the other plugs. Love the space echo, dbx 160, lexicon 224 and the ampex 2 track is awesome. Now it's hard to mix without them. Also have the M610 pre and a an LA4, love it on vocals. Very impressed with these guys, if this delivers what they say I'm in. They say the duo works with it, awesome! So glad PT9 works with other interfaces now. Digi 002 out the window. Once in a while a product comes along that is like "finally!" that's what I need.
I do mix/production work, I don't need 24 ins 17 is fine lol. Have the API a2d so it'll play great with this. I don't get the tracking with plugs concept yet, though maybe the neve/studer/ampex/1176 plugs could be cool actually.
Anyone know what those Apollo pres are like?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests