# Upgrading My Apogee Ensemble — Ensemble 2, RME, Apollo? Thoughts?



## ryanstrong (Nov 10, 2014)

I've had my Apogee Ensemble since it was released, I've had it replaced twice because of hardware issues. So far I've been running fine the past few years but I've always dealt with issues of instability, pops and clicks — upgrading my CPU, and getting a slave has helped but I've always felt as though my weakest link is this Ensemble in terms of the ASIO performance. I love the sound quality, and the pre-amps are amazing, but need stability.

Now I have a chance to sell it to a friend so i am going to use this chance to make an upgrade.

I am looking primarily at 3 units... Apogee Ensemble 2, RME UFX, Apollo Quad.

One thing that is close to a deal breaker (but not totally) is that the Apogee Ensemble 2 is not compatible with 10.8, and I'm not really loving the idea of upgrading to Yosemite yet, especially since Steinberg is not openly supporting it.

So... audio quality, stability, and ASIO performance. 90% of what I do is in-the-box, virtual orchestration samples. Thoughts?


----------



## jaeroe (Nov 10, 2014)

Apollo's working great for me via thunderbolt. Great interface and the DSP is a huge plus. Getting respectable latency setting (256 plus VEP set to 1 buffer) with good sized template spread of a mac book pro plus two mac minis. I've heard some complain of driver issues, but it's working great for me. Better than my HD Native Thunderbolt setup for Protools, actually. 10.8.4 working great in Protools 11 HD and DP 8.

What model computer are you using and how will you be connecting to the interface? RME generally gives best performance in class, though.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 10, 2014)

jaeroe @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Apollo's working great for me via thunderbolt. Great interface and the DSP is a huge plus. Getting respectable latency setting (256 plus VEP set to 1 buffer) with good sized template spread of a mac book pro plus two mac minis. I've heard some complain of driver issues, but it's working great for me. Better than my HD Native Thunderbolt setup for Protools, actually. 10.8.4 working great in Protools 11 HD and DP 8.
> 
> What model computer are you using and how will you be connecting to the interface? RME generally gives best performance in class, though.



I am using a late 2012 iMac 3.4ghz, 32gb ram. Currently I am connecting FW800 converted to Thunderbolt with my Apogee Ensemble.

I've heard that about RME—I'm not really in to the UAD plug-in factor of the Apollo, so for me right now the choice is Ensemble 2 or RME UFX or 802 (haven't quite figured out the main diff between the UFX and 802).

Will having a better audio interface give you better VST Performance (the meters in Cubase)?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 11, 2014)

I've been a RME user for 7-8 years now (still got the old fireface). With the recent updates (TotalMix FX) it feels like I have a new product, but without the DSP-hardware. I don't need that anyway. 
The only downside is that the FF400/800 only have firewire. But for my studio setup where I'm not going to do a lot of location recordings, it's perfect!

Drivers are incredibly stable. Latency is perfect etc! 

Think about it: They just updated their entire range of products released since 2000 to the 2014 standards. Also teasing us with: "And we're working on level 4 already...". We all know what that is, right?? *TotalMix FX App *DSP

If you don't need many I/O, I would have bought the UCX/Babyface. The 802/UFX are their flagships. Performance wise just the same! 

Good luck!

Best
Ryan


----------



## AC986 (Nov 11, 2014)

Are you using many external instruments, mica etc?


----------



## Vin (Nov 11, 2014)

RME.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 11, 2014)

adriancook @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Are you using many external instruments, mica etc?



I have one Neve channel strip pre amp and a nice U47 mic that I will use for recording solo instruments/voice.


For those recommending RME — what is the biggest difference between the RME 802 and UFX?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 11, 2014)

ryanstrong @ 11/11/2014 said:


> For those recommending RME — what is the biggest difference between the RME 802 and UFX?



I have not had the time to read up on that. Check their website, or send an e-mail 

PS: envy your U47 o-[][]-o


----------



## luke_7 (Nov 11, 2014)

I have some RME and drivers are rock solid but i also have Apollo and converters DA/AD and preamps are definitely WAY BETTER than in RME.

My next buy is apogee ensemble 2, THE BEST CONVERTERS


----------



## jaeroe (Nov 11, 2014)

ryanstrong @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Will having a better audio interface give you better VST Performance (the meters in Cubase)?



The drivers are really what is most important for better performance - connection type can impact as well (PCIe or thunderbolt, vs FW or USB, etc). the Apollo is nice re the DSP stuff as you can offload DSP to their processors - frees up resources. also fantastic for monitoring live (with plugins active - functionally no latency).


----------



## Dryden.Chambers (Nov 11, 2014)

Apollo vote here.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 11, 2014)

I have an Ensemble and the Ensemble 2 is a lot of money isn't it? :shock:


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 11, 2014)

luke_7 @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> I have some RME and drivers are rock solid but i also have Apollo and converters DA/AD and preamps are definitely WAY BETTER than in RME.



I am surprised you say that Apollo's converters are WAY better then RME. Really? Why/how so?



adriancook @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> I have an Ensemble and the Ensemble 2 is a lot of money isn't it? :shock:



Sorry, are you saying you have Ensemble AND an Ensemble 2? Or you are just saying the Ensemble 2 is a lot money?


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 11, 2014)

I just read that the Apogee Ensemble 2, according to specs, that it requires 10.9.3 and up.

I am on 10.8.5. If I get the Ensemble 2 I would have to upgrade but I cannot upgrade to 10.9, Apple only provides the latest OS X so I would be forced to upgrade to Yosemite which Steinberg doesn't support.

Is that true?


----------



## Ryan (Nov 12, 2014)

luke_7 @ 11/11/2014 said:


> I have some RME and drivers are rock solid but i also have Apollo and converters DA/AD and preamps are definitely WAY BETTER than in RME.
> 
> My next buy is apogee ensemble 2, THE BEST CONVERTERS



potato potato


----------



## vicontrolu (Nov 12, 2014)

Hi there!

I am about to decide too. Just need a couple of inputs. Currently i have a TC Konnekt6 and the converters are great! I always thought RME next because the converters are as good as TC´s and the drivers are better but i am really surprised to see the statement about apollo converters > RME´s. I think it would be the first time i hear about that. 

Could anybody else confirm?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Nov 12, 2014)

Apollo. Very impressed with mine. 

You won't be disappointed with the RME though.


----------



## Virharmonic (Nov 12, 2014)

Another vote for RME UFX here. I found it to be very stable with very well optimized drivers. Personally I love it.

Ondrej


----------



## Softmo06004 (Nov 12, 2014)

All of those devices are great, but i think that Metric Halo is the top. Not only the hardware part. Summing (80 bits), rock solid driver, very very low latency and a beautiful sound. I know RME, Apogee, Universal Audio very well but my choice would be 2882 or LIO 8.


----------



## AC986 (Nov 12, 2014)

ryanstrong @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> Sorry, are you saying you have Ensemble AND an Ensemble 2? Or you are just saying the Ensemble 2 is a lot money?



Sorry it looks like that. Ha! No.

Just Apogee Ensemble and because of the issues with iMacs, I recently checked into Apogee and checked out their new Ensemble 2. 2 grand. Too much for me.


----------



## luke_7 (Nov 12, 2014)

I have rme/fireface UFX/fireface 800/babyface and with all of them Apollo wins in term of converters. 

The sound from Apollo is basically better. The stereo image, low frequencies, sound depth, are much much more precise.


----------



## TravB (Nov 12, 2014)

Don't forget that while the quality of the A-D/D-A converters is of course important, they are only one part of the entire signal chain from input to output of a given audio interface. Even the quality of entry-level converters has improved considerably in the last decade. 

However, a significant amount of circuit design and supporting electronics is also required and has a MAJOR and measurable impact on the overall sound quality. When reading audio specs, make sure the measurements are being taken from input to output, not just the converters themselves.

Employing the VERY best of supporting analog components, even in top tier audio interfaces such as RME and UA, is often too cost prohibitive. For this very reason, companies like Black Lion Audio exist to upgrade those components.

Having worked with numerous custom DAW clients over the last two decades, RME continues to rise above the pack in terms of performance and rock solid reliability, largely due to the amazing quality of their drivers which are developed in house.

If I were starting over today, I would choose an RME interface and opt for a Black Lion audio mod. But, my 10-year old LynxTWO-B still performs flawlessly, also has high performance and super stable drivers, and audio specs that rival many of the best available today.

For those that are fans and users of UA plug-ins (which are outstanding, by the way), the Apollo is certainly worth consideration. And of course we all know UA has a long history of manufacturing high quality analog gear (however, Black Lion Audio still has an upgrade for the Apollo).


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 12, 2014)

luke_7 @ Tue Nov 11 said:


> I have some RME and drivers are rock solid but i also have Apollo and converters DA/AD and preamps are definitely WAY BETTER than in RME.
> 
> My next buy is apogee ensemble 2, THE BEST CONVERTERS



I have AB>B ed the Apollo with my RME. With the conversion, you would have to prove it to me in a blind test that you could consistently identify which is which and better/worse.


----------



## vicontrolu (Nov 12, 2014)

luke_7 @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> The stereo image, low frequencies, sound depth, are much much more precise.



Looks like he can consistently say so


----------



## luke_7 (Nov 12, 2014)

I don't have to prove anything Jay  I know what i hear.


----------



## luke_7 (Nov 12, 2014)

Actually i was tottaly on the RME side until i did AB test in my studio. But i still love my rme..


----------



## markstyles (Nov 12, 2014)

I got Apogee Duet over Motu - big audio improvement.. Except Duet would stop working and I'd have to install software again.. Apogee seemed like they could care less about my situation, and it 'was my fault'.. 

Last year i bought an RME Fireface 800. The sonic quality is a big step better than Apogee..

That's my take,


----------



## stonzthro (Nov 12, 2014)

I went from an Apogee Quartet with driver issues that (as was already stated) Apogee seemed to care less about, to Audient's ID22 which I love! I also added an ASP880 and Aphex 141B. Oh, I also had an Apollo between the Quartet and Audient - for about 2 weeks and sent is back - I already have an Octo card so it seemed redundant. 

Bottom line - I would be very surprised if, once you get working away, you hear much of a difference on any of these devices. They all sound great! We live in a fantastic time!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Nov 12, 2014)

luke_7 @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> I don't have to prove anything Jay  I know what i hear.



And I never tell anyone that they do not hear what they say they hear. But as I did not, and as I don't know you or your work to assign you any particular credibility, please forgive me for remaining skeptical.

And therefore if someone is making a purchasing decision, i recommend that they not take your assessment of the converters as fact and weigh that in too heavily.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 12, 2014)

Even though it is the primary role of a audio interface is the AD/DA I'm not that concerned about the converter quality between Apogee/RME/UA. They all, from what I've read, land in the 'subjective' zone which tells me they are all pretty good.

*THUS... *what has the better performance from a VST/ASIO/CPU/LATENCY performance and OS driver standpoint?


----------



## Symfoniq (Nov 12, 2014)

ryanstrong @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> *THUS... *what has the better performance from a VST/ASIO/CPU/LATENCY performance and OS driver standpoint?



Pretty sure RME is going to win that battle.

And I own a Steinberg unit, so I don't have a dog in this fight.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2014)

> Don't forget that while the quality of the A-D/D-A converters is of course important, they are only one part of the entire signal chain from input to output of a given audio interface. Even the quality of entry-level converters has improved considerably in the last decade.



+1 about the quality of the converters only being one important factor. (But are any companies posting specs for the converter chips alone? That seems almost sleazy, on the surface!)

I chose to go with the Metric Halo 2882 a few years ago - which unfortunately is out of the running here, since it doesn't work on Windows - even though the Ensemble sounded a mouse whisker better to me. The difference was too small for anyone to notice, and the 2882 had other attributes in its favor - portability, build quality, software, the company itself.


----------



## TravB (Nov 12, 2014)

http://www.dawbench.com/audio-int-lowlatency3.htm

In depth audio interface testing for many years at this site. Glad to see my trusty ol' LynxTWO still in the top tier.


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 12, 2014)

TravB @ Wed Nov 12 said:


> http://www.dawbench.com/audio-int-lowlatency3.htm
> 
> In depth audio interface testing for many years at this site. Glad to see my trusty ol' LynxTWO still in the top tier.



Wish they would have tested Apogee or UA.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 13, 2014)

ryanstrong @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> TravB @ Wed Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.dawbench.com/audio-int-lowlatency3.htm
> ...


Nobody is going to waste time testing Apogee when it is OSX only. When Apollo was released it was also OSX only, so again testing it on Windows wouldn't have been possible, therefore of no use to anyone thinking of getting a PC.

D


----------



## ryanstrong (Nov 13, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Nov 13 said:


> ryanstrong @ Thu Nov 13 said:
> 
> 
> > TravB @ Wed Nov 12 said:
> ...



Oh didn't realize it was a PC only test site.


----------

