# New Apogee interface



## vrocko (Aug 29, 2012)

Looks like they listened and made the "quartet". Seems a little pricey, hopefully its Specs match the price.

http://instagram.com/p/O63imlMfO0/

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/pro-audi ... 6b3f00768d


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 30, 2012)

Looks like there may be some faders : audio, controller ?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 30, 2012)

Is it Thunderbolt? is for me the most important question.


----------



## vrocko (Aug 30, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Aug 30 said:


> Is it Thunderbolt? is for me the most important question.



At that price I thought it might be Thunderbolt. According to an email from apogee that somebody at GS posted, it is USB 2.0. I guess we will know on the 4th.


----------



## mark812 (Aug 30, 2012)

Only $1395?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 30, 2012)

Apogee makes excellent interfaces, but I'm having a really time holding my fingers back from letting loose some severe snark.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 31, 2012)

Any company that releases a new $1400 interface without Thunderbolt has rocks in their heads.


----------



## dcoscina (Aug 31, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Aug 31 said:


> Any company that releases a new $1400 interface without Thunderbolt has rocks in their heads.



I totally agree. I have a Duet 1 and MOTU 2408mk3 which is the most rock solid interface I've ever owned. I get crackling and issues on occasion with the Duet FW but nothing with the pci-e interface. I'd only move to a Thunderbolt interface in the future from FW. USB to me doesn't work as well when I have lots of vi tracks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 31, 2012)

The snark I'm holding back is not about the product, it's that one is expected to set one's alarm clock to be sure not to miss the announcement of the details of a great game-changer.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Sep 6, 2012)

aaand... IT'S OUT! 

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/quartet.php


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 6, 2012)

USB 2?

I think they are batshit crazy


----------



## rgames (Sep 6, 2012)

Why do you think you need Thunderbolt for an audio interface?

I'm not sure what the advantage would be - odds are you're nowhere near saturating the USB2 interface (which, unlike Thunderbolt, is an extremely mature spec).

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 8, 2012)

rgames @ Thu Sep 06 said:


> Why do you think you need Thunderbolt for an audio interface?
> 
> I'm not sure what the advantage would be - odds are you're nowhere near saturating the USB2 interface (which, unlike Thunderbolt, is an extremely mature spec).
> 
> rgames



According to RME, no USB or Firewire interface, even theirs which have excellent drivers, can match PCI-e for lower latency and higher track count where TB can not only match it but if the driver is written correctly, will have even better performance.


----------



## rgames (Sep 8, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 08 said:


> rgames @ Thu Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think you need Thunderbolt for an audio interface?
> ...



What test did they use and what difference did they measure?

I think there probably is a difference - my question is whether it makes any practical difference. My four-year-old PC runs hundreds of MIDI tracks and nearly 200 audio tracks coming over the network at 128 samples. Can a switch to Thunderbolt really knock that down to 64?

More importantly, can anybody actually tell the difference between 64 and 128 samples?

Bandwidth is another issue and it should be possible to get greater bandwidth over Thunderbolt. But do you really need hundreds of audio I/O channels?

I think the answer to both of those questions is no, which is probably why Apogee chose to use USB2.

rgames


----------



## JJP (Sep 8, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Sep 08 said:


> More importantly, can anybody actually tell the difference between 64 and 128 samples?


I've never been able to run my system effectively at 64, but I can definitely tell the difference between 128 and 256. It will actually affect my playing. I have to lean on the front side of the beat at 256 on my system.

So although it will be less noticeable, my guess is 128 and 64 will have an audible difference. The effect will be more noticeable if you are doing anything that requires serious rhythmic subtlety. Soupy string and brass swells won't be affected at all.

Sensitivity to rhythmic timing is similar to sensitivity to pitch. Some people have an aptitude for it, and most anyone can develop it with practice. Maybe all those years listening to marching snare drum lines for clean rolls actually did me some good! Who knows?


----------



## Mike Marino (Sep 8, 2012)

> Maybe all those years listening to marching snare drum lines for clean rolls actually did me some good! Who knows?



Hmmm. Drum corps guy?


----------



## JJP (Sep 8, 2012)

Mike Marino @ Sat Sep 08 said:


> Hmmm. Drum corps guy?


For a brief period in the late 80's & early 90's.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 8, 2012)

> More importantly, can anybody actually tell the difference between 64 and 128 samples?



What JJP says. I don't notice 128, and I notice 256 when I'm paying percussive things but still don't find it unworkable.

That's from a keyboard. Modern drum pads (as opposed to my KAT pads, which have some latency of their own) may be a different story.


----------



## rgames (Sep 8, 2012)

OK - let's think about this guys: you know 64 samples at 44.1 kHz is a 1/1024 note at 120 BPM, right? Actually it's a bit better - 1.45 ms. 

First, you really think you're accurate to a 1/1024 note at 120 BPM?

Second, 1.45 ms is actually shorter than the time it takes for the sound to move from nearfield monitors to your ears. So the difference you say you can perceive would be better addressed by sitting closer to your monitors!

I ain't buying it...

But that's all basically OT... it remains to be seen how much effect you get with a switch from USB/Firewire to Thunderbolt. I anxiously await the info that convinced Jay 

rgames


----------



## dcoscina (Sep 8, 2012)

How are you guys able to write dense VI laden music in 128??? Perhaps I don't have enough CPU power but I'm always at least at 256 if not 512. Then again that's Pro Tools for you... I have a Quad core Mac with 16 go ram....

All I know is that I have less if not any issues with my pcie MOTU 424 card with 2408. My Apogee Duet cannot handle the same load.... Perhaps it's time to clean my boot drive though. 


I will add that on my old little MacBook with an SSD I can crank u p the buffer to 1024 samples and I have almost no latency. Weird.


----------



## stonzthro (Sep 8, 2012)

I wish they added more outs - if you want to run out to a summing mixer, this box won't help much. I do like the idea that you can use 2 apogee boxes at once, though the price would really seem to be a bit prohibitive at that point for most. 

The USB doesn't bother me that much - they have an explanation on their site - boils down to cost, or so they say.


----------



## JJP (Sep 8, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Sep 08 said:


> OK - let's think about this guys: you know 64 samples at 44.1 kHz is a 1/1024 note at 120 BPM, right? Actually it's a bit better - 1.45 ms.



You're assuming there is no other cumulative latency throughout the chain.


----------



## rgames (Sep 8, 2012)

JJP @ Sat Sep 08 said:


> rgames @ Sat Sep 08 said:
> 
> 
> > OK - let's think about this guys: you know 64 samples at 44.1 kHz is a 1/1024 note at 120 BPM, right? Actually it's a bit better - 1.45 ms.
> ...


I'm not assuming anything about total latency - the total latency is, of course, more than just that associated with the buffer transfer.

We're talking about an ability to perceive a difference and the difference is still (essentially) the difference in the buffer settings. The total latency will be higher than just the buffer transfer, but the difference in the latencies will be (essentially) whatever you get by changing the buffer setting.

So, from the standpoint of a difference in responsiveness, the switch from 128 to 64 is less effective than sitting closer to your monitors. So track everything wearing cans!

Now if you run a setup that requires a 1024 buffer and the new interface can get you to 512, that's a big difference. But most folks are running at 128 or 256, and the points above should give an indication that pushing it down further is quickly getting into diminishing returns.

Which, again, is probably why they went with USB2.

rgames


----------



## dcoscina (Sep 8, 2012)

Apogee flat out said in some four somewhere that the USB was a cost based choice. Nothing more.


----------



## rgames (Sep 8, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Sep 08 said:


> JJP @ Sat Sep 08 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Sat Sep 08 said:
> ...


Here's another way to think about it: a change in 64 samples is roughly equivalent to a change of 1.5 ft to the sound source (about 1.5 ms, sound moves about 1 ft per ms).

If changes of 64 samples are so perceptible, why has nobody ever raised the issue of losing responsiveness when he moves his head around?

Ever seen a musician move his head around when he plays? I have - and a lot more than 1.5 ft...!

And what about guitar amps - how often does a guitarist put his amp a couple feet from his head? They move around alot - ever heard a guitarist complain about changing instrument response when he moves the amp a foot and a half?

rgames


----------



## JJP (Sep 8, 2012)

Well then you've got me. My problem is that I've never worked with a system that has only 64 samples of latency. My goal has always been to bring down everything in the chain to reduce cumulative effect of total latency because that's what affects the playing.

To that practical end, any element that can be reduced, should be, because it can create a noticeable difference in the end.

I'm checking out now, because this is heading the direction of a pointless Gearslutz argument.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2012)

rgames @ Sat Sep 08 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 08 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Thu Sep 06 said:
> ...



Richard, you and I approach these things very differently. I go to people who are knowledgeable and who I respect and I ask them i.e., "should I sell my PCI-e RME audio interface and buy the USB one, which is supposed o have the lowest usable latency buffer or put the PCI-e card in a chassis.

The guy says, "Jay, our USB interfaces are the best in the industry in this regard but it still likely that with big projects you will have to run with a higher buffer with the USB interface than the PCI-e one."

I hear that, I say "Thanks" and after verifying that with a second trusted source, I do as he suggests.

You prefer to start either searching for tests or conduct them yourself. That is great, probably more admirable than what I do but personally I have neither the time or desire to do so. 

So o mew. my next audio purchase will be Thunderbolt. And I still think if a company is developing new interfaces it only makes sense to go with what will be the fastest and has the least competition at the time, which is certainly Thunderbolt. The first company that comes out with a good sounding one that has a good driver in the $500-1000 range is going to sell a lot of units IMHO.


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> You prefer to start either searching for tests or conduct them yourself.


Nah - mostly I just think about it and decide if it makes sense. You can go a long way by stopping to think for a moment rather than just blindly following your gurus  But if you're not interested in facts, then sure, stick with the Gurus. There's a word for that: religion!

However, if you want to communicate with people and engage in a discussion, it's better to explain your point rather than just say "Guru X says it's so".

True authority never uses its credentials as the basis of an argument.

rgames


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 9, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> The first company that comes out with a good sounding one that has a good driver in the $500-1000 range is going to sell a lot of units IMHO.



I do,'t know if we'll ever see those kind of prices. Keep in mind that a TB interface has essentially a PciE card built in, and those things (by RME, Avid, Apogee, etc.) already go for close to $1K. Then add to that some quality analogue and you've got another $1K, at least.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2012)

jamwerks @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > The first company that comes out with a good sounding one that has a good driver in the $500-1000 range is going to sell a lot of units IMHO.
> ...



Once the R & D costs are recouped, it will happen. Or at least historically it always has.

But let me modify that to $500-$1599.


----------



## jamwerks (Sep 9, 2012)

The UA Apollo (duo) TB will go for $2.5K. And I imagine that RME will have a UFX TB interface in the coming months at the same price point. It'll be interesting to see when Avid will come out with a TB M-Box. Their current offer is a $5.5K (including PT). >8o


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2012)

Hey Jay - see here: http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=14014

Particularly Post #4 and those that follow.

See the problem with Gurus? You can always find one who agrees with you 

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2012)

rgames @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> Hey Jay - see here: http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=14014
> 
> Particularly Post #4 and those that follow.
> 
> ...



It says from the Admin: RME's USB & FireWire interfaces are already close to the unique low latencies of RME PCI express cards. 

"Close" is a vague word and since RME does not sell a Thunderbolt device, what they say on a public forum may be less....err.... _precise_ than what a guy who works for them tells a long time client of that public forum.

This guy could have sold me a unit and made money but instead advised me to keep what I had. What does that tell you?


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2012)

This interchange is not quite so vague:

Forum post:
"I thought thunderbolt is a much faster connection which would allow lower latency and better overall performance of DAW's."

Response from RME:
"This is a myth."

Pretty clear to me!

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2012)

rgames @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> This interchange is not quite so vague:
> 
> Forum post:
> "I thought thunderbolt is a much faster connection which would allow lower latency and better overall performance of DAW's."
> ...



Your response is from a guy on a public forum who does not want to discourage people from buying existing RME products, especially since RME has no immediate plans to sell a TB audio interface. I don't assign that the same level of credibility as one from RME who could make money selling me a USB interface but advises me not to go that way.

But you are free to do so if you choose to.


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> Your response is from a guy on a public forum who does not want to discourage people from buying existing RME products, especially since RME has no immediate plans to sell a TB audio interface. I don't assign that the same level of credibility as one from RME who could make money selling me a USB interface but advises me not to go that way.
> 
> But you are free to do so if you choose to.


Actually, I don't. My whole point is that we can each pick our Gurus and share personal anecdotes and it does nothing to further the discussion.

If you want to talk technical, it makes a lot more sense to apply some rational thought to the process and see what we come up with.

Mine's above 

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2012)

rgames @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Your response is from a guy on a public forum who does not want to discourage people from buying existing RME products, especially since RME has no immediate plans to sell a TB audio interface. I don't assign that the same level of credibility as one from RME who could make money selling me a USB interface but advises me not to go that way.
> ...



Nah, I'll trust who I trust and leave the data measuring to you Raytheon types


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 10, 2012)

In this case it really doesn't matter what the developer says. What matters is whether you can feel the difference in latency performance.

I've already said what my threshold is: 256 samples on a keyboard (as opposed to KAT pads - see my next post). That's also variable, of course. Slow-attack cellos are different from a snare drum.

Now, the thing about the 3mS = 3' argument is that there really are superfreaky drummers who can feel that much latency tracking through a digital mixer. I've seen Steve Ferrone say he wanted a click advanced 4ms, and low and behold it really did make a difference to his groove.

But that's Steve Ferrone. I can't tell the difference.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 10, 2012)

I do feel the latency when playing KAT pads. Many years ago I measured the difference between the tap on the pad and the sound from an Alesis DM4 coming out the speakers, with mics on both in Pro Tools. It was something like 18ms if memory serves. And the MIDI notes - in addition to having about 8ms of jitter - were a few MS behind the audio too.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 10, 2012)

the comments on the new Avid thunderbolt PTHD interfaces say that thunderbolt has the same latency or less than PCIe. 

im still waiting on RME thunderbolt MADI 300 channel cards .


----------



## JJP (Sep 10, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 10 said:


> I do feel the latency when playing KAT pads. Many years ago I measured the difference between the tap on the pad and the sound from an Alesis DM4 coming out the speakers, with mics on both in Pro Tools. It was something like 18ms if memory serves. And the MIDI notes - in addition to having about 8ms of jitter - were a few MS behind the audio too.



Amen to that! When you're playing percussion, you hear things in a completely different way. Even the most insignificant latency adds up and can make things almost unplayable.


----------



## adg21 (Sep 11, 2012)

The first thing I think of when i look at this is: I want immediate tactile control of main volume (with a mute button), headphone volume, and mic-pre gain. And not have to navigate with a button to find the right one in order to do that.


I'd almost certainly want to plug these in:
http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/s ... ver--83351
http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electro ... d:20270541
And then sit a fancy mic-pre on my desk

...in which case I might as well get a PCIe card with a breakout cable.

Less elegant, less portable, but to me, less fiddly (and I hate things to be fiddly unnecessarily)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 11, 2012)

> The first thing I think of when i look at this is: I want immediate tactile control of main volume (with a mute button), headphone volume, and mic-pre gain



Funny, I have the power amp driving my big monitors connected directly to two outputs of a Metric Halo interface with no volume control other than the onscreen one. 
 
(I do have a monitor controller for my NFMs, but never mind...)


----------



## adg21 (Sep 11, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Sep 11 said:


> > The first thing I think of when i look at this is: I want immediate tactile control of main volume (with a mute button), headphone volume, and mic-pre gain
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm terrified of loud unexpected noises that threaten to deafen so happy to pay £38 to make that go away, not to mention the faff of getting the software up on screen


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 11, 2012)

And you're absolutely right to be terrified of it.

But I've been living dangerously for about five years now with nary a pop, so I do manage to sleep well anyway. 

There's really no faff, however - the monitor control panel loads up automatically when I start my computer (once every few days), and it fits between the end of the Dock and the edge of my screen. Plus I bring it up with a function key, and also I have a Griffin PowerMate knob set up bring it up and control the level.

I wouldn't tell anyone else to do this, though!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 12, 2012)

rgames @ Sun Sep 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Your response is from a guy on a public forum who does not want to discourage people from buying existing RME products, especially since RME has no immediate plans to sell a TB audio interface. I don't assign that the same level of credibility as one from RME who could make money selling me a USB interface but advises me not to go that way.
> ...



OK, Richard's prodding led me to try to get more specific answers (thanks Richard for being a pita I bugged the crap out of both RME and UA and consulted with some knowledgeable cats (thank you wst 3) also.

Apparently, it is not as simple as A outperforms B. The devil is in the details.

There was pretty much consensus around the following:

1. The best PCI-e implementations are still the best and Thunderbolt will equal that unless the implementation is f*&^ed up. That said, a great USB implementation may outperform a less well done PCI-e implementation and RME staunchly maintains that its USB comes very close to its PCI-e. Most people I talked to agree that RME's "secret sauce" for USB is probably the industry leader.

2. Apples' claim that TB can even surpass PCI-e is b.s. It IS PCi-e apparently.

3. TB helps bandwidth, which is helpful with running UA plugs on the Apollo but does not in and of itself make for lower latency. It depends on the implementation and drivers.

4. It is not possible to really judge a given TB vs a given USB until the units are actually out and can be tested one against the other. Until then, it is just speculation. In a few years when there are some of these actually out in the world, we will have a better "real world" evaluation.

5. According to Matthias of RME If you need TB connectivity a simple $200 TB to USB adapter maybe a better choice than expecting them to build one with TB, which would add at least $500 to the cost.

6 For my specific needs, buying the Sonnet chassis and putting my RME HDSPe-AIO (and UAD 2) in it was the wisest choice, as USB solutions might have come "close" but would not have outperformed it. And my tech guy did indeed find a way to make the Sonnet chassis quieter.

So thanks Richard for prodding me to look deeper.


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2012)

Bravo, Jay! Good info...!

Keep in mind, too, that I never doubted that TB might be better. My questions was whether what we already have is good enough.

If you're going to bring a product to market, you don't want to over-specify a component simply because it's new technology. There has to be some advantage because "new" almost always means "higher cost." And if you drive up the cost without providing a performance advantage then you either doom that product to failure or you need a huge marketing budget to convince people they actually need it.

As I said, I think when Apogee did that trade they decided USB2 was good enough.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2012)

What those gurus didn't say is how many billionths of a millisecond of difference there is between the various protocols.

I need to know how many hours of sleep to lose tonight because my Metric Halo interface is FireWire instead of being on an internal card in an expensive expansion chassis that's destined to become yet another boat anchor when the next slot change comes in two months.


----------

