# UA Apollo interface



## Maestro77 (Apr 30, 2013)

Does anyone own this? If so, what are your impressions? Do you have the duo or quad version? Did you opt for the Thunderbolt add-on? Considering making the jump to UA plugins and am also in the market to upgrade my 11-year old MOTU 896 interface. Tell me why I'll be blown away by Apollo!


----------



## jaeroe (Apr 30, 2013)

i'm having great luck with the apollo duo - got it in the fall to make a mobile rig and wanted to be able to seamlessly open sessions from my main rig (PT HD/TDM system). been working great. my PT rig actually went down in nov and i've been swamped, so just been working on the mobile rig the whole time. works great.

for ref, i also have a MOTU 2408 mkIII and an RME 9652. i like the apollo. the console works well for recording - easy to use, and being able to use the UAD plugins for monitoring live is fantastic. it really does a great job of making latency a non-issue.

i've never hit the limit of the duo on DSP - i work usually at 48k/24 bit. integrates very well with protools, but it is also multi client, so i actually run DP (sequencing) and PT at the same time with VI's hosted in VE Pro thru PT. (2 mac mini servers also connected via VE Pro).

for DSP i do use a lot of stuff i can open in my main PT rig, but i've been delving into the UAD plugsin more as time goes on. the UAD stuff sounds great. you can look up in the manual (which is on their website) just how many instances for each plugin you can get on which UAD model. so, you should be able to figure out what your needs are. aside from the bundle it comes with, i just used the coupon it came with the get Dream Verb. the channel strip is nice and offers a lot. they break out, as well, which is nice. i like the reverbs (use pro verb more than dream verb). but, it seems very efficient and powerful. i don't think i'd ever max out the duo re DSP. i don't use a ridiculous amount of DSP, so maybe someone else would. but, it is powerful.

re thunderbolt - i didn't get the TB card. it's $500 and as i understand it, it doesn't improve performance for the apollo. it's just so you can daisy chain thunderbolt devices. given that on a mac book pro FW adapter does take up a TB port, i can see how it might be useful at some point, but i don't need it currently.

the only con so far is pretty minor. i find the monitor output is a little hissy - not horrible, but it's there. but, the headphone outs are dead silent in that regard and recordings come out great. haven't had a chance to test the individual analog outs, but my guess is they're clean.

for me, this thing works great - plays well with others and was money very well spent. it is more expensive than other audio interfaces, but then you get a whole hell of a lot more. it's an interface plus DSP system, and it's very good at both.

can't compare to the 896, but the 2408mkIII is a joke compared to the apollo. only plus of the MOTU is it has 24 channels of digital, which the apollo only has 8. but sound, function, and just being rock solid, the apollo blows the MOTU away.


----------



## Maestro77 (Apr 30, 2013)

jaeroe, thank you so much! This is exactly the kind of testimonial I was looking for. Thanks for addressing so many points. Sounds like I may be able to also save a little cash and go with the Duo without the TB add-on. I'm a hobbyist composer/songwriter so I doubt I'd ever maxx it out (I'll check the chart on their site to make sure). Sounds like this would last me another decade, like the MOTU did.


----------



## gdoubleyou (May 1, 2013)

I have a duo, that I purchased in January, replacing a MOTU 828 mkI.

The sound was MORE! more defined, sort of like cleaning dirty windows, I now hear more details. the 828 was all that I had to compare with.

Tracking with a Neve channel strip, no noticeable latency.

I added the Fairchild, Pultec pro, Neve 88RS, Precision Hz and KHz enhancers, and Lexicon 224, to the classic bundle that's included.

Makes a huge difference in my mixes.

8)


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 1, 2013)

Using the Quad. Switched from a MOTU 2408 mk3. No comparison whatsoever. I hear a huge difference in the mid-range. So much clearer, punchier, warmer, etc. You can't go wrong buying one of these. Definitely recommend going with a quad for processing though.

Also, one thing to note is to look at the compatibility page. http://www.uaudio.com/support/apollo-support They recommend using some specific hardware for the Firewire I/O. And at present on PC only, the Thunderbolt option is NOT supported. So if you order, make sure you have the proper hardware etc.

Hope this helps.

Brad


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 1, 2013)

BTW... I'm running Win7 64bit i7 3930k, with the Sonnet Technologies -	Allegro FW800-E firewire card. Works flawlessly.


----------



## JohnG (May 1, 2013)

I have a UA Quad card, which is impossible to monitor through unless one can tolerate a lot of latency.

I don't understand physically how the Apollo would fit into a ProTools rig, with four interfaces attached?


----------



## jaeroe (May 1, 2013)

©johng - if you're referring to my post, i have two different rigs, one PT TDM system and this mobile rig with the apollo (which i run PT HD software, but no PT hardware). that was at least how i started using the apollo. since my main PT rig went down i've been working extensively on this mobile rig with the apollo. it's a great interface/system.

the apollo has a console designed for monitoring thru - bypasses the DAW, but still allows you to use the DSP. latency is something like 16 samples, or so they claim - certainly not detectable. i believe that is different than the PCI cards.

re Duo or Quad - maestro, if you're a hobbyist, really look at their chart and see how many instances you can get of which plugins before springing for the Quad. you can get a lot done on a Duo. Quad might be overkill for you, so worth considering before purchasing.


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 1, 2013)

JohnG @ Wed May 01 said:


> I have a UA Quad card, which is impossible to monitor through unless one can tolerate a lot of latency.
> 
> I don't understand physically how the Apollo would fit into a ProTools rig, with four interfaces attached?



With the Apollo, I can track/record with no latency through the console with the UAD plugins engaged. Lower latency all around with everything. It took me a little while to figure out the routing, but once you do it works flawlessly. For me anyways. I've used it with both Cubase and ProTools. 

Everyone I know that has an Apollo has all good things to say. Not heard a negative out of anyone. 

Brad


----------



## JohnG (May 1, 2013)

Thanks guys -- that is great colour. I am very interested.

But how does it actually plug in? Through a PCIe card? FWIW I am using ProTools HD 9.x with PT interfaces. The UA quad card I already own is in one of the slots now, and of course that will come out.

[edit: can I use the Firewire 800 port to hook up the Apollo unit to my Mac?]


----------



## Brian Ralston (May 1, 2013)

JohnG @ Wed May 01 said:


> Thanks guys -- that is great colour. I am very interested.
> 
> But how does it actually plug in? Through a PCIe card? FWIW I am using ProTools HD 9.x with PT interfaces. The UA quad card I already own is in one of the slots now, and of course that will come out.
> 
> [edit: can I use the Firewire 800 port to hook up the Apollo unit to my Mac?]



John,

Apollo is Firewire 800...or for $500 more you can get a Thunderbolt module to plug into that same unit.

See attached photo.


----------



## JohnG (May 1, 2013)

Thanks Brian. 

Do you know whether hooking up via Firewire 800 will give the near-zero latency? I am trying to understand whether I can do with the Apollo what I am doing now with the UA-2 card-based effects. That is, run two to four different effects on multiple channels.


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 1, 2013)

@JohnG Yes you can do the same. The Apollo will also let you record with the plugins enabled through the console. In other words --- let's say you are going to sing a much needed "Barry White love making" vocal part. In the Apollo console, you can add a 1176, neve 1073 eq, SSL channel strip, Fatso, etc. while also having an aux send to add reverb. You can select one of two options now. You either select monitor or record mode on the console. Monitor just monitors with the plugins in your chain and doesn't record the plugins engaged. But if you select Record mode, it allows you to record with the plugins enabled and added to the signal. Either way there is no noticeable latency. However, you have to disable the monitoring of the track you are recording in your DAW. Took a minute to figure out why everything sounded so out of phase. I have a pretty beefy system, but regardless of that, I am able to push the Apollo so much harder than I was before with my MOTU.

Hope this helps. If you need a chat, just shoot me a PM and we can arrange a phone or skype call. 

Brad


----------



## JohnG (May 1, 2013)

Thanks Brad!


----------



## chimuelo (May 1, 2013)

Glad to see you wanting to go realtime JohnG.
You'll see why I always have been excited using DSP racks.
UA and Soniccore have put in really decent mic pres too.
I can't tell a difference from my FMR-RNPs.
Apollos sound the same but have twice as many as my XITE-1.
Being mobile with such high quality is the future, and I seriously don't see anything but dedicated Audio RISC processors doing that.

Have a blast.


----------



## jaeroe (May 1, 2013)

JohnG @ Wed May 01 said:


> Thanks guys -- that is great colour. I am very interested.
> 
> But how does it actually plug in? Through a PCIe card? FWIW I am using ProTools HD 9.x with PT interfaces. The UA quad card I already own is in one of the slots now, and of course that will come out.
> 
> [edit: can I use the Firewire 800 port to hook up the Apollo unit to my Mac?]



john - what PT interface are you using and how are they connected? the apollo is essentially 2 things:

1) a really nice audio interface with nice mic pre's plus a 'zero' latency console for monitoring live inputs without latency.
2) dedicated UAD DSP system with it's own processors similar to the UAD-2 card you have.

but, the system is designed exceptionally well integrating these two different functions - audio interface and dedicated DSP system. that's where it really is it's own device.

it connects via FW800 or the optional Thunderbolt add-on card (which doesn't give you any performance benefit). but, they designed the connectivity very well and you have good control over how the apollo interfaces with you computer and how is uses resources - both on the apollo's chips themselves, and your host computer's resources.


----------



## JohnG (May 2, 2013)

jaeroe @ 1st May 2013 said:


> john - what PT interface are you using and how are they connected?



Hi Jaeroe,

Thanks for the advice. I have four 192 Digital I/Os, connected in pairs via two PCIe cards to the Mac. The only other slot is occupied by the existing UA-2 Quad card.

If the normal way to connect the Apollo is through the firewire interface and that will deliver the 16 sample latency, it sounds great. 

Thanks to everyone for all the advice. This is what the forum is all about.


----------



## gdoubleyou (May 4, 2013)

JohnG @ Thu May 02 said:


> jaeroe @ 1st May 2013 said:
> 
> 
> > john - what PT interface are you using and how are they connected?
> ...



Go out to the UAD site and checkout the videos, you can use your current uad card with the Apollo during the mixing process, for more UAD power.

_-)


----------



## JohnG (May 4, 2013)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'm exchanging emails with UA's support guys now to hone in on some fine points.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 4, 2013)

John, 

Can you keep us updated. I'm thinking of ditching the 3 x 2408mark3's I have and going with this. Be very interested to know what you decide. 

Cheers


----------



## jaeroe (May 4, 2013)

JohnG @ Thu May 02 said:


> jaeroe @ 1st May 2013 said:
> 
> 
> > john - what PT interface are you using and how are they connected?
> ...



is your PT system TDM or native? you won't improve upon TDM and certainly there is more I/O with your current number of interfaces. the apollo uses a separate console app (same type of thing as RME products) so you can monitor zero latency when tracking live. you mute the track you're recording to in your DAW and un-mute for playback and tracking against. once setup, it's easy, but it isn't the same a a protools TDM system where you have full input etc capabilities. punching you do on a separate track, etc.

but, it's obviously cheaper than a TDM system. works well with protools software. and, unlike Digi/Avid hardware, you can run multiple audio apps all accessing the apollo simultaneously.


----------



## JohnG (May 4, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ 4th May 2013 said:


> John,
> 
> Can you keep us updated. I'm thinking of ditching the 3 x 2408mark3's I have and going with this. Be very interested to know what you decide.
> 
> Cheers



Either way, I hadn't planned to use the Apollo as an audio interface, as I already invested in a full TDM system for inputs and outputs. 

I was just hoping to replace a UA PCIe-card-based system (that introduces latency with every plugin) for one with near-zero latency. 

So far, I haven't really been able to fully understand what they are writing to me, or vice versa perhaps. I'll be glad to share if I ever figure it out.


----------



## jaeroe (May 4, 2013)

The 'zero latency' refers to monitoring live through the unit. As it bypasses the DAW, I don't think you can use the Apollo the way you want. Ask UAD, but I don't think it will work that way.

Just ask UAD what the best option is for using their plugins on a PT system with minimum latency. You might already be there.


----------



## JT3_Jon (May 4, 2013)

JohnG @ Sat May 04 said:


> Either way, I hadn't planned to use the Apollo as an audio interface, as I already invested in a full TDM system for inputs and outputs.
> 
> I was just hoping to replace a UA PCIe-card-based system (that introduces latency with every plugin) for one with near-zero latency.
> 
> So far, I haven't really been able to fully understand what they are writing to me, or vice versa perhaps. I'll be glad to share if I ever figure it out.



I just read this and want to make sure you 100% understand what the apollo does in terms of latency. The apollos built in UAD card can be used both for tracking plugins in the apollo console (i.e. on your input sources like guitar, vocals, etc), and as mix plugins in your DAW, with the ability to do both at the same time. However, the apollos near-zero latency when using UAD plugins is ONLY for tracking, in which you get a choice of recording the source into your DAW with the UAD plugins enabled, without the UAD plugins, or with some routing both at the same time. When in mix mode, the UAD plugins are NOT, I repeat, NOT at near-zero latency. It has latency just like the PCI card, as the audio still needs to go out of your DAW, be processed by the UAD DSP, and go back into your DAW. In fact, when using FW800 they have more latency than using a PCI card. According to UA the Thunderbolt Option Card provides greater UAD plug-in instances, improved performance at higher sample rates, and reduced UAD plug-in latency versus Apollo’s standard FireWire connection, but it doesn't specify if its any less latency vs a PCI card. I would suspect they are still the same. 

Check out a cool youtube though of some PT users demonstrating using/abusing the Apollo w/ Thunderbolt with a new Mac laptop @ 32 samples. Wonder how it compares to straight FW800. If anyone can find a comparison between FW800 & Thunderbolt please post! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L-7ni7AybS0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... -7ni7AybS0)

However, that being said, As of UAD software v7.0, both Apollo and Apollo 16 have a feature called Virtual I/O. This feature allows you to route the output of a virtual (software) instrument, or any other DAW track, directly into Apollo’s Console application — adding Realtime UAD plug-ins to these sources. Thats right, REAL TIME UAD PLUGINS FOR VIRTUAL INSTRUMENTS!!! According to UA, Virtual I/O reduces the inherent latency associated with UAD plug-ins inserted on a virtual instrument or other track in the DAW. How well this will work, how many tracks we get, etc are yet to be seen, but it should be out with the next update, hopefully later in the month, and sounds like this could be the droids your looking for!!* 

Hope this helps!

*still May the 4th, so had to slip a Star Wars reference in.


----------



## Brian Ralston (May 4, 2013)

JohnG @ Sat May 04 said:


> I was just hoping to replace a UA PCIe-card-based system (that introduces latency with every plugin) for one with near-zero latency.



There are NO...I repeat no card based systems that have zero latency when used in the DAW. It is just that a lot of DAWs solve this problem by compensating for that delay by sending out stuff ahead of time (all automatically under the hood)...so when it comes back...it is in time. 

So when you are experiencing this latency with UA plugs it is because either the Pro Tools version is old enough to not have Automatic Delay Compensation (Version 8)...or it does have it (Vs. 9 and 10) and it is not being used. What version of PT TDM are you using John?


----------



## Eric (May 5, 2013)

The Apollo was a major upgrade for me, and it's been nothing short of a game changer! I've been running VI's in real time with plugins by routing the ADAT out and directly back in. As a keyboard player first and foremost, the ability to mix and match UAD plugins while practicing is incredibly wonderful for me!!! For instance, I'm able to play my Rhodes and clavinet into the softube fender amp sim, and that affects the way I play the instruments - far more valuable to me than just tracking dry and adding fx later. Or my VI piano chain, which lately has been Neve 31102, Shadow Hills compressor & EMT 250. If there's any added latency, I can't feel it. Highly recommended by this user.


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2013)

Brian Ralston @ 4th May 2013 said:


> So when you are experiencing this latency with UA plugs it is because either the Pro Tools version is old enough to not have Automatic Delay Compensation (Version 8)...or it does have it (Vs. 9 and 10) and it is not being used. What version of PT TDM are you using John?



On v9; I know how to use delay compensation in PT -- that's not the issue.

I'm talking about composing. I'm possibly confused about Apollo, but I thought that the whole idea was that you could compose / play instruments while listening through FX without introducing the normal delay from those FX. Maybe that's wrong, or incompatible with my setup.

Anyway I really do appreciate all the help! I'm in touch with their tech support and will not be buying anything unless it offers a substantial benefit. Given the FW800 natural limitations I am not sure if it's going to work the way I had hoped.


----------



## Eric (May 5, 2013)

John, yes the good news is that the Apollo will give you the functionality you seek - IMO that's the whole reason to own one. UA's Console app acts as a front end to your DAW. I know they're planning to update, and I can't speak for how things will change, but I can tell you how I'm achieving composing thru fx now. I have a cable going from the 1st ADAT out port to the 1st ADAT in port. In Ableton, I route the channel with my VI to ext 11 & 12. This comes out ADAT channels 1 & 2 on the Console app, which I'm able to hear live before it goes back thru the DAW. There are 4 insert and 2 aux fx, and I can load these up and play with no discernible latency. There's a switch on the Console app which allows you to either record the fx into your DAW as you track, or just monitor with fx and still track dry. Hope that helps


----------



## Simon Ravn (May 6, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 04 said:


> John,
> 
> Can you keep us updated. I'm thinking of ditching the 3 x 2408mark3's I have and going with this. Be very interested to know what you decide.
> 
> Cheers



That is exactly my situation!

I am almost 100% gone Vienna Ensemble Pro for my slaves and I don't need ADAT anymore (although it's nice to have one like Apollo does). I just need to know if it will tax the CPU more than a PCI solution. I really don't want to downgrade my system in that respect. I still need to run a ton of stuff from my Mac Pro inside VEP + two slaves, without getting into CPU trouble. But I don't think there are many people out there yet doing this with the Apollo so I guess the only thing I can do is to make that (expensive) jump and see for myself if it works or not. :shock:


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 6, 2013)

Simon Ravn @ Mon May 06 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 04 said:
> 
> 
> > John,
> ...



Hey Simon and Stephen,

I have a similar setup with slaves and have used the MOTU 2408 mk3's Optical out into the Apollo. But the thing to keep in mind is the number of inputs/outputs you may need. The Apollo can only receive 8 channels of lightpipe via 2 different inputs. Only 4 per input. 

The Apollo 16 has no Optical ins/outs. But it does have the D-Sub ports. I have the Apollo Quad and it has no D-Sub.

As far as the routing and monitoring is concerned, I would be more than happy to set up a Skype meeting, and just show you what you can and can't do. Just PM if you like.

Brad


----------



## Simon Ravn (May 6, 2013)

guydoingmusic @ Mon May 06 said:


> Simon Ravn @ Mon May 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 04 said:
> ...



I know But you don't need ins/outs when all your audio runs over LAN


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 6, 2013)

Her's an idea.

I have a Sonnet Echo Express Thunderbolt chassis with an RME HDSPe-AIO interface and UAD-2 Quad in it. If someone buys an Apollo Quad and finds it is not working well for them, I might be open to a trade.


----------



## Synesthesia (May 6, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 04 said:


> John,
> 
> Can you keep us updated. I'm thinking of ditching the 3 x 2408mark3's I have and going with this. Be very interested to know what you decide.
> 
> Cheers



Hi Stephen,

I've recently (and rather nervously) ditched my two RME MADI cards and SSL Delta link in favour of VEP into Protools over LAN.. Midi still running via MOL. 

Works like a dream. One thing is that the sound is different. More precise in some bizarre way, but definitely different. Took a bit of getting used to, and a few adjustments in my master channel processing (I'm getting a bit more low end from VEP than I did through the RME cards) but when I upgraded my tools rig it probably saved me about 5 grand in interfaces!

On the Apollo, Geoff Foster used it on a score he mixed recently for me, as an outboard fx unit, connected to his laptop, and it worked perfectly and sounded great.

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 6, 2013)

Simon Ravn @ Mon May 06 said:


> I know But you don't need ins/outs when all your audio runs over LAN



My apologies, Simon. I thought you were saying that you would still be using one additional audio card for a slave. 

I think you were asking about the CPU usage... I might be wrong again. Apologies in advance if I am. 

My main system is a Win7 64bit i7 3930k with 64gigs of ram. I am using the Sonnet Allegro FW800-E to connect the Apollo. Just so you know what I'm working with. But I have seen a substantial improvement in overall performance. I have a 700 track template that is handled remarkably well by the Apollo. CPU usage is not an issue for me. I run Cubase in 32 bit mode and have had no issues no matter what the project size. 

For me the UA Console is the thing that seals the deal. Just the routing possibilities you have, opens up a ton of options. 

Brad


----------



## Simon Ravn (May 6, 2013)

guy,

thanks for the info! I think I will take the plunge as soon as possible and cross my fingers. Yes, I might use one slave with ADAT out, but Apollo will do that for me, and then I have plenty of analog IO for the couple of synths etc. that I have + reverb in/out.

I just read about some problems around forums regarding losing connection to the card during work, FW bus bandwidth issues etc., but I hope that isn't a a problem on one of the supported "best" systems, like my Mac Pro. But of course you can never be 100% sure.


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 6, 2013)

I had some of those issues too before I got my new system built and used the hardware UA recommended. Once I made the switch, I have had no issues to date. Hopefully you will have the same luck! 

Brad


----------



## twtech (May 6, 2013)

Hi Paul
why are you using MOL with VEP instead of VEP's own midi/network routing?
what's your experience of the down/upsides of doing it either way?
thanks!


----------



## jaeroe (May 6, 2013)

i'd be curious to hear how paul is using them together. i have VE Pro connecting in protools, but do my sequencing in digital performer, so MOL is necessary to trigger VE Pro on that case.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 7, 2013)

Simon Ravn @ Mon May 06 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 04 said:
> 
> 
> > John,
> ...



Indeed Simon. The 2408s have been really solid, but it's time to move on I think. And of course it's not jut the 2408s, I have RME cards in each of the slaves too. 

In many ways doing everything over LAN is so much quicker now (in Cubase at least) - no more real time stem bounces for example.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 7, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Mon May 06 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 04 said:
> 
> 
> > John,
> ...



Thanks chap. You still using plogue?


----------



## Audio (May 7, 2013)

The new update (7.0) came out today, and the new virtual I/O kicks butt. Will be nice to keep high buffer settings in Logic without it affecting latency.


----------



## JT3_Jon (May 7, 2013)

Audio @ Tue May 07 said:


> The new update (7.0) came out today, and the new virtual I/O kicks butt. Will be nice to keep high buffer settings in Logic without it affecting latency.



How many Virtual I/O's do you get? On a side note I never had a problem switching between logic's low latency mode when I wanted to record, and switching it off when I want to hear back all my mix plugins. But perhaps now we can have our cake and eat it too.


----------



## guydoingmusic (May 7, 2013)

JT3_Jon @ Tue May 07 said:


> Audio @ Tue May 07 said:
> 
> 
> > The new update (7.0) came out today, and the new virtual I/O kicks butt. Will be nice to keep high buffer settings in Logic without it affecting latency.
> ...



Seems to be 4 mono Virtual I/O's which of course can be linked together in the console for stereo use. I can tell a noticeable difference already. Played around with it for a couple of minutes tonight. 

Brad


----------



## Simon Ravn (May 8, 2013)

People are very disappointed with the V7 update over at UA. And I must admit it sounds really ridiculous that you only get two stereo pairs over from your DAW. They should be able to do as many as they want, even though it will eat a little DSP each time. I don't get it but maybe there are some technical issues preventing this from really being a brilliant thing. In my case however, I will probably do most plugins inside Logic so it wouldn't matter but I can imagine why people working differently are disappointed.


----------



## Audio (May 8, 2013)

Some people are disappointed, others like the update.

The main disappointment over at UA is that Apollo owners been asking for more advanced routing in console (unrelated to VI) practically since the unit was released, and this update still didn't provide that.

Also, people are having issues with the new plugins being buggy, but it was like that when they released the APIs recently, too. Some people are furious that console doesn't have labels, lol (though, that wouldn't be a bad feature).


----------

