Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Audio interface upgrade opinions sought

wayne_rowley

wayne_rowley

Active Member
Hi. My current setup is a 2018 Mac Mini with a UAD Arrow. This has served me very well over the last 4 years. I've never really got into UAD plug-ins but I do use the bundled ones when recording.

I've recently added a hardware synth (and may add more in future), which I can plug into the Arrow inputs, but I need to swap them around when recording microphones. I'd like an interface with additional inputs.

I have a couple of options in mind and I'd appreciate thoughts/opinions of others:

1. Sidegrade to UA Volt 476. This has two mic inputs and two line inputs which I can use for the synth (or a small mixer if I add more in the future). The built in vintage mode and compressor should compensate to a degree for the missing plugins, but these are not unison pres and I will lose some sound quality I suspect. On the other hand quite a cheap interface, and there is currently a deal that bundles some UADx plug-ins!

2. Upgrade to a UAD Apollo Twin Mk II. Although still 2-in it has optical in and my synth has SPDIF optical out. As I add more synths I could expand with an ADAT expander. Again, there is currently a deal to get some additional UAD plug-ins on top of the bundled ones. But it is much more expensive!

Thoughts and questions I would like help with please:
- The Apollo Twin Mk II is Thunderbolt 2. I know I can get an adapter but I'm worried about backwards compatibility on future Macs. Yet the Twin X is even more expensive!

- If I kept my Arrow but didn't use it, I could still keep using the UADx versions of my plug-ins with the Volt I assume (and Luna)?

- For the price difference between the two I could subscribe to UAD Spark for several years. A better option? Surely the days of DSP-driven effects are numbered with the power of current and future CPUs. So it comes down to the Unison pre-amps and converters. - Are they really that much better on the Apollo than the volt?

Thanks,
Wayne
Click to read more...
 
This is just me, but I would likely never “upgrade” to a product that already has a newer version available. Meaning, if you’re considering the Apollo, I’d skip the mk2 and get the X. The price difference isn’t huge. The X gives you a more up to date (and arguably faster) Thunderbolt protocol and updated converters.
 
Julian Krause have some pretty good and analytical reviews of various audio interfaces that could be worth looking at, if you haven't already. Here is the one for Volt 276 which I guess would be identical to the Volt 476



I don't have any insight into any other UA interfaces (and I don't use any of the plugins that come with the Volt), so I can't compare, but I bought the Volt 476 a while back. I jump between using it with a MacBook Air and an iPad to record hardware synths using all 4 inputs and haven't had any issues so far. For me, the onboard effects aren't really that important as they have such limited adjustment options, but they do sound good enough to be usable in some situations. I will probably at some point pick up a Volt 4 for the iPad setup so I don't have to constantly keep moving the 476 around.

If one likes the onboard effects and want all inputs on the front, the Volt 476P could be worth checking out as well.

Thunderbolt for audio interfaces just seem to limit the types of devices it can be connected to, so personally I don't see any benefits of that. If a USB cable ever breaks, there is a good chance you already have one lying around, or at least it will be a lot cheaper to replace.

Regarding the DSP effects, I totally agree, with the immense power from todays computers, and even mobile devices, I have trouble seeing much benefit.

Expansion is the only main drawback of the Volt devices IMO, there just isn't any. I have a Mackie Mix8 in case I need to setup more mixed inputs, but it takes up a bit of space. So if more inputs are needed, maybe a Scarlett 8i6 or 18i8 (or similar interfaces) could be worth looking at. Vanity is my reason for sticking with the Volts, they look great :D
 
If you like/need to use ~zero latency plugins while monitoring, I'd stick with UAD. It's less about saving CPU (unless you have an old computer) and all about using the plugins with ~zero latency while recording.

Otherwise, you'll get more for your money elsewhere. Since you're using a Mac, I'd also consider MOTU interfaces. I've read good things about the SSL interfaces, as well, but don't know anything about them.

I'm on Windows and use a Clarett4USB without any issues.

Not sure about on Macs, but I'm guessing overall latency may slightly increase if you move from Thunderbolt to USB, though.
 
Last edited:
Astronaut FX said:
This is just me, but I would likely never “upgrade” to a product that already has a newer version available. Meaning, if you’re considering the Apollo, I’d skip the mk2 and get the X. The price difference isn’t huge. The X gives you a more up to date (and arguably faster) Thunderbolt protocol and updated converters.
Click to expand...
That was my worry. Still not sure I can justify the cost of either the Mk II or the X.
 
Øivind said:
Julian Krause have some pretty good and analytical reviews of various audio interfaces that could be worth looking at, if you haven't already. Here is the one for Volt 276 which I guess would be identical to the Volt 476

Expansion is the only main drawback of the Volt devices IMO, there just isn't any. I have a Mackie Mix8 in case I need to setup more mixed inputs, but it takes up a bit of space. So if more inputs are needed, maybe a Scarlett 8i6 or 18i8 (or similar interfaces) could be worth looking at. Vanity is my reason for sticking with the Volts, they look great :D
Click to expand...
Yes, I've seen his video and a few others. The Volt seems better built than some others in that price range. I had a look at some of the Scarletts at the weekend and the build quality seems poor. In the shop the security tag was making the plastic on the back detach! It put me off one.
 
vitocorleone123 said:
If you like/need to use ~zero latency plugins while monitoring, I'd stick with UAD. It's less about saving CPU (unless you have an old computer) and all about using the plugins with ~zero latency while recording.

Otherwise, you'll get more for your money elsewhere. Since you're using a Mac, I'd also consider MOTU interfaces. I've read good things about the SSL interfaces, as well, but don't know anything about them.

I'm on Windows and use a Clarett4USB without any issues.

Not sure about on Macs, but I'm guessing overall latency may slightly increase if you move from Thunderbolt to USB, though.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I am thinking about the Motu M6, but at that price I'd want ADAT in and it doesn't have it. Also thinking about the Audiant ID44 Mk II.
 
Since you are on a Mac, you could consider getting another fairly inexpensive audio interface and set up an aggregate device that combines the two interfaces without the need for ADAT connectivity between the two.
 
I've got an X8 and it's fantastic (although if you're on Windows it can be a bit fussy to get it going, although the latest drivers are great).
 
Astronaut FX said:
Since you are on a Mac, you could consider getting another fairly inexpensive audio interface and set up an aggregate device that combines the two interfaces without the need for ADAT connectivity between the two.
Click to expand...
A useful feature for the odd occasion but not a long term solution. Trying to sync clocks of two different devices without a word clock is asking for trouble…
 
The simple question you need to answer for yourself is this: how much I/O do I need today, and how many IO do I *think* I'll need in the next few years. I saw you mention that you'd like ADAT -- what are you going to use ADAT for today or in the next few years? If it's for expanding out to analog gear, for example, ask yourself if you'll want to use ADAT with some converters, or would you prefer to have 8/8 lines already.

Reread your OP, you mentioned synths -- if you see yourself expanding, consider IO expandability as well as internal IO.
 
wayne_rowley said:
Yes, I've seen his video and a few others. The Volt seems better built than some others in that price range. I had a look at some of the Scarletts at the weekend and the build quality seems poor. In the shop the security tag was making the plastic on the back detach! It put me off one.
Click to expand...
I have the volt. Another thing to consider is the vintage preamp and compressor. Essentially like the uad plugins when tracking.

The quality is good and drivers as well.

The real question is how many Inputs and outputs you need.
With the volt for example, I use a mixer for synths and the two mix goes into the line in 3-4. So instead of having more inputs I just use an external mixer and track one synth at a time.
If I were to get the uad twin then I’ll have to get Another interface that has adat to connect to the uad twin if I also want to use the preamps.
Another option is the motu ultra lite mk5. I think that design is the holy grail of interfaces. It’s just perfect. Enough ins and outs, small, some dsp. Around $550-600.
 
wayne_rowley said:
A useful feature for the odd occasion but not a long term solution. Trying to sync clocks of two different devices without a word clock is asking for trouble…
Click to expand...
Ideally word clock or a digital connection is better than having the Mac sync everything for you because of jitter, but these days it should work fine without intervention.

Now, whether that's the best solution is another question, and I can't answer that. It is less kludgy than it sounds, however. For example, Metric Halo has a system for aggregating up to 128 I/Os spanning several of their interfaces over Ethernet cables (MH Link).

If you only want to add hardware synths, would a small mixer solve the problem?
 
Nick Batzdorf said:
Ideally word clock or a digital connection is better than having the Mac sync everything for you because of jitter, but these days it should work fine without intervention.

Now, whether that's the best solution is another question, and I can't answer that. It is less kludgy than it sounds, however. For example, Metric Halo has a system for aggregating up to 128 I/Os spanning several of their interfaces over Ethernet cables (MH Link).

If you only want to add hardware synths, would a small mixer solve the problem?
Click to expand...
I would agree that aggregate devices are more stable with the more recent Macs/interfaces.

As to a mixer, I’m thinking in this case it’s not ideal. The OP has a two input interface with that feature pretty decent mic preamps. If he puts even a four channel mixer in front, and plugs his synth and his mics into the mixer, and then the mixer into his current interface, then yes he will have solved the desire to add additional inputs.

But with this configuration, for any microphone recording, he will have introduced an additional mic preamp to the signal path, which I can see wanting to avoid.
 
Astronaut FX said:
But with this configuration, for any microphone recording, he will have introduced an additional mic preamp to the signal path, which I can see wanting to avoid.
Click to expand...
Most audio interface inputs these days are designed to accept mic, line, and often instrument inputs and sound fine. If you're releasing commercial recordings then you're going to want a high-end interface and dedicated everything anyway - i.e. this isn't a purist setup to start with.
 
Nick Batzdorf said:
Most audio interface inputs these days are designed to accept mic, line, and often instrument inputs and sound fine. If you're releasing commercial recordings then you're going to want a high-end interface and dedicated everything anyway - i.e. this isn't a purist setup to start with.
Click to expand...
And honestly, with the quality of lower-end interfaces these days, you can create commercial-release-ready recordings with most of what's out there. The floor for interfaces has gotten quite high, which is nice... my old Presonus and Digidesign interfaces from years back really sounded awful. Entry-level Focusrite, Steinberg, and MOTU boxes these days sound excellent, by comparison!

If more I/O is needed and built-in DSP isn't, then I'd look at MOTU or Focusrite for sure, they have some great bang-for-buck options with solid IO and good functionality.

I mostly just want my preamp to get out of the way and do its job silently, reliably, capably, steadfast in the background... and that's why I love RME. 😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom