Thanks for featuring Scarlett! To clarify, it is possible to monitor with plugins, without noticeable latency, when working with our USB audio interfaces like Scarlett. Several factors contribute to that, in addition to drivers. Direct monitoring is not the only option. Also, current Scarlett range audio interfaces feature sturdy, metal controls rather than the plastic parts used in the original range and certainly don't feel "cheap". John // Focusrite UK 🇬🇧
@@bilalnachabeh On the contrary, I think that it is not fair for the Apollo interface to be compared to an old and cheap Focurite interface when you can hear so little difference of quality for a so big difference of price :D
what we hear on RU-vid is lossy audio that removed the lesser noticeable parts that make up the full spectrum, those abandoned harmonics and frequency ranges contains acoustic clues to emotions, recording space reflections (or the lack of), the more complicated the signal the more obvious this becomes, of course listening environment and equipment is also a limiting factor. It depends on your target (or intended) audience
These are good points. Thanks you. I think there is a relatively small difference in sound quality for many listeners. In fact, although the Apollo is much better in many ways, my intention was to empower people on a budget - that they can make great recordings with budget interfaces. In fact, I love the Focusrite 2i2! It’s one of my top recommendations (for people on a budget).
You dont have to buy a expensive interface to avoid latency I have the scarlett 2i2 and if you set the sample rate to the proper setting and use ASIO and use the proper driver you can run amp sims and some plug in effects in real time as far as tracking, with so little latency I dont even notice. Dont think you need to spend 1000$ to get great low latency sound in real time without direct monitor with a little research. You dont need a ton off plug ins on to track any way.
I’ve used a Scarlett 2i2 to track professional recordings while on tour without any issues. On Windows and a decently spec-ed laptop I get less than 6ms of latency while recording. That’s about equivalent to standing 6ft away from your guitar amp! So it’s not noticeable enough to effect my timing while playing. I’ve never needed to use direct monitoring for anything. If you struggle with latency on your setup: lower your buffer settings while tracking, then increase them while mixing (lower buffer settings increase CPU usage), check your DAWs latency compensation options, and find a guide for optimizing your PC for audio recording. It can help tremendously!
there's little difference in spoken word. But once I get a singer recording, the vocal signal of the Apollo will definitely withstand plugins and EQ a lot better and with more substance while still standing out in the mix. GREAT VIDEO.
Anyone looking at improving noise floor but keeping price down should seriously give audient’s interfaces a try. I used a focusrite scarlett 2i2 second gen for years but man that thing was just NOISY! I switched to an evo 4 and jesus that thing is so much quieter, it sounds better, it’s cheaper, it even has significantly less latency, all around just so much better for live applications, as well as recording. Definitely give them a look
I have Audient iD4 MKII next to the Apollo Twin X and I can say it perhaps even bests it in playback quality. (The preamps on the Apollo are better, though.)
Great balance between budget friendly interfaces for starters and high end interfaces for the pros. I just subscribed after randomly watching your second video. Great content with no time wasting
Great video! The only correction I would mention is that keyboards are usually plugged into a line level input rather than instrument level. Doing so can easily overload an instrument input. i.e try plugging a keyboard into the input on a guitar amp-you better start the volume at “1”
@@cuda426hemiidi or usb is for data only, not sound. Keyboards/synths need to be plugged into line inputs, stereo for the best results. They only need to be connected via midi if you’re using softsynths or plan on recording/playing midi data, which most of us do. But just connecting via midi or usb will result in no sound at all from the actual keyboard.
@@KBizzy Hence why my Keystation 61 is called a controller. Analog synth (or piano) guys would need line ins but most of us are happy with software because you are only limited by budget as to quality of sounds and there are a LOT of free samples that analog guys can only dream about - see the Spitfire Abbey Road/BBC orchestra stuff. I like the single USB connect (altho it has MIDI too) Either way you will have mic/line inputs as well as instrument in (and MIDI i/o) on even the cheapest interface - a non issue. Cheers ! 🎸
@@cuda426hemi plenty of people also use hardware and it works the same way with Midi, but you need audio for the sound of the synth. I’d say in this forum that probably more people use hardware than not.
When I first saw this video popup, I initially thought "here's someone else trying to compare apples and oranges, slamming the Apollo....I was wrong. I started out with the 2i2 which I will say worked wonderfully and I still have....as a backup. A good friend who was an engineer said to start putting money aside because eventually, I will want to upgrade. I did some research and eventually purchased the Apollo Quad. Both interfaces are great, but as you pointed out....they are still like night and day in terms of bang for your buck I could tell you did your research and you presented the information in a non-biased manner, still leaving it up to the watcher to make their own decision. I am not a musician, I own a radio station, do voice over work and produce training and gaming videos. I love my Apollo and wish I could have gotten it sooner..... and the best advice I can give anyone from a user standpoint.....if you can't afford an Apollo, get the 2i2 and save up for it, better yet...buy the Apollo and then get a 2i2 as a backup but never get rid of the 2i2. IMHO, WELL DONE presentation. Not promoting any company, but if you want the Apollo now, and can't afford the price.... go to www.sweetwater.com and if qualified, you can purchase it through them on a payment plan. I've done business with them for years with the same honest and highly knowledgeable representative. Thanks for the video...time well spent watching it.
Most audio-interfaces don’t aim to have a specific sound-characteristic like a lot of designated preamps do. Rather, manufacturers try to make them sound as clean and un-coloured as possible. This is the case for both the Focusrite and UAD interfaces. Modern budget Focusrite interfaces do a mich better job at this than older ones, as do other interfaces from other brands. (Personal recommendations would include the Motu M2 and M4 the entire Audient range. While it is true that pure audio quality might be measurably higher on the UAD interfaces, truth is, nowadays it isn’t as huge as it used to be. IMO there are much more important factors than the interface, beginning producers should focus on. Namely acoustic treatment, microphones, their sources themselves and the players as well as the engineers level of skill. A professional producer will be able to create a professional recording with a Scarlett 2i2 in a treated room using just a reasonably priced condenser mic, while a beginner will most likely not be able to create anything near to that using top of the line gear in an untreated room. If you can you should invest in your studio in this order: Experience -> Instruments -> a *good*, ideally expandeable audio interface (Audient id14 mk2 for instance), headphones and a mic that makes sense for your instrument -> Room -> Monitoring -> Microphones(for specific tasks) -> Preamps -> improvements/other gear that sparks your interest Hope this will help anyone :D
Yona, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this. I agree! There are other things to invest in that will make a MUCH bigger difference! Plus, those things (microphones, acoustic treatment, monitoring) tend to remain relevant much longer, making them a longer term investment as well.
@@violin-schwerin yup, if I ever need to upgrade I’m eying an ultralite mk5, but the avb options are enticing as well. I’m gonna do the proper research once it gets to it xD
This channel is gold for those who want to start, improve, or perfection their knowledge in sound and mixing audio. Thank you for your awesome work that is really appreciated. Blessings and Peace
Love these videos. Highly informative and easy to watch. The graphics/pics showing routing are excellent. Truly helps you understand what is being discussed. Thanks for making these videos.
In my opinion the Scarlett pres sound great. Very clear, transparent... albeit a touch bright. They’re really not that far behind my Apollo in their sound quality though. Just goes to show, the preamp ain’t the problem!
It never is. Usually you buy a preamp to add color, or a certain vibe. The pres on cheaper interfaces are made to be clean and transparent and not add anything. The difference in an expensive preamp comes to that color it adds
The Apollo preamps are good but aren't anything special. However, the headphone amp in the Apollo is MILES better. Like, the Scarlett doesn't even come close.
I have lately been a Zoom H4N as an interface, mainly for convenience. It works really well for recording acoustic guitar, honestly. Latency was horrible and it was tough to track even when using the onboard monitoring, but then I found that I could half the buffer size in the ASIO settings and it is perfectly usable.
I ran into the same issue. I use my H4n for my main system microphone, and I've been running it into Voicemeeter Banana as a virtual mixer. The result is pretty darned good. I use it as the microphone for my amateur radio station, and for for my MIDI stuff. The H4n would let me connect instruments, but I don't have any electric instruments. I'd have to add a microphone to anything I'd want to input. I use a mike and standalone amp for when I want to play some really dirty blues on the harmonica, and I could probably connect the mike to the H4n and run it into Voicemeeter and then to Reaper. I don't have bad enough latency to matter. So far. I use a CME Bud Pro dongle to connect a couple of MIDI controllers to the system. The latency on that device is said to be around 3ms. I can't hear it. BTW, that dongle is amazing. If you want to use BLE MIDI with Windows, that device will save you so many headaches, as BLE MIDI is outright broken on Windows. Add the Bud Pro, or one of CME's other "WIDI" devices, and you get low-latency wireless connectivity that works right out of the box. Worth a look. (No, I don't work for them. They just solved a major frustration of mine, and if anyone else is having the problems I had, I want to give them a solution.)
Using a simple chain in my Apollo I am able to achieve a crisp and warm authentic tape sounding vocal BEFORE it hits the ProTools then with a polish in LUNA using Authentic NEVE Summing I can get every mix solid punchy warm clean crisp right and balanced every time. The vocals cut through the mix every time it saves a lot of time and resources. Exactly like using outboard equipment but this equipment is all in the box. You even have to manually adjust most of it to get it right.
I held out on going with UAD for a while. When I finally got an Apollo Twin X I was blown away at my work flow with the unison features. I am starting to work more with Luna. So far, I love it.
Latency was the biggest reason I got my Apollo Twin. Frustration for an artist to not have real time playback and adjusting buffer size yields inconsistent results.
Nice video. In my opinion, the gap in audio quality between interfaces is becoming less and less of a concern, meaning even some of the lower priced units can sometimes sound better than the high end units. I've got a UAD Apollo setup but I'm extremely impressed by the Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd gen I have and sometimes question the outlay of cash I spent on the Apollo system. Not that its bad by any stretch of the imagination, but I just don't think that it's worth it's cost when there are other excellent sounding interfaces on the market for less money. In closing, good informative video and to all who are considering an interface, careful of going down the plug-in rabbit hole!
You are an incredible communicator!! I already understand lots of this material but I came to listen to your take on it just because I appreciate how you communicate your ideas. It can help me become a better communicator. Great content :)
Pro Tip you can use a Stereo Breakout Cable - 1/4 inch TRS Female to Left and Right 1/4 inch TS Male to add a second headphone output if not using for studio monitors or if wanting to add a home theater sub you can use dual 1/4 ts to dual rca cables
I like your style, straight forward and easy to understand…..I m from Hong Kong and I have watched many videos about audio technology…..you are great….👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Good information I was totally into all kinds of microphone preamp interfaces. Apogee, RME fireface 800, Nuemann km184 avatone tube mic's etc. Then I realized it's how you record the material, gain settings , Mic positioning, balance the instruments. I have a Tascam $350 uh7000. it records low noise, clean audio and I find the plugins to suffice. I usually do a low shelf to cut through the mix, mids compression. and basically get a decent recording that sounds well
I went from recording with a focusrite 2i2 and an AT2020, to an apollo twin and a Neuman tlm 103. Huge huge huge difference in quality. Well worth the money. The UA preamp models are very impressive as well. Having worked with a hardware v76 I can say the plugin is very close.
Hello, I currently use a 2i2 3rd gen. How did the Apollo improve the quality? Sometimes I’ll use my analog gear (pre, compressor) into the 2i2 and sometimes I go direct into the 2i2.
@@apostolicway2604 I believe your setup will be better than using an expensive audio interface only.. You've got dedicated analog equipment doing the stuff rather than the all in one very good interface with software
Thanks for making this video! Great info on the difference between interfaces. I still have a 2nd Gen 2i2, but haven’t had the need to use amps for guitar. I’ve only used it for vocals, clean guitar and monitoring; does the job so far. But I have considered applying amps, and now I know what to look out for. Thanks again!
This was very helpful, thank you! I use the Scarlett 2i2 today, and it does the job. I occasionally record spoken word, but 95% of my use is Zoom meetings. Another difference between the user experience between the two is the cable routing. It isn’t helpful that the Scarlett places the input connections at the front. The Universal Audio does this right, in my opinion, placing them at the back.
I own the Focusrite Scarlett 18i8, first generation and I have never had latency issues with it. I’ve had it for a long time and only had a few issues with it and they were mostly because I forgot to update the software after I updated my OS on my Mac.
Thanks for posting! I found you can squeeze a lot of performance out of very little. A while back, I was shopping around the Focusrite Clarett budget but ended up with the Roland Studio Capture. It seemed to be a better bang, especially in the input dept. For less money, it has 12 nice pres with 12 switchable combination inputs, 4 line inputs and 2 digital plus 10 outputs and everything is assignable. With DSP and direct monitoring, I couldn't go wrong although the latency is negligible without it. People should also be advised that latency is contingent on your audio buffer size, no matter what unit you may choose. In the meantime, keep posting, we're watching. :)
You are legit with straight to the point info my friend! Some tutorials and videos with tips take forever to get to the point with fancy edits with music. You provided all answers with no fancy jazz! 🙏 Just subbed to your channel! Keep the content coming!
You are mostly correct. A fantastic musician with great mics and instruments, can sound pretty much identical on cheap vs expensive interfaces.... That being said, the logic to use a cheap interface, when you've spent a ton on instruments and other gear, and you work hard for the best sound, doesn't make sense.... You'll likely include your interface as gear you want to focus on if you're working hard to sound great. If you're a hobbyist and aren't a career musician, you'll likely not notice the difference in cheap vs expensive. And the interface will never make a poor musician or crappy mics and instruments or a bad singer SOUND GOOD. I'd say the most glaring difference for a hobbyist would be the quality UAD effects that come bundled with Apollo.
Thx for the review. I can hear the difference between the two interfaces. It is subtle. The Apollo is fuller and has more headroom. The Scarlet is fine and has a "cooler" sound as opposed to the "warmer" Apollo. I don't know which one is more accurate because I'm not familiar with the Shure 7B mic.
compared to Apollo, spoken words from the Scarlet has an on/off quality, minor details within each spoken word are missing, it will definitely not matter when played back on a clock radio, computer speaker, oem ear buds or when someone is sleepy, tired or sick but it is noticeable starting with decent monitoring equipment and will be more obvious with better resolving equipment
I use a 1st gen Scarlett 2i2 as an A to D converter, taking line-level audio from a DJ mixer. I use RCA to XLR cables and didn't realise that the Scarlett would then take this in at Mic level until I read the manual. But, it still works superbly. At minimum gain, I still get about 10dB headroom before clipping, and the 2k rather than 10k input impedance doesn't cause any problems either. It seems you just cannot go wrong with a 2i2.
I have both. I Use the Scarlett for my beat making on my PC laptop, and I use the apollo when I’m recording vocals on my MacBook. I have use for both of them 🔥
For home recording I use an old M-Audio Fastrack Ultra which was a great value at the time, big features for little money. I also use the Zoom R-24 which is great for acoustic recording because it is completely silent and runs on batteries so it's very portable. You can record 8 tracks (mono) simultaneously and have 24 tracks total. It also has a programmable drum machine and can be used as a controller for any mainstream DAW. It's a Swiss army knife for recording and, more importantly for me, songwriting (SHT Musik) . In fact, I own 3, one is at my rehearsal space, one I use at home and one is a spare. I have damaged several of my preamps on my oldest one through my own stupidity and want to have a backup for when they stop making them.
I will tell you this. The Motu 828es is a killer interface has everything and awesome drivers. I bought mine when it first came out no disappointment on my end. You gotta try it out. I had a apogee ensemble and I liked the Motu better. Apogee had all sorts of issues with drop outs clicks pops. The apogee cost way more. Like I said Motu for the win they got something for everyone. Customer support was excellent for me.
This is very clear and understandable for an older guy like me. I’m setting up a home podcasting studio using a scarlet 4i4..very useful information. Thank you 🏴
Awesome video bro ! There is a slight difference in low end between the two but In the Apollo your really just paying for the DSP and plugins, also there’s more ground noise on the Focusrite then the apollo due to lt being solo bus powered. Apollo ls great but you can get the same quality buying the arrow lf you don’t want the plugins and others features
This is an important distinction to make. Apollo’s DSP and plugins work LIVE. It isn’t just letting you run more plugins in your DAW, it is a way to get a produced sound live, without latency or a ton of hardware. And there are a TON of times when this comes in handy professionally.
The main thing you're getting with higher end interfaces is better preamps + better AD/DA converters. Conversion, imo, is a big deal. I opted for an Audient id14 mkii as an upgrade to my Scarlett 2i2.
the Apollo is a beast yeah the Scarlett works but you’re missing out on a lot of goodness with the Apollo and it does all the processing so your computer doesn’t have to … the quality of recording and plugins you can buy for it some come free with it too
Bravo on this video. Incredibly informative and thorough. I learned so much from you. Keep making great content like this. You also have a great speaking voice
One extra benefit to Apollo is you get the LUNA DAW, and that has the console built in. Other interfaces have their software and then you also need a DAW. Apollo integrates everything into one, but if you do want to use a 3rd party DAW you can simply use the Apollo Console like explained above then into your DAW. Another benefit, if you can afford it go with Apollo because you will spend far less time trying to edit to get things sounding right, it's clean input alone means you will have less hassle. But, as said, it comes to what you can afford.
yeah im able to monitor with effects scarlett 2i2 over usb, i think the main reason im considering upgrading is for higher audio quality - im still new, but i just wanna research and make sure im not limited by equipment
This is a bit misleading. The biggest source of latency has almost nothing to do with the interface - it's the DAW itself and specifically the plugins being used. I mean, sure, the Apollo is a nice interface, but it's not necessary to have all that on board processing. There are tons of ways to work around latency. TONS. And once you strip away all the hype, there is very little performance difference between interfaces. I've used interfaces from Tascam, Focusrite, Behringer, UAD, etc. Lots of companies make great interfaces. One point I will concede is that drivers can be a problem. Tascam for instance has historically not been very good with their drivers. If you can get a Tascam driver that works well on your system the interface is fine, but it can be a challenge. I had an old Tascam interface that worked wonderfully, but after about six years of use finally died. Since I was so happy with it, I replaced it with a newer version of the same Tascam interface . . . but the drivers were different and BAD. Never did get that thing to work right.
Around 5:00 you talk about interfaces which have built-in effects such as amp simulators etc. Personally, I would rather not be restricted to the effects which come with an interface? After all there are a lot of software amp simulator VSTs available for your DAW which are cheap or even free! There are ways to get round the direct "dry signal" monitor issue. A trick I use is to connect a direct box to split the guitar signal so that the direct signal goes to the DAW and a second feed goes to an el-cheapo effect pedal which I can set to something vaguely approximating the sound I think I'm going to want. Send the output of that to a second input of the interface and use that as what you listen to when tracking. (Yes, this does mean you need an interface with two inputs, but just about all of them do these days). You can also record the pedal output on a separate track too: after all, modern DAWs have infinite tracks available and you might even use it in the mix! The bottom line though, is ALWAYS take a raw recording of the guitar track so you can re-amp it later. You can do the same thing with a vocal track and reverb (etc) of course. Mind you, if your vocalist can't sing properly without any effects in their phones, you might want to find a better vocalist! Or if the drummer can't work with a click track... etc etc... sigh.... ;-)
Latency subject.... Issue about music recording.... Usually you don't track/record with signal processing/effects (outside of electric guitar). So generally, as a recording artist, dsp when tracking will get real old real fast. And what has "legs" will be some minimal reverb using interface send return (no latency) and direct monitoring. Also mixing direct monitoring with some reverb from DAW works....
Great video. I don't use the Apollo, but have listened to the sound demos and productions of both and the Apollo is where it's at. Those pres, converters and features are hard to beat and cannot be done at the Scarlett price point. As with anything you get what you pay for and yes, there is a point of diminishing returns. From experience, I did not realize what I was NOT hearing until I upgraded my gear and now I view my old recordings with dread lololol. A Porsche and a Honda Civic are both cars and will get you to your destinations, however that is about where their equality ends lololol. Trust me, I understand and appreciate the budget market, hence I buy used very often, but there IS a reason why pro studios have the equipment that they do and no you will NOT achieve that sound in your garage, bedroom or basement, HOWEVER don't let gear or the lack of, stop you from making your music. Absolutely a great musician on crappy gear smokes, a bad musician on high end gear, but a good musician on high end or quality gear well we know the answer to that. But if the Scarlett is the best you can do, then make it do what it do, until something else comes along if ever.
Just don't buy an Apollo and expect to use it on Windows. I got burned by UA and it's soured me from them as a company. The Apollo Twin's input doesn't work with non ASIO windows apps (skype, zoom, discord, .etc) Feels like false advertising that they advertise them as "windows compatible."
@@Skrenja Totally agree with you. I have the UAD Volt for entertainment and non studio recording stuff and it is the only UAD product that I know of so far that plays nicely on windows. Other than that you would have to go Mac. I use RME because I am a windows user and I cannot say enough great things about their products. If you are in the market RME should definitely get a look.
@@PurpleMusicProductions Thanks for your write up.. For a recording musician not interested in mixing, just record the dry sound and send it off to the producer/engr., will it make any difference if the budget interface is upgraded to something like the RME/Apollo vs. using the budget interface paired with and an active D.I. and a mic preamp?
@@joshmcdzz6925 you're certainly welcome. I am certainly not an expert but if done as you described, the RME or Apollo, all things being equal in regards to signal levels and how good it is captured, running through those will definitely enhance what is already there and likely shine a spot light on things previously unheard or imperceptible. However this sword can cut both ways as it make things shine in a pleasant manner or reveal the need for a retake and certainly I have been on both sides of this equation. The perfect match up is running an active D.I. into the interface and your engineer or producer will love you a lot. I run mine that way sometimes with the Neve DI into my RME if I want a mostly clean signal while still getting some grit of the Neve. To my ears the Apollo, similar to many products by UAD, has somewhat of a darker colour to it in a good way, a little bump in low end with a hint of sparkle on the top. RME has a big, full and clean sound to it. To my ears it brought everything to life and suddenly I realized what I was and was not hearing in the same speakers and headphones. It is VERY precise and I got the feeling that someone took the blanket off my speakers and headphones. Between the two, I much prefer the RME over the Apollo, but of course the genre and the sound you are going for will determine the tools for the job. I hope this answers your question.
Much better detail on comparing the differences. You could provide more detail about the other UA plugins that require their interface which is the compelling difference for me to spend the extra cost. Now will look to see if they will come on sale.
Good preamps are critical and IMO the main reason to spend money. I have an old TASCAM interface that has some nice features for the money, mainly a whole bunch of inputs. But the mic preamps are terrible. When I use it I have to use external mic preamps to get usable vocals.
You missed one critical point. ‘Expansion’ With Scarlett 2i2, you are stuck with 2 inputs. But, with Apollo Twin you can expend your inputs with optical input.
Looking forward to grabbing an Apollo soon. Where it comes to budget interfaces, I’m glad you mentioned MOTU M-Series here. Unbeatable for the money, and the build quality/metering put comparable Scarletts to shame.
I got around live monitoring with effects and Zero latency monitoring with Studio one 5. Studio One has an amazing zero latency monitoring mode with zero clips and pops and with effects. The only thing this does is disable some other effects on other channels only while recording the main vocal chain with effects or main piano chain with effects. This is the main reason I use the DAW, it changed everything for me when composing and recording.
Great overall review on audio interfaces. I had a Focusrite interface but was extremely disappointed with it's performance and sold it. I had nothing but problems with it. I'm using a Roland Octa-Capture and it has worked flawlessly ever since. Nice to see you are using Reaper. Keep up the good work.
I've had good experiences with the Focusrite 2i2 (especially at the price point). Can you share what improvements you've experienced with the Roland Octa-Capture vs the Focusrite you were using? That might be helpful for others trying to decide. Thanks for the comment!
@@AudioUniversity The octa is a master class in linearity wich is why its used by many to calibrate systems. Smaart 8 even included the gain control for it in the software :D The rest is nothing extraordinary but still very well made and stable.
My Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen is spot on even when running my buffer at 64 and using a load of plugins recording live. It also helps having 16GB Ram and a i5 processor too i guess
In my opinion, there is a slight difference (in the order of percent units) between the two cards in the quality of sound processing. The Apollo price is increased by the software package with which it is delivered. It includes a package of analog emulation plugins UAD realtime Analog Classic and a package Heritage Edition atc . . .
When I built my microphone/monitor headphone setup, I had issues with the sound quality of the DACs for the headphone output! I use a beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro 250 ohm. Yes, I was on a budget. I tried behringer first, it was crap. So I did a small comparison, I bought two more audio interfaces to compare their headphone DACs: Focusrite Solo 3rd Gen Behringer U-Phoria UMC202HD Steinberg UR12 The Steinberg it was. I'm still using it at this point.
Wierdly enough, my Apollo Solo has more latency than my Scarlett. I can't turn my sample rate as low as my Scarlett without artifacts. I would say the main reason to buy a UAD interface would be the UAD plugins/DSP. The preamps definitely sound cleaner than my Focusrite, but it would not be that noticeable in the mix.
The low latency of the Apollo interfaces really shine when monitoring through the internal DSP rather than the DAW. It is strange that the latency is faster on the Focusrite through the DAW though! Goes to show that connection type isn’t everything! Thanks for sharing, Liam.
I currently have the focusrite solo and I'm planning to buy the apollo twin mostly bc of the plugins that comes with it. Also another reason is that the apollo looks more premium than the focusrite lol
Another aspect (quite obvious to me, but since it hasn't been reported I'll share it) is that you usually want to record a single instrument, in particular guitars, bass, etc.., with two microphones (stereo recording). This levels up the sound dramatically if you know where to place the microphones, and it's impossible to reproduce the effect without a two channel interface!
I'd upgrade to an Apollo under two circumstances 1. I make most of my income from music production 2. I make enough money period, so that I don't even feel it hit my bank account
Just started with the Scarlett Im going to give that a try for my first home studio. Then if I feel I need to upgrade after a year or two I’ll go with the Apollo interface and Neumann 103 mic
I have a full drum set, a bass, a guitar and mics/ stands. I need an Interface a laptop or an iPad and headphones and monitors. What else am I missing to start recording a one man band?
I work only with a DAW with MIDI keyboards, just as a hobby. But I know about latencies and so on. For me the cheap but good soundcard is the ESI Maya44 ex. (My DAW's are at 1 ms at 96Khz.) (Before I had E-MU cards, wich I loved back then, but sadly no driver works anymore on current OS's.) But I'm still a noob. Also, I had monitor speakers but for some reason I like my old Natural AMP with normal 4x4 way speakers more. But thats just me. At least a big no no to soundbars or surround sets lol. (for me)
$60 saffire from offerup has been getting a lot done, at a very decent quality. when the money is there i'll upgrade, but don't let shit stop you, just get yourself going and get your ideas tracked. you can always redo things into a high headroom gold plated soldered red bodied interface later. hell, i used a presonus firestudio mobile for 8yrs. always keep the work flowing and make small upgrades as you go!
Don't forget that many mixing consoles have excellent interface abilities. Some old analog boards have USB stereo to a host or record directly to a thumb drive. For those who need many channels for post production editing, mixing, and mastering, don't overlook some of the affordable digital consoles. As example the X32 series can send all 32 inputs to a DAW or recorder to produce the full 32 track recording for playback, editing, etc. Some field recorders make excellent interfaces, such as the common Zoom H6, able to switch from field recorder with 6 inputs to an interface. Some of these field recorders are less expensive than some of the interfaces. Look at the spec sheet for the Zoom H6 for example and compare it to the interface you are considering.
Thanks for this video. I'm rather old school and back when the number of tracks was limited by your tape machine, we would concentrate on getting as much of the desired sound onto the tape in the first place. I don't like guitar modelers to start with. I like real amps with mics. The same with vocal EQ and compression. If I get a good sound recorded as the first step, I have less decisions to make at mixdown.
Agreed! To me, guitar modeling is something you can do with a high end equalizer. It's all about tonality. As they say, "ain't nothing like the real thing baby!" I'm also a proponent for printing the best performance possible. It's hard to make poop shine. Mixing is as unique as a performer's signature.
i own both of these. there is no latency difference. thunderbolt does not have an advantage in this respect. the reason i own the scarlett is because the apollo doesnt work properly on windows mme / wdm recording (discord, gaming, facebook calls etc) and the reason i own the uad interface is for the plugins
Thanks for sharing your experience, Dawson. I haven’t had any issues with the Apollo Twin using Zoom, but haven’t tried the platforms you’ve mentioned.
I think you misunderstood the datasheet when comparing the two pre-amps of the interfaches. Scarlet mention just a range, without a starting point, however the range on the other has a starting and endpoint, the resulting effective gain range difference would be 1dB… The noise floor is almost identical, so the have about the same effective gain overall. The more important factor is the input impendance that is half cut off, as some devices have a lower / higher internal impedance, leading to different signal levels when connected to thos interfaces. 3Kohms va 5.4Kohms can already have quite some difference, especially with microphones (higher input resistance is generally better, unless specificially matched to the device / cable)
As for preamp gain, the Scarlett 2i2 has a range of 56dB to 60dB, while the Apollo Twin X Dual has a range of 50dB to 65dB. But the apollo takes this to other levels: he original hardware that their plugins emulate. Specifically: Unison allows UA's audio interface preamps to electrically load their plugin emulations the same way the original analog hardware would load its input. This allows the emulation to behave more responsively to the gain staging and impedance changes from the preamp, just like real analog gear. Unison impedance matching helps the plugins react to the preamp gain and tone in a dynamic way, enhancing the analog “feel”. For example, the 1176 compressor plugin will interact with the Apollo preamp similar to how it would with the original 1176 hardware preamp. So in essence, Unison impedance matching helps make UA's emulations behave, sound, and interact more lifelike compared to using the plugins in another interface without this technology. It's a key part of achieving analog sound in the digital domain.
That’s excellent, Joanna! Thanks for sharing. What are the specs of your computer? That might help others estimate the performance they can expect with their setup.
Pretty happy with the zero latency I get using my trusty old MOX 8 as an audio interface not only that I can use the on board effects in the feed as well.
Sound today is DAMN good. What was used in million dollar studios a decade ago is crammed into cheap hardware and software today. UA is up selling and why it’s smart for them to make the Volt line. Volt vs 2i2 as I have them both, I prefer the volt. Built in compressor :) Focusrite is damn good.
Awesome video, I am new to all of this, and I am also totally blind. I was trying to decide whether I need a mixer, or just an interface. Any help would be very much appreciated. I plan to record at least three or four instruments. I also would like to know, if the fighters would move on the screen as you move them. I would also like to know, if this is not too much information, what is better to you, ProTools, or, logic pro? Again any help would be very much appreciated. Have a Lotta questions about accessibility for myself. Thanks much.
Although I’ve never attempted with either one of these, I record a lot of live bands, mostly hard rock etc. I’ve tried a few interfaces and the audio sounds like crap in budget interfaces, maybe the preamp? I’m currently using a TASCAM Model 12. I think I paid about $4-500 B-Stock new in box. (mainly as it records to SD) but for board mix L&R and Room L&R. That Tascam model 12 sounds great, hasn’t let me down yet after several years of almost daily use. It’s bulky but I keep it in a video office used with a multicam video setup at a music venue Can be used as an interface as well as a stand alone mixer (with tangible faders, EQ, pre-gains etc.)
