Hi,

I'm wondering if anyone on here knows how the mic pres of the UA Apollo compare to pres like the Focusrite ISA pres?
Also, how good are the di's?

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

I thought they were very good. Not quite in Prism Sound territory, but actually not that far off. Better than most Focusrite interfaces -- and they are generally pretty good anyway.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Hi Hugh,

What were your thoughts on the Apollo pres compared to the Focusrite ISA pres?

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

The ISA pres are old school with big lumps of iron in the way. Different sounding beast entirely.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

The ISA pres are old school with big lumps of iron in the way. Different sounding beast entirely.

hugh

---

Thanks Hugh. Could you describe the tonal differences for me?

I'm basically considering scaling down my setup a little and improving my converters.

As you already know I own the Liquid Channel, UA Solo 610 and ISA One. I use a Focusrite Saffire Pro 24DSP as my interface.

Both the 610 and ISA One are already great pres and have excellent di's which I use for bass and guitars.

If I were to buy the Apollo I'd have to sell my ISA One and 610 to fund it.
The Liquid Channel emulates both of these pres already though I haven't done a proper comparison yet. If these emulations are good then I may not miss the 610 and ISA. However, I may miss their excellent di's!

I guess I'm trying to weigh up whether it would be worth my upgrading my interface to the Apollo but losing the 610 and ISA One?

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

What are you hoping to acheive? Are you looking for better sound, or better functionality?

Personally I would not sell the ISA and the 610. They have a sound that you can't just recreate with a super clean pre plus a digital emulation. I'd sell the liquid channel if anything but that's just me.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

how would the uad apollo compare to the behringer x32 pres ??

Jack has a point. I have the Apollo and I really like the pre-amps, but I wouldn't sell my ISA 428 as they give me a different sound, warmer, perhaps old school as Hugh says (though in truth I haven't used old school stuff), more character. Having said that the Apollo pres are not 'clinical', but they are more neutral.

I also have the DAV preamps and I'd guess the Apollo pres lie somewhere between the ISA and DAV in terms of character.

I love the functionality of the Apollo and it has enabled me to quit my MacPro, so I have a much more portable, powerful solution.

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Quote Jack Ruston:

---

What are you hoping to acheive? Are you looking for better sound, or better functionality?

Personally I would not sell the ISA and the 610. They have a sound that you can't just recreate with a super clean pre plus a digital emulation. I'd sell the liquid channel if anything but that's just me.

J

---

Hi Jack,

I am going for better functionality, cleaner workflow and space.

The Liquid Channel is reputed to emulate the 610 and ISA pres very accurately!? Will obviously do an a/b myself.

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

Jack has a point. I have the Apollo and I really like the pre-amps, but I wouldn't sell my ISA 428 as they give me a different sound, warmer, perhaps old school as Hugh says (though in truth I haven't used old school stuff), more character. Having said that the Apollo pres are not 'clinical', but they are more neutral.

I also have the DAV preamps and I'd guess the Apollo pres lie somewhere between the ISA and DAV in terms of character.

I love the functionality of the Apollo and it has enabled me to quit my MacPro, so I have a much more portable, powerful solution.

Bob

---

Thanks for the info Bob. I'm hoping I can get the ISA sound from my Liquid Channel?

How do you find the Apollo pres compare to the DAV and ISA pres noise wise?

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

No issues that I've noticed with noise. But haven't used them for ambient work yet.

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

No issues that I've noticed with noise. But haven't used them for ambient work yet.

Bob

---

Would you be able to say which has the least noise?

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

I'd pick the DAV, but it's more to do with real world use isn't it?

If you want to record a flea's fart at forty paces with a ribbon mic, I'd imagine none of them would be effective!

Actually just looked at the three specs and couldn't figure out which was quietist. Perhaps one of our glorious gurus will appear and give a definitive answer!

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

The Liquid Channel is a very good pre that just happens to have emulations available to it - look at it that way. Just having the option of putting a transformer in the signal path is a rare enough feature. Add to that the preset memories, the 'session saver' gain control, the stereo linking, the digital I/O, the adjustable harmonics, the variable impedance input...

I'd take the LC over those other pre's any day - and the accuracy, or otherwise, of its emulations wouldn't be the main consideration in my choice.

Jack's right to ask - sometimes it's about audio quality and sometimes it's about convenience/methods (and sometimes it's about cost!). For me the LC strikes the right balance - my alternative would be a rack-full of lovely pre's/compressors and bankruptcy!

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Quote The Elf:

---

The Liquid Channel is a very good pre that just happens to have emulations available to it - look at it that way. Just having the option of putting a transformer in the signal path is a rare enough feature. Add to that the preset memories, the 'session saver' gain control, the stereo linking, the digital I/O, the adjustable harmonics, the variable impedance input...

---

Yes I agree the Liquid Channel is a very good preamp.

Quote The Elf:

---

I'd take the LC over those other pre's any day - and the accuracy, or otherwise, of its emulations wouldn't be the main consideration in my choice.

---

The Liquid Channel did extremely well in an a/b shootout between some of the emulations and the originals here :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNIxPhUy5GM

I'm not too bothered about getting caught up in the how accurate debate of the emulations because each of these handmade classics all vary slightly. So, whilst it may not sound like one 1073, it could sound like another. The bottom line is it just sounds good!

Quote The Elf:

---

Jack's right to ask - sometimes it's about audio quality and sometimes it's about convenience/methods (and sometimes it's about cost!). For me the LC strikes the right balance - my alternative would be a rack-full of lovely pre's/compressors and bankruptcy!

---

Yes this is the reason why I went with the Liquid Channel also. I don't want a whole rack of pres because firstly I don't have the space and secondly I prefer the quicker method of dialing up a pre and comp instead of having to pull out my desk - unplug a pre/comp and then re-patch them to my interface.

I am wanting to move towards a quicker and easier way of working and to create more space without losing quality!

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

Hi,

If it was to really upgrade the quality of your convertors and keep pres quality I think you should wait a bit more and spare money for a Prism Orpheus. Either, after saving some more money, you could keep all your pres and have a Prism interface or you could sell some pres to buy the Prism if needed. Anyway you could finish with 4 Prism quality pres plus your LC.

I would wait.

Chico

The Orpheus and the Apollo are different beasts.

The first is a top quality converter with a few top quality preamps. That is what it exists to provide.

The second is a system designed to allow the use of UAD plug-ins for real-time recording and performance, that just happens to include some very good preamps and converters.

Different horses for different courses...

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

The Orpheus is something that I would have to put onto my dream list. I would absolutely love one of these but this is way out of my range!! I would be pushing it to get an Apollo and to be honest would be looking out for a b-stock unit.

If I were to go for something like the Apollo it would need it to replace 4 units :- Saffire Pro24 DSP, 610, ISA One and Samson C-Que headphone amp. I would be happy to make a side step in preamp quality but I wouldn't want to take a step down.


The main bulk of my work is arranging so I mainly use vsti's. I mainly record vocals and the Liquid Channel is certainly an excellent channel strip for that. I have used the other pres for vocals in the past but find myself using
I do record bass and guitars on occasions and I use the 610 DI for bass and the ISA One DI for guitars.

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

If you don't want or need to use UAD plugins to process sounds as you record or for live performances, I really don't see the benefit of going for the Apollo. It offers nothing else that is significantly better than what you already have.

This seems to be a case of wish-list lust rather than cool-headed sensible purchasing decisions. I think you'd be losing more than you gain, to be honest!

H

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

If you don't want or need to use UAD plugins to process sounds as you record or for live performances, I really don't see the benefit of going for the Apollo. It offers nothing else that is significantly better than what you already have.

This seems to be a case of wish-list lust rather than cool-headed sensible purchasing decisions. I think you'd be losing more than you gain, to be honest!

H

---

Yeah that's what I'm thinking aswell. I'm not too bothered about the UAD plugins as I already have some excellent vst's. It was really about having a simpler setup with better D/A converters.

I'm certainly in no hurry to get rid of my 610 and ISA One because they both sound great and I've got some great results with them though I have thought about the ISA TWO.

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

Quote dickiefunk:

---

The Liquid Channel did extremely well in an a/b shootout between some of the emulations and the originals here :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNIxPhUy5GM

---

I've done some rough, unscientific comparisons of the emulations against the real devices when I've had the chance and I've come to similar conclusions.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

I'm not saying that I don't agree with those conclusions but I find the test in the video strange. Most preamps sound remarkably similar until you start to hit them hard. It's the way they distort, compress and saturate that sorts the men from the boys. How they respond to input level and dynamics is the real ticket. It's no accident that people tend to insist on tracking things like drums and electric guitars with certain preamps. So why you'd choose to make these comparisons with an acoustic guitar which is more likely to favour a cleaner, more transparent response is a question that bears answering. I'm not saying they don't work on the louder sources.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Actually, Jack, even pushed hard the LC still holds up incredibly well. There are 'hot' variants of the emulations, but I don't find I need them. Push the LC's 1073 emulation hard, add a bit of harmonic distortion, and you'll recognise the outcome. I doubt I could reliably tell the difference against the real thing. I've done this with acoustic/electric guitar, vocals and drums.

Again, I've not gone through comparing every emulation in there (oh, for the chance!), but for the ones I have I'm impressed.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Again, I'm not saying that isn't the case, I'm just surprised they used acoustic guitar for the test.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

And to just add to the debate, rumour has it that UAD wil be producing their own preamp emulations, which means you can sell everything, including the Liquid Channel!

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

And to just add to the debate, rumour has it that UAD wil be producing their own preamp emulations, which means you can sell everything, including the Liquid Channel!

Bob

---

Where did you hear about this?

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

Quote dickiefunk:

---

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

And to just add to the debate, rumour has it that UAD wil be producing their own preamp emulations, which means you can sell everything, including the Liquid Channel!

Bob

---

Where did you hear about this?

---

UAD forums. Makes sense given UAD are masters at emulating vintage gear........ You may have to be patient!

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

... rumour has it that UAD wil be producing their own preamp emulations, which means you can sell everything, including the Liquid Channel!

---

I doubt it!

One of the reasons the Liquid Channel is as complex and expensive as it is, is that in their research Focusrite identified very early on that a large part of the sound of different preamps was down to the interface between the mic and the preamp. The interaction between the mic output and the transformer or solid-state input, as well as the impedance, was found to be critical, and not possible to emulate through convolution alone. In essence, the preamp input characteristics alters the performance of the mic, and the interface effects change with every mic/preamp combination. That's why the LC emulates the specific input characteristics associated with each preamp model they are trying to replicate pretty closely, including altering the input impedance and introducing or removing transformers, etc.

I don't see how UAD's digital modelling could replicate that complexity... or affect the mic's performance in the correct way. Added to which, you'll inherently be combining the effects of whatever mic preamps you are using to get the signal into the system, with the UAD emulation on top.

The LC avoids that by using the cleanest mic preamp gain stage that it was possible to make, so that the only influence on the sound is the mic-input interface, and the convolved preamp character.

In my July 2004 review of the LC I said this about it:

Quote:

---

...for microphone preamps ... the relationship between its input impedance and the output impedance of a microphone is more complex, with far greater variations between products. Whereas line inputs tend to be predominantly resistive, microphone circuits are inherently more reactive, with significant capacitive and inductive components to consider, particularly where the preamp has a transformer input circuit. As a result, the same microphone may sound different when connected to alternative preamps, and vice versa.

These effects play a very significant role in creating the overall sound character, as anyone who has played with a switchable-impedance preamp can confirm, and they cannot easily be created by convolution technology. ... The solution which the Focusrite engineers came up with was to simulate the preamp's front-end characteristics in hardware ... The result ... is that when the user dials up a preamp Replica the convolution processing takes care of the preamp's own sonic characteristics — the effects of discrete solid-state circuitry, valves, op amps, and so on — while the configurable hardware ensures that the microphone 'sees' exactly the same input impedance and properties as if it were connected to the actual product being simulated. The overall sound character and tonality should therefore be exactly the same as if the identical mic were connected to the original preamp.

Making a configurable input stage is not simple, and goes against the normal practice of keeping the microphone signal path as short and simple as possible. Focusrite have had to come up with a complicated arrangement of very high-quality relays to switch various inductors, capacitors, and resistors into the input circuits, in order to provide the appropriate impedance characteristics. Furthermore, a special custom-made transformer can also be switched into the input circuitry when necessary, because it was found that some microphones react with the transformer in a way which can't be captured by convolution.

---

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Yeah I'm not convinced that preamp emulations can be done in software alone!

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

... rumour has it that UAD wil be producing their own preamp emulations, which means you can sell everything, including the Liquid Channel!

---

I doubt it!

hugh

---

I have no opinion as to how successful such an emulation, should it eventuate, would be, but the rumours were apparently based on early releases of the control interface hui which showed options for different preamp emulations, which suggests the concept was at least in development at some point.

Having said that there's still no particular sonic advantage to dickiefunk moving to the Apollo, apart from the fact he could potentially replace four pieces of gear with one, depending on if, and how good, and how important to the user, the preamp emulations would be, and whether the user wants access to wonderful plug-ins!

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Quote Bob Bickerton:

---

Having said that there's still no particular sonic advantage to dickiefunk moving to the Apollo, apart from the fact he could potentially replace four pieces of gear with one, depending on if, and how good, and how important to the user, the preamp emulations would be, and whether the user wants access to wonderful plug-ins!

Bob

---

I definitely would not get rid of my Liquid Channel so it would be to replace the 610, ISA One and Saffire 24DSP mainly for an easier workflow without sacrificing quality.

Whilst I would really like to simplify my setup I don't think I could part with my preamps upon reflection.
I may end up replacing my ISA One digital with an ISA TWO so that I have one less desktop pre but apart from that I'll stick with what I've got.

Thanks

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com

Hi all,

Rather than open a new thread I thought I would add to this one as it seemed relevant and I know Dickiefunk.

I have just bought a Prism Audio Orpheus and I have to say WOW!!

I was running an Apogee Ensemble before, which for all the people who would bash it I loved, and am still gonna keep because the Mic Pre's on that thing are real gems on vocals ( I was going to make a separate post about this but never got round to it but I'm not joking they're fantastic).

Anyway back to the Orpheus. The stereo placement is effortless and so detailed. Someone else described it in review that is makes big holes in the mix, which is so true, you can suddenly hear massive great gaps and at first this is a little strange but you then realise that the apogee (which is a fine bit of kit) kinda smeared the whole thing together, although I should add in a very musical way, but the lines were blurred if you like none the less.

All I can say is that I am one very happy chap, teamed with my Genelec 1032a Monitors and Sub I am extremely happy I paid out the extra as I was toying with an Apollo but already have a quad UAD card and never like committing processing before the DAW.

Anyway that's mine £3000 worth if it's any use

--------------------
Left Hand, Right Hand, it doesn't matter. I'm Amphibious!

You're worth it!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Oh I feel like Cheryl Cole.

--------------------
Left Hand, Right Hand, it doesn't matter. I'm Amphibious!