First, be sure that you are not recording some dsp applied effects within the UA.
What I would expect from a unit of that caliber is to have a transparent sound. You may not like that transparent sound but before throwing it away, make sure you are comparing the results with equal setups.

1. It may depend on how hard you hit the preamps
2. Are the levels matched? You can specify the input and output levels on those units (-10db or +4db) it will change the volumes greatly and louder is often perceived to sound better
   A well regarded unit that could be an alternative is the Antelope Zen studio, it is less expensive and have more preamps ;)

Yeah, we matched the inputs going in and even made some very small gain changes in Cubase to match them as close as possible.

The big thing is not that it sounded bad at all, but I was rather disappointed to hear a lack of difference for all the extra money it cost of my UR824. The A/B tests with all of my friends that have ears to hear were inconclusive at best, as everyone thought both recordings were done with the same interface.

As for the plugins, I disregarded the UA console for al things other than routing and settings. I did try a bit of the unison technology, but the plugin was so buggy that I was getting framerate drops and some of the "switches" didn't even flip when you clicked them. Called UA, they blamed Cubase and said their dev team can't keep up, but I call BS because people have been complaining about these issues since last year.

I get you.. not enough difference for the $$$

On last thing I thought of.. did you compare the files while using the D/A of the UR824 or the UA ? I say this because the converters may be coloring the sound the same way for the 2 recordings. UA should be more transparent..

UA interfaces are not considered to have the best preamps out there and certainly not near any boutique preamps but I've heard good things about their converters.

JesterMasque, post: 430988, member: 29648 wrote: I did try a bit of the unison technology, but the plugin was so buggy that I was getting framerate drops and some of the "switches" didn't even flip when you clicked them. Called UA, they blamed Cubase and said their dev team can't keep up,

Shovelling problems to the neighbor is easy..

Other things to consider is that on a wide production, not a lot of units gets as good as the prototype, but some get close. How many are better depends on their quality control.
So you might be the owner of one of the exceptionnal built of the UR824. I would be very interested to know if that's the case or if they all sound good like that,...
I'm planning to add some additionnal more affordable preamps to my settup for when I get a projects with extra musicians and I don't have 3k to buy more highend preamps. ;)

I got them and passed them onto someone who could appreciate them more than me. The entire UAD thing is serious bloat. Its a great addition to Pro Tools.
Some days I really miss a simple console and Tape Deck. :cool:

audiokid I was just thinking on pinging the young guy I gave my VS1880 to, I know he's not really using it... ahh the simple days. Not that a VS1880 is really simple, but, it's got great sounding fast work flow. And you got rid of the Apollos hey, interesting...

Makzimia, post: 431012, member: 48344 wrote: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/]="http://recording.or…"]audiokid[/] I was just thinking on pinging the young guy I gave my VS1880

totally agree.
Roland almost sent me their new rig. I wanted it so bad. I don't expect it to sound like our systems but the simplicity of it, I really like and miss.

FWIW, here's SOS's Review on the VS1880:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul00/articles/rolandvs1880.htm

DonnyThompson, post: 431044, member: 46114 wrote: FWIW, here's SOS's Review on the VS1880:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul00/articles/rolandvs1880.htm

Actually owned one for a long time, it was sitting around now, gave it to a young guy who had no money and wanted to get into recording. He's not much of a go getter though, it's sat around mostly. I still think it was one of the best tools I have had. Getting into what I have has slowed me down more times than I can count still LOL. Simple can be so much more fun.

Tony

I hope this isn't taken wrong, but this could be the case of not looking at the full recording chain and thinking one part of it will make that big of a difference. I am sure the UAD has advantages, and is really great, but ... Not sure how will be appreciated if there are other "on going" issues.

In other words, it is still about the total chain (player, performance, room, mic etc.). I would love to upgrade to this level, but before I would, there is much more work to be done to be ready for such a fine piece of equipment.

DM60, post: 431083, member: 49090 wrote: I hope this isn't taken wrong, but this could be the case of not looking at the full recording chain and thinking one part of it will make that big of a difference. I am sure the UAD has advantages, and is really great, but ... Not sure how will be appreciated if there are other "on going" issues.

In other words, it is still about the total chain (player, performance, room, mic etc.). I would love to upgrade to this level, but before I would, there is much more work to be done to be ready for such a fine piece of equipment.

Well, I'm certainly open to that idea, but the point that so very many people on different systems (and my own) found little to no difference at all just boggles my mind. In my defense, an audio interface is the point where all things meet and disperse again with the most complex sort of conversion in and out. I thought for sure there would be SOME kind of difference. I have been using the exact same rig for years through live room and control room upgrades. My studio is completely based on tracking the best sounding live drums I can afford to for my clients.

Again, I think that getting some other microphone or starting my Lunchbox would provide a much more interesting change in workflow. My system is super stable right now, and I don't think adding the potential for a buggy interface is a good investment when I am so slammed up for work in the coming month.

I couldn't say with 100% certainty, I think in the AD/DA conversion we've reached a level that it is what it is, regardless of price point. I think what you gain at the higher price points are, distributed load, lower latency, handling of more inputs (ADAT). Then you get into the pre-amps of a unit, this seems to be about the only place the front end of the chain is going to get the improvement, the amps out to the monitors would also be another place.

Maybe somone will educate me as well.

I'm not so sure about this. I find it difficult to believe that the converters in something like a $100 entry level Tascam i/o, are of the same quality as those that are considered to be pro models; like an Apogee Rosetta, Lynx Aurora, or an RME ADI, to name just a few.

Unless your comment was directed more towards comparisons made between pro-level conversion systems only, at which point, I'd think that any of the top-notch systems would likely be very similar in their respective quality/fidelity.

That being said, I think it's important to recognize that the converter - as important as this link is - is still only one link in the signal chain.

If you have cheap mics, cheap preamps, or, even cheap monitors - while upgrading to a nicer converter will certainly help some - doing so won't be nearly as effective, or be able to work at its optimum, providing an audible improved difference, if you are still using other cheap stuff in the same gain chain. At that point, what you'll end up with is a fantastic conversion quality... of bad sound. LOL

IMHO of course.

Could be a few levels, just because of the price points. But these chips, once they get produced become so cheap, it becomes more of a commodity. It becomes a volume game once in full production. Kind of like Intel's chip sets. I can find i7's in $500 systems and $1500 systems. All things being equal on the chip, the price difference is on the MB, graphics, HD, screen, build, etc. But it is the same chip across all price points.

Maybe there could be AD/DA grades, but since these chips are so focused, not sure if offering various grade levels would make business sense. Maybe based on certain measurements, they sell the chips at different levels. I remember when I worked in fiber optics, single process for the cable, but they sold the cable based on measurement results. Maybe that could be the difference. Grade A, B, C based on what each chip measured (it can be automated and sorted).

That's an intriguing notion... perhaps they do the same kind of grading, with things like THD, jitter, phase, and other pertinent parameters of the various components being tested and "ranked".

It's a good question actually... I'm dubious that Lynx is using the same converters as that of which a Tascam or Behringer i/o would have built-in, but I would be interested in knowing what criteria is used when "rating" them for quality.

(haven't we had this discussion a million times already?)

the difference is in the implementation. better signal paths in and out of the chip. discreet or high quality op amps instead of a cheapo surface mount components, better design of the circuits. very similar to the difference between a Golden Age Neve clone and the real thing.

Kurt Foster, post: 431161, member: 7836 wrote: (haven't we had this discussion a million times already?)

the difference is in the implementation. better signal paths in and out of the chip. discreet or high quality op amps instead of a cheapo surface mount components, better design of the circuits. very similar to the difference between a Golden Age Neve clone and the real thing.

That would be my opinion as well.

I am sure there are a few different chip manufacturers out there, just not that many as the volume just isn't there.

Kurt Foster, post: 431161, member: 7836 wrote: very similar to the difference between a Golden Age Neve clone and the real thing.

That's why I don't look like Brad Pitt !! ;) Same parts but not the same quality (DNA)

pcrecord, post: 431184, member: 46460 wrote: That's why I don't look like Brad Pitt !! ;) Same parts but not the same quality (DNA)

How about same grade, you are built exactly to specification, which is how quality is measured. Grade on the other hand, is a bit different ;)

We need to come up with some comparisons where people relate.
Chip = car motor?
But you can't drive a car without the transmission, tires, gas, and all the other counterparts to actually move the damn thing .
Is it a bus, car, 18 wheeler, Ferrari, Smart Car etc. That is the other parts to it.

i think of it this way. in audio gear almost every stage (in /out and in between) involves some type of amplification. cheaper converters have cheaper amplifiers in the in/stages and in between. it's simply like the difference between a Mackie pre amp and a Millennia, API or Neve pre.

I've always kind of analogized converters as being similar to a piece of glass, like a window pane... the good ones are like looking through crystal-clear glass that is so clean and transparent, it's as if there's no glass there at all...
While converters that are lower in quality are like trying to see through a dirty window - you can still see things, you know they are there, but they aren't nearly as clear; images and objects are smeared, and far less defined.

IMO.

DonnyThompson, post: 431224, member: 46114 wrote: I've always kind of analogized converters as being similar to a piece of glass, like a window pane... the good ones are like looking through crystal-clear glass that is so clean and transparent, it's as if there's no glass there at all...
While converters that are lower in quality are like trying to see through a dirty window - you can still see things, you know they are there, but they aren't nearly as clear; images and objects are smeared, and far less defined.

IMO.

Every book on converters uses the piece of glass example. Yet we have mass thinking converters are all the same today because the chips are all made by 2 companies lol.

Once again... Mass thinks this.

DM60, post: 431136, member: 49090 wrote: I couldn't say with 100% certainty, I think in the AD/DA conversion we've reached a level that it is what it is, regardless of price point. I think what you gain at the higher price points are, distributed load, lower latency, handling of more inputs (ADAT). Then you get into the pre-amps of a unit, this seems to be about the only place the front end of the chain is going to get the improvement, the amps out to the monitors would also be another place.

Maybe somone will educate me as well.

But what about "A" (analog) and the "to" (interfacing)? That is the expensive and most important part of the conversion process for me today. I get the chip thing = "glass" = transparency.

The DA is equally important for the monitoring side of the conversion.

There is a lot of confusion over conversion. There is more to choosing your conversion process than a chip.

To add,

I think conversion is going to expand into colour options. I don't see colouring gear as being such a big factor in years to come. I see converters as offering texture or part of the option to their "A" side of the design. I think this will revolutionize the industry somewhat. I think converter companies hold a pretty good stake in pro audio.

Interfacing and the analog part of converters is where the future is going, where they have my attention.

Chris, as stated earlier, I do think the front end and the back end of the chip is where the true difference is. If once it is converted and now you have to boast to get it out for play back, that is more around analog and various different parts. Same with the signal coming in. You have to get a good signal clean signal to convert. Totally agree with you on those points.

again, i agree with Chris on this with one caveat and that is the use of the word "transparent". it would be so much better if we could get away from all these "catch phrases" like "transparent ....... lol.

there is no such thing as transparent. all circuits / amplifiers have a sonic footprint. you can argue more or less transparent but that's pure semantics. imo, the thing to do is to find a converter that has a sonic footprint that you can live with.

some may like an aggressive footprint like the Burls or UA's that use transformers and components deliberately used to color the signal in a desirable way in the signal path. others may lean to designs that use op amps or even discreet components that make the attempt to keep the signal in as "pure" a state as is possible on the ins and outs.

obviously, unless you could decouple the gain and balancing components in the signal chain and listen to them on an individual basis, you will never really know if it's the actual conversion or the implementation or a combination of the two that's that is causing the "footprint". that's how the designers of these converters do it.

imo, most A/D converters do a far better job than those in the past. it's getting pretty good, even at the shallow end of the pool. it's in the D/A stages that things get critical. so perhaps the solution is to use less expensive A/D and go for the best at the D/A stage? i don't know ...... :unsure:

if you want to get the real skinny, you need to do as Chris (and a myriad of ME's) has. listen to / use a variety of converters and decide what you like best or at least what will work for you.

All well put, Kurt(y) To respond to some of your points:

Kurt Foster, post: 431237, member: 7836 wrote: so perhaps the solution is to use less expensive A/D and go for the best at the D/A stage? i don't know ......

Exactly how I hear it.
And if someone is into a two DAW system, an additional DA is required for my personal workflow. My typical conversion order (including the uncoupled step) would go like this.

• AD ( source, tracking)

• DA ( OTB mixing> multitracking, summing, mastering etc)
• (uncoupled) 2 channel or more AD (capturing device, summing, sound designing, mastering etc)
• DA (monitoring) Note, I connect all these DA to the monitor control system.

• Optional DA from the computer to listen to online source independently from your tracking and capturing system.

Kurt Foster, post: 431237, member: 7836 wrote: if you want to get the real skinny, you need to do as Chris (and a myriad of ME's) has. listen to / use a variety of converters and decide what you like best or at least what will work for you.

exactly.

Kurt Foster, post: 431237, member: 7836 wrote: again, i agree with Chris on this with one caveat and that is the use of the word "transparent". it would be so much better if we could get away from all these "catch phrases" like "transparent ....... lol.

That's exactly what I am talking about.

A = what?

• Are you an 18 wheeler hauling timber down a dirt road?
• Are you delivering china or a wad of money ?
• Is it a Master or are your adding your own sonic footprint?
• Are you avoiding bouncing?

This list and reasons why we pass audio to another step are personal.

I've been holding off contributing to this later section of the thread, but I think it's worth throwing in a few points based on experience as a contract designer of some of the A-D and D-A converter systems that are (or were) available.

Firstly, the performance of a converter system (A-D or D-A) depends on a lot more than just the converter chip used. We've had this discussion several times on these forums, but all the associated electronics, circuit boards, power supplies, interference suppression and chassis housing can contribute more to the success or otherwise of a converter system than the performance of the particular model of converter chip.

Secondly, the system's performance is generally only as good as its weakest part, so if one of the design aspects is compromised, the result is compromised. Last time we had this discussion, I told the story of a design commission I had some years back that resulted in prototypes that I thought produced a really nice sound for the class of unit. Off it went to the far east for production, and just about everything got changed for parts that were cheaper, easier to produce or were left out altogether. The converter chips remained untouched, I suspect because the bean-counters who hacked the rest of the design apart thought that the converters were the only things that influenced the quality of the sound. Unsurprisingly, the resulting unit had what I regarded as greatly inferior performance. In my view, it had been an exercise in how to make both good-sounding and poor-sounding converter systems using the same converter chips.

Thirdly, the clock quality is a critical factor in converter systems. This is easily overlooked.

Lastly, I can't agree that the A-D is more important than the D-A (or vice-versa) - they are as important as one another. Again, it's a weakest link efffect. The price tag on higher-priced converter systems generally has a reason - it reflects the amount of design, production effort and components that have gone into the unit.

Boswell, post: 431245, member: 29034 wrote: Lastly, I can't agree that the A-D is more important than the D-A (or vice-versa) - they are as important as one another. Again, it's a weakest link effect. The price tag on higher-priced converter systems generally has a reason - it reflects the amount of design, production effort and components that have gone into the unit.

Nicely put Bos, we should really make a sticky on your post and simply point everyone to it once and for all. If you have anything to add, be do so :)

To add,
my opinion on the DA ( and I think Kurt was on the same page) was more to do with the accumulative aliasing distortions that becomes more obvious when mixing OTB (DA multitracking) , plus I put a mass amount of priority into the DA of the monitoring on the capture side. This is the spot that tells the truth of the entire path.
If I was pinching dollars in a hybrid mixing system , the DA wouldn't be where I was doing it. But of course, you still need to capture it back so you indeed have my vote.
Usually the 2 channel capturing (mastering) AD includes the DA as well. Which I think we both agree a very good converter is paramount?
.
I'm one to believe you need great converters and top level interfacing right across the board. Mixing and mastering hardware is way down the list. In fact, I could care less if I use another outboard compressor or EQ for mixing again.

Bos, can you OP a thread and put what we all need to read in it ? :love: I'll make it a sticky?
Do you have anything to add about the PSU of a converter as well? This goes unmentioned.

I think I can speak for the house by saying, thanks for saying so many things so well.

All great points. And I didn't mean to infer that there is such a thing as "total transparency" - and that goes for any model. I wouldn't think that anyone actually believes that there is such a thing as complete and 100% total transparency.

As Kurt mentioned, any device will add an element of sonic change to some degree. The term "transparency", at least to me, means that Model A will present the least audible amount of sonic alteration; while Model B will add an audible ( and sometimes drastic) change in the character of the sound - and we all know that many of these models are intended to sound that way, generally because they offer a certain character that people want when they use that model.... so, when you choose a 1073, you are looking for that particular sonic print that it is known for - that's exactly why you are using it.

There are also quite a few models that, while not completely transparent, present far less noticeable sonic alteration.

So, while it's true that no audio device is truly transparent, and that any audio device will add its own sonic fingerprint - either to a small or large degree - the term "transparent" - at least in the way that I both use and infer when I hear it as a description, is that a certain piece of gear offers the least amount of noticeable sonic alteration.

I would think that this would just be kind of "understood" when people use or hear that term as a description.

FWIW

I'm late to the party. But I've used a lot of the interfaces out there. The Apollo sounds better than a motu, which imo eaks it into the professional category. It's not impressive sounding, and it's pres are average. The thing is it also includes processing power. So it sounds about as good, or a,little less so, than any other interface in the range, but adding the pluggin processing, both for monitoring, tracking, and mixing makes it untouchable for an 'all in one deal' anybody using cue mix typ effx for the phones, then having to instantiate plug-insfor the 'mix' will see an end to that ridiculous procedure.

For a home studio, looking to get going with one box and a cable, or a mobile rig looking for realtime effects, and not looking to get into the digi grid seriousness, it is tough to beat this unit.

The reason we all think it sound shitty, I belive is mostly due to the hype. It sounds ok. But with the realtime processing power it can't be beat in the price range. You get your basics free, then it gets pricey. But after using the effects built into some of the mixing boards out there from Yamaha and presonus, UAD is superior.

You have to add in the dsp, when considering this unit, as I think that is its true best feature, other than that it's just average. Onboard pres are never great, with the apogee ensemble being the only pre I ever remarked on that was stock, in a blind listening.

We know it's a market, and we shure know honesty is not good advertising, so unless your forming your opinions on what your ears hear, it's shame on you. 414s will almost always sound good, 57s are safe to buy without hearing. Interfaces eh, your only gonna get so good in an 'all in one'.

kmetal, post: 431311, member: 37533 wrote: The reason we all think it sound shitty, I belive is mostly due to the hype. It sounds ok.

So, you're saying that the reason people aren't impressed by it, is because the adverts have built it up to be something that sounds really great - but in reality, it doesn't?

(I'm not telling, here, I'm confirming. I've never used one, so I wouldn't be able to comment.)

The ads I've seen have all pushed the "stellar" preamps, the ability to model various Tube/SS input emulations, along with "pristine" conversion; so yeah, they really are trying to lead the consumer to believe that this is a professional-sounding i/o - preamp solution for home studios. I've seen various models going for around $1800 used (Quad Channel) with 8-10 different UAD processors included; and while that price isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things for a professional-level rig, it sure isn't the most affordable device, either... especially if the overall sound is nothing all that special.

It sounds to me as if what the customers are really paying for is the extra DSP, along with the included various processors, and that the actual pres and converters are somewhat secondary in priority.

And, I get that the built in DSP thing is considered by many to be a really nice feature, alleviating the pressure on the computer's CPU for processing... but you're saying ( and what I've heard other users mention as well) is that the sound is "meh"...
not that it sounds bad, but not as good as what you would expect it to sound like, either, based on price and the industry hype that surrounds it.

DonnyThompson, post: 431314, member: 46114 wrote: So, you're saying that the reason people aren't impressed by it, is because the adverts have built it up to be something that sounds really great - but in reality, it doesn't?

(I'm not telling, here, I'm confirming. I've never used one, so I wouldn't be able to comment.)

The ads I've seen have all pushed the "stellar" preamps, the ability to model various Tube/SS input emulations, along with "pristine" conversion; so yeah, they really are trying to lead the consumer to believe that this is a professional-sounding i/o - preamp solution for home studios. I've seen various models going for around $1800 used (Quad Channel) with 8-10 different UAD processors included; and while that price isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things for a professional-level rig, it sure isn't the most affordable device, either... especially if the overall sound is nothing all that special.

It sounds to me as if what the customers are really paying for is the extra DSP, along with the included various processors, and that the actual pres and converters are somewhat secondary in priority.

And, I get that the built in DSP thing is considered by many to be a really nice feature, alleviating the pressure on the computer's CPU for processing... but you're saying ( and what I've heard other users mention as well) is that the sound is "meh"...
not that it sounds bad, but not as good as what you would expect it to sound like, either, based on price and the industry hype that surrounds it.

Yea D, I'm saying if they touted it as 'powerful and versatile' they wouldn't be setting people up for dissapointment. I think it sounds as good as anything in the price range (mid-level professional). But yeah the real power, or value, is in the dsp. Ever watched a movie that your friends Said was "really really funny" and it's just been ok? That's what we're dealing with here.

When you consider apogee symphonies are about $2k empty, it's easy to see what 'high quality' costs. When you look into standalone converters like the Rosetta 800 still going for $800-1k, that's just another example.

So what we're looking at is a mid level interface. I'd be curious to hear from others, which interface in that class actually sounds mind blowing, or even better than ok? For the Apollo quad (the one I've used) your getting at least $800 worth of DSp, should you purchase it separately.

In all fairness I have not used the pre amp emulation, the stock pres are not bad, it's just a gain knob.

If I've learned anything from prosumer gear from Mackie and berringer, the more features, the less quality each feature will exhibit. That's why if you have notice my personal gear philosophy (none of which I've bought) it's mostly about indivual peices doing one or a couple jobs.

This seems expensive, until you look at 2 things. Quality. And the ability to upgrade without completely replacing everything. When burl mothership converters go out of style, I won't also have to replace my preamps, and line ins, monitor/cue section. This I belive is the way to longevity, out of high end digital.

I personally have the UA Apollo twin, in my sights for a basic home interface. I belive that the dsp, is worth the cost of the box, and it will make a great cue mix processor, (hopefully) long after my modular conversion and monitoring section become part of my setup.

It's easy to bash the companies with big money for ads, because often their products suffer. In the is case I think it's a solid product, just hyped for something it shouldn't be.

Bang for your buck, it's tough to beat Imo

To be honest, I'm not sure that a lot of the poeople complaining about this interface, are judging it in a pro room on pro speakers. And frankly I just don't even need amazing gear at my home. I've spent far more time over the years listening to my mackies for entertainment, than mixing. Of course, I work at a pro room, so my home requirements are different than a lot of people.

I look at this two ways:

This is another smart method to create the necessity to buy and carry more weight with a nice portable converter between it all. The system is excellent to give people an idea of what vintage or modern hardware looks and reacts like.

It took me about an hour to know this was a good enough ADDA. I really resented the way they are pimping plugs but it was enough out of the way that I could respect the VERY CLEVER approach. The way they are marketing is really brilliant!

From the outside looking in, it reminds me of comic book culture, with a Lego approach to building modern music for the less sonically serious or for the project studios just needing to get work done! Its excellent for anyone looking for the all in one solution to get things happening.

From a commercial POV, success has nothing to do with sound quality. We do not need any better than what these offer to create a song.

Being said, I couldn't help think that the money you may end up spending on these plugs and endless upgrading overtime could also be put towards a new computer and better preamps. Samplitude is once again, all I need for mixing so I keep going back to that, as it is my benchmark. But this is a great alternative to an Avid system, which is all about more and more DSP.

UAD appears to be stable and works great. The Apollo lineup is an excellent all in one production system that would be good for schools and training too. Its excellent for scratch tracking and mixing and learning how hardware works.

I would not buy more than a few plugins, for this very reason chris. If you've got a neve API, an ssl chsnnel, and a couple of the free classic compressors, maybe a distressor model?

I mean what really needs to be done these days? Samples sound amazing, And a few 57s and so,e modest outboard gets you clean in.

I agree much is it is marketing. It's my belief as a former finance major (stopped going senior year) if your able to see thru what they want you have, and what you can make the most use of, there is some opportunity out there.

After all they want to offer the hardware cheap, as a hook and sinker, so you have capability. Capability or the potential, is what gets everyone's minds racing about possibilities. Pluggins are easy to sell, no shipping, no warehouse, it can become obselete, at a simp,e keystroke, or update. And UAD plug-inscan't be 'cracked' that I am aware of.

I'm dropping Mac in favor of open source/PC machines. I will run iOS/OS as well. The current configuration is seeming to be PT/samplitube. Depending how the Apollo twin fits into samplitube, if it can be used for its monitoring capabilities, I am going to skip the PT.

The clean routing, and perhaps something like a fab filter, and the stock samplitube will be all I'll need for creating and making 'masters' both home and studio. The very next step is a very very modest, but new mixdown daw/converter set.

But really it's taking me a while to grasp the monitoring scheme so I'm still all ears, and well still broke, so there is time...

Lol UAD didn't pay you to say that did they? Lol just kidding.

kmetal, post: 431325, member: 37533 wrote: Depending how the Apollo twin fits into samplitube, if it can be used for its monitoring capabilities,

Forget that, its terrible in comparison to an independent monitoring system with its own DA. And once you include that, you will never look back at this.

kmetal, post: 431325, member: 37533 wrote: I mean what really needs to be done these days? Samples sound amazing, And a few 57s and so,e modest outboard gets you clean in.

exactly.

kmetal, post: 431325, member: 37533 wrote: But really it's taking me a while to grasp the monitoring scheme so I'm still all ears, and well still broke, so there is time...

In all humbleness... you cannot fully grasp an independent controller and a second DAW until you have it in use.
Being said, the average user doesn't need any of this unless you happen to want more out of your system which in my case, is where my step changes the whole game in digital audio. Especially hybrid audio.
I'm very excited to hear how ChrisH feels over time with whatever controller he settles on. Chris, please share anything you can with the group. So far, its all been coming from me. It would be good to hear other POV; a breath of fresh perspective. :)?

kmetal, post: 431325, member: 37533 wrote: Lol UAD didn't pay you to say that did they? Lol just kidding.

LOL,
To be fair, I'm not saying this isn't an excellent product (IT IS!) Its just not what I would be teaching my kids to look at in a similar budget. I believe this shifts the way you learn in a very boxed in way.

If I was looking at Pro Tools (because Pro Tools is all about buying plug-ins) this is a great compliment to their software and hardware.
If I was looking for an all in one laptop mobile rig, project studio using Pro Tools, this would be again, a great choice! Its an excellent system like, Avid, Roland VS series, Radar and so on. Its a boxed in system that works and offers more bloat around its core.
For what it is, it's very well made and worded excellent.