|
Post by indiehouse on May 27, 2017 14:33:55 GMT -6
They better address the so-so conversion if they do a Mk III, otherwise Apollo users won't follow this time. C'mon man. You got Internet forum regurgitation all over the place. Let me get you a towel to clean that up... I don't think my BF Apollo 16 mkII has "so-so" conversion. Absolute best of the best? No, of course not. But, this same old subject has been tossed around too many times already. Always seems to come down to people throwing around opinion as fact, often without any first-hand AB comparison. Certainly, it's all subjective. But calling Apollo mkII conversion mediocre is just not a fair assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 27, 2017 15:34:45 GMT -6
Indiehouse said, "C'mon man. You got Internet forum regurgitation all over the place. Let me get you a towel to clean that up..."
Really? There's no no need to crack wise here my friend, you don't know who you're talking to. Save that stuff for Gearslutz.
Subjective to you maybe, me, I've used an Apollo since the day it came out, I have the blackface Apollo 8 now, and feel good enough about the results to be working on mastering all the tracks for a new album from all the demos I've done over the years with my Apollo's. So, if that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.
That said, I'm perfectly comfortable saying the Apollo's conversion is a shortcoming. And my opinion is based on the fact that I've A-B'd the Apollo and other converters personally many times, If that's something that's been regurgitated, well then it was me who started it, so I'm not regurgitating anything, and never have.
Every time I've tried other converters, it's been obvious, the Apollo's are a weak point. I've used the Black Lion Audio, the Svartbox and the Burl, as well as hearing other examples of friend's using Dangerous Music's converters, and the Apollo came up short every time.
All I was saying is that UAD will have to do something more than say.. double the dsp power in an "Apollo III" to keep people interested. That doesn't diminish the amazing achievement the Apollo was when first brought to market, it's just the way it is. UAD's 2192 was the basis for Burl's Bomber design, but taken to the next level, and that turned out rather nicely. So, UAD has the tech to improve their converters, they're just hovering around a price point and that's why it is what it is.
I think they could come out with a new converter that competes with the Burls, or Dangerous Music, and maybe offer that in an Apollo III for a premium price.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 27, 2017 15:43:56 GMT -6
I have no doubt that the next-gen UA interface will have improved specs. At that point, they'll be competing with Slate, MK II Symphony, MK II Lynx, new Presonus thunderbolt interface, on and on.
It's a digital rat race. Always has been, always will be.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 27, 2017 15:58:04 GMT -6
If an Apollo sounded as good as a Symphony Mk II, I'd be first in line to get one. I've had some setbacks lately, otherwise I'd sell my Apollo, keep my satellite, and buy the Symphony right now. I also have a few other music priorities ahead of that one though, and the Apollo is rock solid reliable.
By the time UAD comes out with something that sounds that good, Apogee will probably have upped the stakes anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 27, 2017 16:07:47 GMT -6
They better address the so-so conversion if they do a Mk III, otherwise Apollo users won't follow this time. I think that's a little over-exaggerated. I agree that it isn't as good as it could be, but certainly not bad either.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on May 27, 2017 16:16:18 GMT -6
I feel like UA's target market for the Apollo isn't quite the same as the higher end market of the better converters out there.
If they upped the quality to the top dog's level, it would price them out of the market their products are intended to hit.
Lets be honest, they are selling the majority of their boxes to people with home studios. They rely on the fact they these same people will also be spending money over the next few years on their proprietary plugins. They have a pretty good system going for themselves.
This is coming from somebody with both a home studio, and an Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 27, 2017 16:33:00 GMT -6
They better address the so-so conversion if they do a Mk III, otherwise Apollo users won't follow this time. I think that's a little over-exaggerated. I agree that it isn't as good as it could be, but certainly not bad either. I agree. If you're running Apollo converters, the gains from upgrading won't be an unreal, eye opening experience. Converters won't make or break a record.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 27, 2017 17:37:01 GMT -6
Sorry guys, I didn't think calling the Apollo's converters so-so would ruffle anyones feathers, but after using it for five years, that's how I see it. It's probably due to my personal frustration with not having the gear my ears want to hear, and I'm being a little unfair to UA, but not by that much I think. I think Jeremy Gillespie is spot on about UAD's target market. I also agree with jcoutou, that the Apollo's converters won't make or break a record. It's obvious I agree because I'm doing just that The only thing messing up my record is my poor tracking of vocals. As I gained knowledge of using digital gear it got better, but I've been guilty of accidental sabotage of my own project.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 17:46:40 GMT -6
As the owner of a couple of Apollo Silverfaces and a couple of Blackfaces, I think they're a great value proposition. But I'd love to see what they could do with similarly-priced devices that were conversion/preamp only. I've never been particularly interested in their plugins and find it a little annoying the way they clutter up my plugin folders. If they made some devices without SHARCs and with an enhanced focus on audio performance, I'm betting they'd be very nice. Having said that, they're not at all bad the way they are.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 27, 2017 17:54:07 GMT -6
That's an interesting idea Michael. I'd like to see an Apollo with an upgraded converter option, and a new, separate UAD converter.
I guess that's where BLA comes in. Me, I'd rather get a Symphony than mod an Apollo. Later on down the road, I'll be glad I have a quad satellite so I can run the few UAD plugs I really use.
I actually have no real complaint with the Apollo because it's a great value and it's worked flawlessly for me over the last five years. I just wish I could afford something different, and it makes me wish the Apollo's converters were just a bit better, so I wouldn't be thinking about other brands.
I guess this is why we call it G.A.S.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 18:01:00 GMT -6
I guess this is why we call it G.A.S. Of course that could just be dinner acting up ;-)
|
|