|
|
Post by RicFoxx on May 18, 2014 13:37:37 GMT -6
Had the Apollo for about 6 months or so and Ive had the PT Native with thunderbolt and Omni for the last 45 days.
First, I will say the Omni sounds fantastic and sounds better than the Apollo as far as conversion. But I really do not dig the way the thing is setup with Pro Tools HD...not very intuitive and is very limited as far as I/O is concerned. Latency of course is minimal and Pro Tools HD 11 is excellent which is a plus for the Avid setup.
With that being said, since I use the Burl B2 for ADC and clocked the Apollo to the Burl, Im missing the Apollo and I am making plans to return the Avid setup. I believe the Burl improves the Apollo by clocking to it and it really is pretty clean sounding and opens up the Apollo somewhat. Add the fact that UA is doing some really good emulations of classic gear, I believe it makes the Apollo pretty ground breaking. I also miss monitoring with plugs without committing to disk as I like to sing with a lot of compression and often overcook good takes because my ear loves what compression does pyscho acoustically in my headphones.
I would have kept the Apollo originally but hated the latency with VI's and also the firewire inconsistencies. Now that the thunderbolt card is PCIE and works correctly with Apollo, I think I'm going back that direction.
Thought I would write a few thoughts that maybe helped someone considering both units
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on May 18, 2014 18:57:52 GMT -6
live and learn, I have heard good things about the omni; stand alone, but now that apollo is true pci-e, its workflow is much enhanced
an apollo with a b2 is tough to beat, although I do have a dbox for monitoring control.
happy shopping !
|
|
noize
New Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by noize on Apr 22, 2015 22:12:43 GMT -6
Had the Apollo for about 6 months or so and Ive had the PT Native with thunderbolt and Omni for the last 45 days. First, I will say the Omni sounds fantastic and sounds better than the Apollo as far as conversion. But I really do not dig the way the thing is setup with Pro Tools HD...not very intuitive and is very limited as far as I/O is concerned. Latency of course is minimal and Pro Tools HD 11 is excellent which is a plus for the Avid setup. With that being said, since I use the Burl B2 for ADC and clocked the Apollo to the Burl, Im missing the Apollo and I am making plans to return the Avid setup. I believe the Burl improves the Apollo by clocking to it and it really is pretty clean sounding and opens up the Apollo somewhat. Add the fact that UA is doing some really good emulations of classic gear, I believe it makes the Apollo pretty ground breaking. I also miss monitoring with plugs without committing to disk as I like to sing with a lot of compression and often overcook good takes because my ear loves what compression does pyscho acoustically in my headphones. I would have kept the Apollo originally but hated the latency with VI's and also the firewire inconsistencies. Now that the thunderbolt card is PCIE and works correctly with Apollo, I think I'm going back that direction. Thought I would write a few thoughts that maybe helped someone considering both units Hello Ric I saw your posting here and I wanted to ask you a few questions If I may. I own an old HD ACEL system RUNING PROTOOLS HD 6.4 (2006) on a G5 PPC .I have been using zero latency from the start and now that I have jumped wagon and get on a native system, it's been a very hard struggle! I purchased a Mac mini w/i7 chip and Apollo quad running ProTools 10. Even though it's a great solid system for mixing & editing, it's been a royal PITA recording under this native situation. I'm hoping that once I get a TB card and run my apollo thru the TB option, the latency will be near 0 mm! lol. I'm concerned I'm not going to be able to work this way much longer as I am used to giving my clients a good solid headphone mix that mirrors my PT mix. You mention you have had this system without any issues including latency. can you tell me a little more about this. Greatly appreciate your time and input Thank you once again Best regards, Diego |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 23, 2015 0:37:13 GMT -6
apollo ' lowest RTL rate is achieved using pci-e over tbolt and is depending on sample rate in the .2 ms range I believe
most don't find latency a problem on fw can you describe your session set up?
|
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Apr 23, 2015 4:57:52 GMT -6
Had the Apollo for about 6 months or so and Ive had the PT Native with thunderbolt and Omni for the last 45 days. First, I will say the Omni sounds fantastic and sounds better than the Apollo as far as conversion. But I really do not dig the way the thing is setup with Pro Tools HD...not very intuitive and is very limited as far as I/O is concerned. Latency of course is minimal and Pro Tools HD 11 is excellent which is a plus for the Avid setup. With that being said, since I use the Burl B2 for ADC and clocked the Apollo to the Burl, Im missing the Apollo and I am making plans to return the Avid setup. I believe the Burl improves the Apollo by clocking to it and it really is pretty clean sounding and opens up the Apollo somewhat. Add the fact that UA is doing some really good emulations of classic gear, I believe it makes the Apollo pretty ground breaking. I also miss monitoring with plugs without committing to disk as I like to sing with a lot of compression and often overcook good takes because my ear loves what compression does pyscho acoustically in my headphones. I would have kept the Apollo originally but hated the latency with VI's and also the firewire inconsistencies. Now that the thunderbolt card is PCIE and works correctly with Apollo, I think I'm going back that direction. Thought I would write a few thoughts that maybe helped someone considering both units Hello Ric I saw your posting here and I wanted to ask you a few questions If I may. I own an old HD ACEL system RUNING PROTOOLS HD 6.4 (2006) on a G5 PPC .I have been using zero latency from the start and now that I have jumped wagon and get on a native system, it's been a very hard struggle! I purchased a Mac mini w/i7 chip and Apollo quad running ProTools 10. Even though it's a great solid system for mixing & editing, it's been a royal PITA recording under this native situation. I'm hoping that once I get a TB card and run my apollo thru the TB option, the latency will be near 0 mm! lol. I'm concerned I'm not going to be able to work this way much longer as I am used to giving my clients a good solid headphone mix that mirrors my PT mix. You mention you have had this system without any issues including latency. can you tell me a little more about this. Greatly appreciate your time and input Thank you once again Best regards, Diego I use the same computer setup w/Apollo on FW. I think your problem is PT10 and maybe ram. Can you go to PT11? Also, did you max your ram out to 16 gigs? Try that... |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 23, 2015 5:06:45 GMT -6
also native recording has nothing to do with UA so is he having problems with his native plug latency or ua plugs ?
if native he probably doesn' t have delay compensation nor low latency monitoring checked and is trying to track with native plugs in his daw and introducing the latency right there.
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Apr 23, 2015 7:11:33 GMT -6
noize there are others on this board that could explain the apollo workflow better than me. Im maybe in the minority here but I'm not a fan of the apollo. I used it with a Burl on the front end and a Dbox on the back end. If you are simply using the apollo and running it thru the UA console you should have no problems with latency. The problem I had was with VI's because for whatever reason the Apollo's roundtrip (RTL?) times were like 15ms (on the firewire version) and I could not handle that. The Omni/thunderbolt rig is a great setup (I eventually got used to the workflow) but you have to run PTHD...it will not run native PT.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 23, 2015 7:26:52 GMT -6
FW rtl is certainly higher than tbolt pcie and i bleive our Cat5 fully tested the apollo and as I said before it is in the .2-.3 range.
Only ua plugs (non -native) can be used in console for the lowest latency while tracking and these can be printed and or just monitored.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Apr 23, 2015 7:28:29 GMT -6
Diego
If the latencey during tracking with plugins is what is bothering you as others have pointed out there are ways of reducing it, but you have to understand that uhber low latency with plugins is really the sole domain of TDM / HD /HDX!
I understand your pain it was what drew me to HD and kept me there, I deal with a couple of classical players and operatic singers who just won't deal with large latency.
Now I have found a couple of solutions
1. Print the efx, yeah we did this in the old days when we had just a couple of comps, now with the high track count it isn't a problem.
2. Go analog , found a preset in my Lexicon 300 my biggest Low latency head fell in love with now we don't need TDM just a small console !
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Apr 23, 2015 17:58:06 GMT -6
Diego If the latencey during tracking with plugins is what is bothering you as others have pointed out there are ways of reducing it, but you have to understand that uhber low latency with plugins is really the sole domain of TDM / HD /HDX! I understand your pain it was what drew me to HD and kept me there, I deal with a couple of classical players and operatic singers who just won't deal with large latency. Now I have found a couple of solutions 1. Print the efx, yeah we did this in the old days when we had just a couple of comps, now with the high track count it isn't a problem. 2. Go analog , found a preset in my Lexicon 300 my biggest Low latency head fell in love with now we don't need TDM just a small console ! Honestly this is why I prefer to just use Native plugs during the mix...after tracking...non-destructively. The Latency doesn't matter anymore, and if I spent my time on an 88.2kHz or 96kHz session during tracking I've got the best possible WAV's to start with. I get why people love DSP as it helps the system avoid strain...but even average computers these days can handle a lot of stress when it comes to high plugin counts Native. As for tracking with plugins in line destructively...it's unique and in fact cool...but not needed if you have a decent analog signal chain. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Apr 23, 2015 18:37:13 GMT -6
Diego If the latencey during tracking with plugins is what is bothering you as others have pointed out there are ways of reducing it, but you have to understand that uhber low latency with plugins is really the sole domain of TDM / HD /HDX! I understand your pain it was what drew me to HD and kept me there, I deal with a couple of classical players and operatic singers who just won't deal with large latency. Now I have found a couple of solutions 1. Print the efx, yeah we did this in the old days when we had just a couple of comps, now with the high track count it isn't a problem. 2. Go analog , found a preset in my Lexicon 300 my biggest Low latency head fell in love with now we don't need TDM just a small console ! Honestly this is why I prefer to just use Native plugs during the mix...after tracking...non-destructively. The Latency doesn't matter anymore, and if I spent my time on an 88.2kHz or 96kHz session during tracking I've got the best possible WAV's to start with. I get why people love DSP as it helps the system avoid strain...but even average computers these days can handle a lot of stress when it comes to high plugin counts Native. As for tracking with plugins in line destructively...it's unique and in fact cool...but not needed if you have a decent analog signal chain. Totally agree, but in my world it's please the client and mostly if I'm tracking its me recording the voice and my clients are used to doing it how they want to! It's why I got the gig! |
|
