|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 6, 2018 11:47:02 GMT -6
Extremely generous trade-in allowance. Good moves by UA.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 11:59:32 GMT -6
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 6, 2018 11:59:32 GMT -6
It seems like a good idea to me, but the trade in values are lower than what you can get selling it yourself.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 11:59:32 GMT -6
Post by Mister Chase on Sept 6, 2018 11:59:32 GMT -6
It's possible that I would make a move to a UA interface at some point. However, it has to be as good in AD/DA as my Lynx Aurora (n) which is no small task. It's the most incredible AD/DA I've ever heard. Makes other well known ADDA I use in a studio sound rough in comparison.
My mentality is that my AD/DA is so critical that I need one that is made by a company that specializes in it. The MkII UA conversion was certainly leagues above the Mk I, but in my opinion still had room to grow. Very usable, though.
The plus side of the UA is tracking with Unison plugs. The last I heard, Unison DSP could not be used across aggregate devices. So whatever is on the main interface for DSP is what you have for tracking. With the DSP usage I see, that potentially be an issue for me when tracking full bands. But, if the AD/DA is tops and I have plenty of DSP for tracking Unison with say, a console strip, Studer and maybe an 1176 or something on each track, I would very likely do it.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 12:08:51 GMT -6
Post by rob61 on Sept 6, 2018 12:08:51 GMT -6
Drew @ UA have you guys relaxed your resale license transfer limit? I ran into an issue where you guys had said I had transferred “too many” licenses. I might be interested in selling my satellite to buy one of these, but I wouldn’t want to run into this issue with another buyer again. I still do t understand why you guys don’t just set up the ability to transfer licenses Freon your user account. I’ve probably owned 4 Apollo’s, 2 or 3 Satellites and I know I’m missing other stuff...not sure why me selling at a loss and buying new is a problem. Not that I'm aware of, but I'd as CS to get the definitive answer. It's to combat piracy and illicit transferring of devices. I won't go into the gory details, but crooks come up with "creative" ways of taking advantage of our system. Thus, you penalize your honest customers by restricting transfer of software used on your proprietary hardware. Sounds like a good way to treat your honest customers... NOT!
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 12:25:08 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by nick8801 on Sept 6, 2018 12:25:08 GMT -6
These look cool. I have a 16 mkii, and I’m very happy with the conversion quality but I’d still love to get one of the x’s next to it to compare before I consider a jump. The added processing is cool too, but I rarely run out of power. Dig the UA logo on these too!
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 12:28:23 GMT -6
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 6, 2018 12:28:23 GMT -6
Rob61 Actually when this was raised about a year or so ago, UA just asked people to contact Customer Service. The implication was that as long as everything seemed above board there would be no problem transferring ownership.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 6, 2018 12:34:58 GMT -6
It seems like a good idea to me, but the trade in values are lower than what you can get selling it yourself. Not if everyone else is selling one...
|
|
|
Post by bram on Sept 6, 2018 12:35:15 GMT -6
Looks like again they've given the 16x better D/A dynamic range than the 8 and 6 (133dB vs 129dB).
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 6, 2018 12:38:57 GMT -6
Info from Drew about X converters:
They're ESS chips like most other high end converters.
Check out this vid:
But remember, the chips are only part of the equation, it's the analog circuitry built around them that can make all the difference. For example x16s spec out BETTER than the chips themselves.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 12:50:13 GMT -6
Post by Mister Chase on Sept 6, 2018 12:50:13 GMT -6
Info from Drew about X converters: They're ESS chips like most other high end converters. Check out this vid: But remember, the chips are only part of the equation, it's the analog circuitry built around them that can make all the difference. For example x16s spec out BETTER than the chips themselves.
Yes, exactly. Many converters use the same chips. It's a lot more than that that goes into detail, sound stage etc. As you say, the analog design portion is what really sets apart the top of the line ADDA from others. We'll see how they stack up.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 12:55:48 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by indiehouse on Sept 6, 2018 12:55:48 GMT -6
Same AD as the MKII?
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 12:57:58 GMT -6
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 6, 2018 12:57:58 GMT -6
THose are Drew;s comments I copied them from UA forum.
No the X has ESS converters .
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 12:59:33 GMT -6
Post by jtc111 on Sept 6, 2018 12:59:33 GMT -6
All the new models offer the same number of HEXA core DSP chips: 6. So it's like a quad and a half worth of processing. It looks like the big difference is the dynamic range on the X16 flagship model. All the other models spec at "129 dB dynamic range and -119 dB THD+N" while the X16 specs at "133 dB dynamic range and THD+N of -129 dB."
The lowest priced model is selling for $2k and the X16 for $3500.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 13:10:02 GMT -6
Post by Mister Chase on Sept 6, 2018 13:10:02 GMT -6
All the new models offer the same number of HEXA core DSP chips: 6. So it's like a quad and a half worth of processing. It looks like the big difference is the dynamic range on the X16 flagship model. All the other models spec at "129 dB dynamic range and -119 dB THD+N" while the X16 specs at "133 dB dynamic range and THD+N of -129 dB." The lowest priced model is selling for $2k and the X16 for $3500. If the ADDA is really up to snuff and competes with say Lynx and Symphony, that's a pretty good price. A TB Aurora (n), for example, 16 is 3999. Still, though... wish it had an Octo in there.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 6, 2018 13:23:09 GMT -6
Anybody else thinks this looks like a Brownface Deluxe?
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 13:25:16 GMT -6
Post by kcatthedog on Sept 6, 2018 13:25:16 GMT -6
From Drew at ua forum:
Sabres.
Similar to the MKIIs, the x16 is our flagship unit, so if you're looking for the utmost in conversion quality, you'll want the x16. Drew Mazurek
my comment:
Doesn't give the impression that the converters are really very different than the current Bf apollo ?
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 13:30:56 GMT -6
Post by Mister Chase on Sept 6, 2018 13:30:56 GMT -6
From Drew at ua forum: Sabres. Similar to the MKIIs, the x16 is our flagship unit, so if you're looking for the utmost in conversion quality, you'll want the x16. Drew Mazurek my comment: Doesn't give the impression that the converters are really very different than the current Bf apollo ? True. I am a bit confused because in the interview with Mitch they said they went crazy on the conversion. I wonder how this translates. Some comparisons would be nice at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 6, 2018 13:33:05 GMT -6
@cat5 Any new thoughts on this? Here is something Shane posted a while back at a different forum. Looks like these are totally different chips. Obviously, it's not really even mostly about the chips, but I wonder what model they went with?
"Chasing the best conversion is the slipperiest of slopes in the audio world though.
As far as AD, I see that Symphony mkII, RME, BF Apollo are all using the same topology, and approach now. In fact, the Symphony mk2 and BF are frighteningly close in design, both using the same quad AD, in parallel pairs. I almost have to believe one product influenced the other.
On the DA side there are a shit-ton of units using the beloved ESS chip, even the BF 16, but as loved as it is it's almost a decade old and it's replacement (with 140dB of dynamic range!) is already available. This time next year it should be making its way into some new products that will make the current sabre look like a toy...on paper at least.
Apollo 8 and 8p chose to go with a brand new chip from AKM that a lot of people think is going to pave the way for the future of how DA is done, and that is their velvet sound filters. It's a new technology they are using in all of their high end products, designed to make converters sound more analog and musical, without sacrificing accuracy. In the Hi-Fi DAC world, the ESS is still the most beloved chip, but there are many that think it's too clinical and cold. AKMs new designs are meant to address this side-effect of ultra-linear converters. Time will tell if it's the future, but the 4490 was their flagship part in 2015 ago, and they have already introduced the 4497 in response to ESS' Sabre Pro announcement. That increased dynamic range from 120 (4490) to 128dB (4497) but still can't touch the 140dB of touted real-world dynamic range of the new ESS chip. They are banking on Velvet Sound.
It's got to be a tough choice from a design standpoint, especially when all of these parts are so highly specced, and most criticism around the webs will be superficial and unsubstantiated. It wasn't that long ago that converters boasting 114-116dB of dynamic range and 3 times the distortion of current products were hailed as "nearly invisible". While there really is no such thing as a transparent device in audio, if you think recordings made 5-10 years ago by the industry's best, sound great, there is hardly an interface on the market today that should theoretically get in the way of producing the same.
Of course, each device is going to have a "sound", no matter how subtle, and if you simply don't like that sound then looking elsewhere is probably justifiable. IMO, it's far more meaningful to select a device based on features and price than specs."
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Sept 6, 2018 13:34:13 GMT -6
From Drew at ua forum: Sabres. Similar to the MKIIs, the x16 is our flagship unit, so if you're looking for the utmost in conversion quality, you'll want the x16. Drew Mazurek my comment: Doesn't give the impression that the converters are really very different than the current Bf apollo ? True. I am a bit confused because in the interview with Mitch they said they went crazy on the conversion. I wonder how this translates. Some comparisons would be nice at some point. I just assumed he meant the 16 was still a little better than the other two...but I would also assume they view (as stated in the video) that the conversion in the x6 and x8 is still a step up from the BF.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 6, 2018 13:34:43 GMT -6
Can't wait to hear comparisons with the Symphony. If it's as lush and wide, then it really could be the engine of a nice small-mid size studio.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 14:22:07 GMT -6
Post by matt on Sept 6, 2018 14:22:07 GMT -6
Looks like we have a converter arms race on our hands. It's a beautiful thing! If the x16 had optical I/O, I'd be looking at it hard. It's always something.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Sept 6, 2018 14:39:26 GMT -6
@cat5 Any new thoughts on this? Here is something Shane posted a while back at a different forum. Looks like these are totally different chips. Obviously, it's not really even mostly about the chips, but I wonder what model they went with? "Chasing the best conversion is the slipperiest of slopes in the audio world though. As far as AD, I see that Symphony mkII, RME, BF Apollo are all using the same topology, and approach now. In fact, the Symphony mk2 and BF are frighteningly close in design, both using the same quad AD, in parallel pairs. I almost have to believe one product influenced the other. On the DA side there are a shit-ton of units using the beloved ESS chip, even the BF 16, but as loved as it is it's almost a decade old and it's replacement (with 140dB of dynamic range!) is already available. This time next year it should be making its way into some new products that will make the current sabre look like a toy...on paper at least. Apollo 8 and 8p chose to go with a brand new chip from AKM that a lot of people think is going to pave the way for the future of how DA is done, and that is their velvet sound filters. It's a new technology they are using in all of their high end products, designed to make converters sound more analog and musical, without sacrificing accuracy. In the Hi-Fi DAC world, the ESS is still the most beloved chip, but there are many that think it's too clinical and cold. AKMs new designs are meant to address this side-effect of ultra-linear converters. Time will tell if it's the future, but the 4490 was their flagship part in 2015 ago, and they have already introduced the 4497 in response to ESS' Sabre Pro announcement. That increased dynamic range from 120 (4490) to 128dB (4497) but still can't touch the 140dB of touted real-world dynamic range of the new ESS chip. They are banking on Velvet Sound. It's got to be a tough choice from a design standpoint, especially when all of these parts are so highly specced, and most criticism around the webs will be superficial and unsubstantiated. It wasn't that long ago that converters boasting 114-116dB of dynamic range and 3 times the distortion of current products were hailed as "nearly invisible". While there really is no such thing as a transparent device in audio, if you think recordings made 5-10 years ago by the industry's best, sound great, there is hardly an interface on the market today that should theoretically get in the way of producing the same. Of course, each device is going to have a "sound", no matter how subtle, and if you simply don't like that sound then looking elsewhere is probably justifiable. IMO, it's far more meaningful to select a device based on features and price than specs." I remember this post and there are some interesting points in it. Yes you can go down the slippery slope of conversion. I don't know about slipperiest in audio, though. I've chased down many more mics and pres than converters by a large margin. I feel the same is true with most guys from what I glean on this forum.
I remember the Velvet sound comment and was very interested in it. But remember, new tape machines were being made regularly with better features and sound(transparency, less wow and flutter). Studios upgraded along the way. The "Zenith" of tape was probably with machines like the ATR 124 or Studer A 827 at 30 IPS with a modern tape formula(if you are using transparency as the measuring stick).
Digital isn't a whole lot different in it's evolution. We are also barely into it's regular use in studios. More records have still been done on tape over more decades(I would think) than digital. So while the argument is valid that a record done on an old Ampex machine vs an a827 is still a valid pro sounding record, they are in fact different. Nothing wrong with evolving. I think we are nearing the digital "Zenith" so to speak in terms of utter transparency (loopback tests prove this on multi generational degradation).
So yea, you could still make an album on Digi 002's. But I don't want to. The perfect pairing for me is great analog hardware with converters than capture them in their entirety. The world is your oyster at that point.
The statement is true though, there aren't interfaces on the market today that would really get in the way. That's not the point though, is it? ;-)
|
|
|
Post by veggieryan on Sept 6, 2018 14:45:14 GMT -6
Anybody else thinks this looks like a Brownface Deluxe? Too bad they can't do a Deluxe Reverb plugin since they chose to once again stick with antiquated sharc chips that could not possibly run a true spring reverb and Fender amp emulation on a single channel in real time without cutting some serious corners... sigh. Already if you want to run the fender amp sim with a single pedal or effect you have to do ridiculous work arounds like giving up an aux channel. So glad I ditched the Apollo platform. They want 3500 bucks for 2 extra sharc chips, no MADI or AES I/O and some probably minor improvements to conversion. You can add all the sharcs you want but the problem is still that each single channel is still extremely limited to a single mk2 level plugin or two when running at 96khz which many people do because each of those sharc chips is just not powerful enough to run a single channel. Any time I tried to do anything on my Apollos it was a constant routine of 'out of DSP' popups and frustration. The irony becomes sickening when you realize by the time you add up all the money you spent on plugins and the Apollo you could literally be using real hardware at almost the same channel count and get MUCH better sounding results if you are a small project studio focused on recording 2 channels at a time. At a similar price point, Fractal Audio changed to a better chip and sees 4-5x performance increase. Thus if UAD really wants us to shell out high-end money, they should think about providing a high-end DSP solution rather than stringing along decade old chips that are hamstringing their platform. I will not be re-considering the Apollo platform until such changes are made. "Two 1.0 GHz, floating-point “Keystone” Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) comprise the main audio engine. These processors are the most powerful DSPs available delivering over twice the performance of the DSPs used in our previous generation products. To feed these advanced processors we coupled 4Gb of blazing fast PC1600 DDR3 memory, hundreds of Mb of FLASH memory, a proprietary FPGA and a rich set of peripherals."
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Sept 6, 2018 14:48:16 GMT -6
Well it seems to me that Slate was late to the party and the new X Apollos make the slate 'thing' look a little bit like a toy. It's just odd that they are announcing them at the same time. Bad timing.
I guess we will see how they sound and all that, but I have to say I am moderately impressed by the new UA offerings. Specifically the focus on conversion quality. At least on appearances.
|
|
|
UAD X
Sept 6, 2018 14:57:29 GMT -6
Post by Mister Chase on Sept 6, 2018 14:57:29 GMT -6
Anybody else thinks this looks like a Brownface Deluxe? Too bad they can't do a Deluxe Reverb plugin since they chose to once again stick with antiquated sharc chips that could not possibly run a true spring reverb and Fender amp emulation on a single channel in real time without cutting some serious corners... sigh. Already if you want to run the fender amp sim with a single pedal or effect you have to do ridiculous work arounds like giving up an aux channel. So glad I ditched the Apollo platform. They want 3500 bucks for 2 extra sharc chips, no MADI or AES I/O and some probably minor improvements to conversion. You can add all the sharcs you want but the problem is still that each single channel is still extremely limited to a single mk2 level plugin or two when running at 96khz which many people do because each of those sharc chips is just not powerful enough to run a single channel. Any time I tried to do anything on my Apollos it was a constant routine of 'out of DSP' popups and frustration. The irony becomes sickening when you realize by the time you add up all the money you spent on plugins and the Apollo you could literally be using real hardware at almost the same channel count and get MUCH better sounding results if you are a small project studio focused on recording 2 channels at a time. At a similar price point, Fractal Audio changed to a better chip and sees 4-5x performance increase. Thus if UAD really wants us to shell out high-end money, they should think about providing a high-end DSP solution rather than stringing along decade old chips that are hamstringing their platform. I will not be re-considering the Apollo platform until such changes are made. "Two 1.0 GHz, floating-point “Keystone” Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) comprise the main audio engine. These processors are the most powerful DSPs available delivering over twice the performance of the DSPs used in our previous generation products. To feed these advanced processors we coupled 4Gb of blazing fast PC1600 DDR3 memory, hundreds of Mb of FLASH memory, a proprietary FPGA and a rich set of peripherals." Good points. That's the other thing about my Lynx and other modular converters. It's future proof. The Mkii Apollos weren't that long ago (2015 according to press releases), and now there are more already. I can probably last a good 10 years on my current Lynx without worrying about needing to wait for better features in 3 years.
|
|