KVR Audio

sqigls · Post by **sqigls** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:09 pm

Mr Arkadin wrote: ...Oh and sqigls, it's not just about DSP vs CPU these days, it's about quality...

That's the only reason I still use UAD. I just wish I could buy them native. My expresscard only runs so many plugs, and the satellite doesn't run on Windows OS... (or Linix for that matter)... plus my firewire port is fecked now, so I need to use an expresscard to get firewire for my soundcard, but that leaves me without many of my FX... BIG GODD DAYN BALLS.

Seriously, Mr Jonathan Little Sir, can you please VOG me in native, pweeese?

billybk1 · Post by **billybk1** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:17 pm

kmonkey wrote:I wonder why everyone think it is awesome real time effect box? Sure it's 2ms and that is super fast (note that this is being possible on scope cards for about 10 years) but keep in mind that UAD still does not have any kind of chainer shell. Which mean more effects you add per channel, more delay you have (unlike Scope system which sport awesome chainer - you can stack up to 8 different effects with the SAME near zero delay).

FYI, you can "stack" up to 4 UAD-2 plug-ins on each insert/bus with sub-2ms latency (that is the total latency) via the Apollo mixer. Using the Apollo as your front end you can quickly monitor, audition and print audio in realtime, with no discernible delay. You do not need a "chainer shell" when using the Apollo as a realtime FX box. Audio is going straight into and then out of the Apollo to your DAW of choice, just like when using an external FX box.

Cheers,

Billy Buck

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:34 pm

[DELETED]

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:48 pm

ttoz wrote:i don't understand some of the hate here.

You've been on kvr longer than me, you should understand that it's nothing out of the ordinary

If by knocking the price that means "hate" then guilty. 3000g (including the TB card) is a ton of cash and there is no guarantee it's going to be stable. Don't get me wrong, the idea is brilliant.

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:11 pm

This is definitely the right move from UAD, since the DSP only cards have been providing less and less value as time marches on. What annoys me a bit is the I/O spec ... 18/14 with ADAT making up the bulk of the inputs is (IMO) a total cop-out.

Will be interesting to see how these converters (and drivers) compare to RME / Lynx / Apogee.

Peace,
Andy.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:14 pm

I heard those converters us WH tech.

ZenPunkHippy · Post by **ZenPunkHippy** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:24 pm

You've lost me ... what does "WH tech" mean? Which company is that ... ?

Peace,
Andy.

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:25 pm

I'll tell you what I am hatin' on......when I go to "kvr" to check updates and get gang-attacked by those ads

skarnka · Post by **skarnka** » Tue May 08, 2012 7:12 am

There is a good review of the Apollo Duo here:
http://en.audiofanzine.com/external-aud ... r-men.html

mkdr · Post by **mkdr** » Tue May 08, 2012 7:49 am

billybk1 wrote: FYI, you can "stack" up to 4 UAD-2 plug-ins on each insert/bus with sub-2ms latency (that is the total latency) via the Apollo mixer.

Well there goes total recall...

sqigls wrote:I'm not sure about this "chainer shell" concept, but as far as I'm aware UAD plugs run at a standard 256 samples right across the board...?

Yes you have a set amount of latency the plugs run at. But that amount is per plugin. So in the case of 256 samples if you have 8 plugins the latency will be 8*256 = 2048.
Now if you'd have a chainer you could have them all run in the same "process" and have 8 plugs with a latency of 256 samples TOTAL. Does that make sense?

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Tue May 08, 2012 7:50 pm

Uninterested. I'm not adding a bunch of latency after working so hard to be so low.

This is going to be another trainwreck. Things are going to be incompatible, and fiddly and buggy. The rent is too high.

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Wed May 09, 2012 5:04 am

skarnka wrote:There is a good review of the Apollo Duo here:
http://en.audiofanzine.com/external-aud ... r-men.html

Just by unpacking this rather deep 1U (12.125") 19" rack unit that weights 9.1 lbs. you can tell that the Apollo is a success — at least from the design point of view. It looks as beautiful as a rack unit can (although Los Teignos will argument that audio gear can't be beautiful, unlike a work of art), which is not necessarily the case for similar products. Just think about RME's interfaces whose audio quality is inversely proportional to the skills of their designers (do they even have designers?). A nice-looking audio interface won't make you play or mix better, but we must admit that it matches the aluminum look of our iMac perfectly, even if Universal Audio can still learn a lot from Apple in terms of "Woman Acceptance factor."

Anyone care to comment on the above?

hibidy · Post by **hibidy** » Wed May 09, 2012 5:23 am

yeah, sure........I will

"I got paid to do this so I'll look for anything I can to red herring you away from any possible discrepancies"

How'd I do?

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Wed May 09, 2012 5:27 am

hibidy wrote:yeah, sure........I will

"I got paid to do this so I'll look for anything I can to red herring you away from any possible discrepancies"

How'd I do?

Give that man a cigar!

illiustrope · Post by **illiustrope** » Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:41 pm

egbert wrote:
hibidy wrote:yeah, sure........I will

"I got paid to do this so I'll look for anything I can to red herring you away from any possible discrepancies"

How'd I do?
Give that man a cigar!

+1

UAD Apollo - if they get the drivers right, this is the interface to end all