Just curious if any one has looked into getting a UAD Apollo or an SSL Sigma? 

I've never really considered either, but after reading a review of the Apollo in SoS, I did some googling & came across the SSL Sigma.

Totally different product, I'm not asking for a comparison between the two, just wondering if any one here had any experience with either. 

I don't have any experience with the SSL Sigma, but I have been using an Apollo QUAD for the past year and with SONAR X2 since last November once UA released Win7 compatibility. I have not had any issues using it with my Mac Mini with the Thunderbolt card or with Win7 (SP1) using the UA recommended Sonnet Allegro FW800 PCIe card. It works well with SONAR X2 with available ASIO buffer sizes from 2048 down to 32 samples. I typically record/mix @ 44/24. I record/monitor in realtime using UAD plug-ins from the Apollo Console while keeping the ASIO buffer size @ 512 or 1024.
With the imminent  release of UAD 7.0 version there will be some significant Apollo routing & Console enhancements. One of which will be "Virtual I/O", this will allow routing virtual instruments through the Apollo Console from your DAW, for realtime UAD processing.
Later this year, I am going to upgrade my 6 year old C2D PC DAW with an i7 MB that has on-board TB ports, so I can use TB exclusively with my Apollo and avoid FW altogether.

Cheers,

Billy Buck

Well that was quick, the UAD V7.0 release is here. With it comes something completely different from UA......the long anticipated release of the "Ocean Way Studios" plugin. I am sure the servers are getting slammed, but I've got to go download the update and check this baby out.................and of course the reported Apollo enhancements as well. 

Cheers,

Billy Buck

I'm curious about the Apollo Quad.  I'm weighing the purchase of four more decent pres, upgrading my soundcard and maybe my computer.  With all that together, the Apollo gets more attractive in price.

Anything that it didn't do for you that caught you off guard? 

I am pretty interested in Apollo myself and started making some enquiries. I recently spoke to a gentleman who admittedly works in the area of selling high end audio gear but he informed me that the Apollo A to D / D to A conversion while very good is not quite in the same class as say RME.  He said that after all the hoopla had calmed down about the Apollo this is what some engineers were finding.

He told me a better quality option would be the RME interface such as the Fireface UFX coupled up with the UAD Quad card either in the PCI slot or external via satellite. That will be more expensive. Say $1200 or whatever version of Satellite you decide to get will be the difference in price.

If I was really serious I would try and get both the RME and the Apollo in the same studio for a time and do some tests. It would be well worth it. I do really like the idea of the UAD processing being in the same box as the audio interface. It is the best place for it actually. If the audio quality was good I would tend towards the Apollo but if the RME also sounded better, then that is the obvious choice. There are many ways to add UAD horsepower to any system.

I have also heard the effects in the RME unit are also pretty decent too and not to be dismissed to easily.

Jeff Evans


I have also heard the effects in the RME unit are also pretty decent too and not to be dismissed to easily.

 
Which RME unit would you compare to the Apollo? 

This one I think. It sells for about $2400 here in Australia:
http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_fireface_ufx.php
 
But remember this is not a direct comparison to Apollo either. It has effects of course and it may have nicer converters. But the FX while very OK apparently are not going to be in the UAD class either. I was thinking of this and the UAD Satellite (or PCI card) at the same time.
 
So you are looking at the cost of UAD Satellite on top of the RME interface (which is about the same as Apollo at around $2400) which could mean upwards of $1200 on top to get it happening. ($3600 or more) The converters in the RME would have to be way better than Apollo in order to go this route.
 
It does make Apollo look very attractive I must say. I see they have released Apollo 16 now which looks even more interesting. (around $3000) The RME unit can go up to 30 channels in and out too if you include the ADAT input and outputs. I have a Behringer ADA8000 which could adapt to the RME easily for no cost and get another 8 in 8 out. RME also make similar devices.

At present, 12 of the mic pres I have are in a Soundcraft Spirit M12.  They're not bad sounding mic pres but they are what they are and they're quite usable.  However, I've already had the mixer in the shop for a new power supply and I know the unit has a shelf life and the next repair might be throwing good money after bad.

I've got 16 inputs to my Frontier Dakota card and it too has a shelf life - mainly in driver support.  I think we barely got a Win 7 x64 driver at that.  AFAIK, it's not being manufactured anymore so I'm at a dead end there.  I've got two Tango 24 units for AD/DA but between them and my Dakota card there is minimal support for real time monitoring for cue mixes.  So I have to use input monitoring in DAW software to do that and all it takes is a little CPU load to add latency to the signal and render input monitoring useless.

I like the UAD plugins but my computer only has a single PCi-E card slot available which is occupied by a UAD-2 Solo card.  I'm trying to juggle what to keep and what to sell and ultimately what to buy to give me the most bang for the buck marketing wise.  Sexy soundcards are cool to use but unless the client is into DAW software as well, the sexy internal stuff never out sells a sexy piece of hardware in your rack that they can't afford to have.  You can say all you want about how it's ultimately the engineer and his talent that brings them back, but I know that the Neumann U87 and the Avalon and UA preamps has the most initial wow factor.  So I have a strong leaning to spend my money there.

I've been watching from the sidelines the conversations over at Gearslutz and until there is an improvement on the Apollos AD/DA front, although I really like the majority of the functionality, I would not move away from my Lynx convertors. If they get the product up to the level of the their 2192 from the past, then I would be interested. In the end its all about the level of sound quality you are buying in that price range. I put this product in the high end consumer range and the numerous recording samples I've heard although they sound good, they don't sound great.

Mod Bod
Anything that it didn't do for you that caught you off guard? 

No, actually it's been better than what I could have imagined. UA keeps improving it with additional features and enhancements that really has made it a great long term investment. Really looking forward to the new "Flex Routing" feature coming in v7.1. If you decide to get an Apollo be sure to get the Sonnet Allegro FW800 PCIe card and not the lower priced Syba FW800 PCie card. I got a Syba and had nothing but problems getting my Apollo to work with it. It would not keep a steady FW800 speed and caused constant buffer errors on the Apollo. I googled the Syba card and found many QA issues with those cards. Even UA admitted that during their testing many cards came brand new in the box, DOA. You also need to use the TI FW800 driver that is installed with Win7(SP1). Any other driver will not perform correctly. Just throw the CDROM driver disk that comes with the card in the trash as you will never need it and will not work with the Apollo anyway.
 
Not sure if you have been following this long running active Apollo  GS thread, but lot's of Apollo users giving tips/tricks on using it in many ways for recording and mixing. Many top shelf Apollo recorded songs showcased as well. It has turned into an Apollo user support group.
 
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/712858-ua-apollo-first-look-user-review-293.html
 
Here is a guy from the UK named John Boswell that just posted this beautifully recorded acoustic guitar instrumental using the Apollo's mic pre's:
 
http://vimeo.com/68298340
 
Another guy named named Peter Moshay is using his Apollo/UAD plug-ins as an integral part of his audio arsenal for mixing the award winning "Live From Daryls House?"
You can read about his exploits using the Apollo/UAD plug-ins in the most recent last couple of pages of the aforementioned Apollo GS thread.
 
If you have great musicianship/instruments/vocalists, credible songs and a decent mic locker you can create stellar professional quality recordings with the just the Apollo, some choice UAD plug-ins and most any DAW. I find the only people dissing the Apollo are those trying to sell you into something even more expensive. For me, the Apollo has been the best bang for the buck recording solution and I have no regrets about purchasing mine. Is the Apollo the right recording solution for everyone? Of course not, but it does deserve strong consideration, especially if you are already (or plan to be) a UAD plug-in user.
 
Cheers,
 
Billy Buck