UAD Apollo Twin Duo / thunderbolt interface: quick measurements

[pkane]

This is some quick REW measurements of UAD Apollo Twin Duo thunderbolt interface (this is for Mk I. Mk II has somewhat better specs reported by UAD).

The interface was measured in loop-back mode, with line output being fed into the instrument input.

1.434v on line out, 1kHz @ 44.1k/24bit sine wave generated by REW:

Multi-tone test (1/3 octave, white noise):

Jitter, 12kHz signal:

And finally, a frequency sweep at 96kHz sampling rate, also showing a very flat phase response (lower trace):

 

[watchnerd]

I'm thinking of getting the new UAD Apollo Twin X.

I think that's 2 generations beyond this one?

I'm really needing the 2 separate analog line outs on the back, one for monitor and the other for line level, that my RME ADI-2 Pro doesn't give me.

 

[dfuller]

I'm thinking of getting the new UAD Apollo Twin X.

I think that's 2 generations beyond this one?

I'm really needing the 2 separate analog line outs on the back, one for monitor and the other for line level, that my RME ADI-2 Pro doesn't give me.

I bought a second converter for that (a Schiit Modius) that I connect by AES. If it's not going to speakers, this is a decent solution.

 

[watchnerd]

I bought a second converter for that (a Schiit Modius) that I connect by AES. If it's not going to speakers, this is a decent solution.

That seems kind of goofy to me.

I just use the channel 3/4 jacks on the front via a TRS to XLR splitter, set the volume to 'LOCKED', which turns into a line out.

It's not perfect, and I'd prefer the cables on the back, but it's less complexity that adding another converter entirely.

 

[pkane]

I'm thinking of getting the new UAD Apollo Twin X.

I think that's 2 generations beyond this one?

I'm really needing the 2 separate analog line outs on the back, one for monitor and the other for line level, that my RME ADI-2 Pro doesn't give me.

I think that’s right. The one I measured is the original version. The main reason to consider these devices (at least for me) was the onboard DSP processing with many available plugins. They actually have a small computer built in to do this type of complex processing. If you’re getting it for an extra line output, you’re probably paying a lot more for functionality that you may never need. But if it does what you want and fits the budget, who am I to say?

 

[watchnerd]

I think that’s right. The one I measured is the original version. The main reason to consider these devices (at least for me) was the onboard DSP processing with many available plugins. They actually have a small computer built in to do this type of complex processing. If you’re getting it for an extra line output, you’re probably paying a lot more for functionality that you may never need. But if it does what you want and fits the budget, who am I to say?

No, I wouldn't be doing it just for the extra input -- I could just get a Mackie Big Knob for that.

It would be for the DSP processing for use with Pro Tools / Cubase, the front mounted High Z input that the ADI-2 Pro lacks, and the extra monitor output.

 

[dfuller]

That seems kind of goofy to me.

I just use the channel 3/4 jacks on the front via a TRS to XLR splitter, set the volume to 'LOCKED', which turns into a line out.

It's not perfect, and I'd prefer the cables on the back, but it's less complexity that adding another converter entirely.

Ah, but I wanted everything balanced. My room is somewhat noisier than I'd like, so the better CMRR from balanced is my reasoning here.

 

[Blake Klondike]

Thanks so much for this-- I don't know how to read the measurements; I bought this for the AD conversion, rather than the plug-ins. Are there less expensive interfaces that measure just as well? Can you get a sense for how the DAC, XLR outs and headphone amp quality?

 

[pkane]

Thanks so much for this-- I don't know how to read the measurements; I bought this for the AD conversion, rather than the plug-ins. Are there less expensive interfaces that measure just as well? Can you get a sense for how the DAC, XLR outs and headphone amp quality?

Apollo measurements are OK, not the best or the worst, but this unit was generation 1. I believe later versions (Duo II) measure better, but I've not had a chance to measure one. Audibly, this this is going to be transparent. Motu M4 is less expensive but measures a bit better if you're OK with a USB connection to the PC. If you really want thunderbolt, I can recommend Apogee Element24, as a well-measuring interface, with a quality DAC and ADC. I'm sure others will chime in with more recommendations. There are now many more high-quality interfaces at reasonable prices than ever before.

 

[Pach]

Should there be any reason to go with an external DAC for (expensive) headphones/IEMs rather than using the one in the Apollo Twin X? I contacted UAD to see if they would share any details about their AD/DA specs but they said they could not share it; they only said that the max sample rate is 192khz.

 

[dfuller]

Should there be any reason to go with an external DAC for (expensive) headphones/IEMs rather than using the one in the Apollo Twin X? I contacted UAD to see if they would share any details about their AD/DA specs but they said they could not share it; they only said that the max sample rate is 192khz.

No; however depending on the headphones it may be worth getting a headphone amp with more power if they're particularly low sensitivity.