Universal Audio Apollo Twin X Review (Audio Interface)

[LTig]

Is the RME suitable for recording studio use or would you have to jump through hoops to get that functionality out of it?

Of course, the RME is made for studio work. It just doesn't have the feature set of the UA but others in stead.

 

[PeteL]

Of course, the RME is made for studio work. It just doesn't have the feature set of the UA but others in stead.

I'd add that RME has a huge line of converters and interfaces, altough I'd say that, ADI and ADI pro are most discussed here because they both depart partly from the music production main focus, and I believe this is a conscious effort to crossover to the audiophile market. A bit, to a lesser degree, like the Rupert Neve designs Fidelice line.

 

[PeteL]

Prices are so high I assumed they were made in USA but no, made in China. To me they mostly just seem like very pretty, extremely expensive DRM dongles...

It may looks cool to some to see a made in USA tag, but for a product of this kind, most of the time is it's made locally, it's simply that they are not big enough of a company. In term of volume of units sold and in term of the having business architecture, to be worth moving the production. They may take pride to it, but it's certainly not because the product would be better. There are simply more expertise, more high tech facilities, and more mature and reliable processes out in China, If you chose the right place obviously, not the cheapest.

 

[thefsb]

Do you use lots of ribbons?

Around xmas time, yes. Rest of the year I've a handheld dynamic and, rather weird, is the Shure SM35 condenser headset mic that comes with its own inline preamp and I still have to wide the gain all the way up.

 

[Lorenzo74]

Hi @Dave Tremblay

Some questions if you could kindly assist:

1. Can you kindly comment on the 'ESS IMD hump' here?

2. Is this interface using different ESS DAC chip to your X16, which has no signs of the ESS hump.

3. And have Universal Audio engineers discussed with ESS Labs themselves - do they offer any advice to solve this? Are they aware of it? Do they even care or are they indifferent?

4. Does Universal Audio think there is any audibility impact with this hump? Or Universal Audio don't think it's an issue at all, either audibility or engineering issue?

Thanks!

4. I can’t hear the hump. I’m already 46.
too below audibility.
so who cares?

and speaker in untreated room create orders of magnitude worst issues on freq. response, impulse response and waterfall.
DAC is cracked today. Why don’t focus energy elsewhere? (Kii Three-D&D-Geithain...)

 

[Music1969]

4. I can’t hear the hump. I’m already 46.
too below audibility.
so who cares?

I can't be informed by what you do and don't hear, sorry

and speaker in untreated room create orders of magnitude worst issues on freq. response, impulse response and waterfall.
DAC is cracked today. Why don’t focus energy elsewhere? (Kii Three-D&D-Geithain...)

I mostly use headphones, so this is all irrelevant for me , at the moment anyway...



Anyway some clever people already replied to me with useful info, but thanks for chiming in !

 

[Lorenzo74]

I can't be informed by what you do and don't hear, sorry




I mostly use headphones, so this is all irrelevant for me , at the moment anyway...



Anyway some clever people already replied to me with useful info, but thanks for chiming in !

You’re a gentlemen. My Best
L.

 

[Chez]

Yep. Product design is really about tradeoffs and where you spend money to get to a price point. The ADI-2 PRO is definitely a different target market, at nearly 2x the price of the TwinX Duo, and vastly different feature set.

Dave, I'm hoping that the Twin USB, X6 can also be submitted for review.

 

[reallyoldcob]

Wow, I never knew about the physical modeling aspect. That's really cool. The only other thing that comes to mind is Focusrite's Air feature, but that's a one trick pony.

All of the people I know who use UA DSP hit a point every year where they look at all-software workflows and say, "I'm tired of spending money and being locked into a hardware platform." Then after a week or two they say, "Nevermind, I can't give it up." That's addiction right there.

This is me

 

[Chez]

In one setup I routed my CD player digital output to the Twin USB & inserted plugins such as a Fairchild 670, Manley VariMu etc. out from the Apollo to my monitors. Didn't need to go thru a DAW, the UAD console software sufficed. I assume a Thunderbolt interface would provide less latency but it doesn't matter since the signal is in one single path.

I would hope some type of speaker/room correction plugin would be available down the line as well as some listening environment simulations

 

[Kane1972]

I'm pretty sure UAD do USB versions of these as well as these Thunderbolt. I wonder if you could ask them if they would be interested in sending one of these to you if that means you could run better tests? Also, you could ask them about bypassing the internal amps. I'm sure this is possible.

 

[Kane1972]

Btw, the X6 and above (I think it starts at the X6) are the units with the best specs.

 

[iamkimosabi]

I wander where the X6 would rate...seeing as they use the same chips, but everything is different guessing?

 

[jonljacobi]

I have a Clarett 4Pre and this (quad) which I got to review Luna for Macworld. Can’t say as I have a real preference, but the UA sounds awful darn nice and it’s currently seeing the most use. I only use the bundled free plugins, but I’ve tried most of them. They’re quite good on the whole, but I don’t like depending on a closed ecosystem, so I won’t go down that pricey path. Also, I’m more than satisfied with what’s in my DAW.

You’re also relying on their proprietary drivers. No M1 support yet and it took a while for Big Sur. There’s a lot to consider before going UA but their stuff does sound very good.

 

[bys_1123]

If I use better linear 12V power source, should I get better result?

 

[Quashie]

I've been trying to think of how to write this for a while. Trying to cover a lot of ground, so please bear with me. And while I work for Universal Audio, I participate in this forum due to my personal interest more than my professional one.

The professional audio market is definitely different than consumer, and the goals are way more varied. In the consumer market, we would probably all be thrilled with a single product that had a world class DAC, simple driver support, a powerful headphone amp, and USB bus powered would be nice...

In the pro space, there are many other things to consider. While the DAC performance is still important, it has to be balanced with many other features that are unique to recording workflows. And every company in this space likely has a different viewpoint, or even a different target customer. Consider the following:

1) Line Level ADC Performance - important for electronic instruments and external gear (keyboards, etc)
2) Mic Preamps with 48v Phantom Power - 60dB of clean gain, ideally settable/recallable with software
3) DI Performance - 60dB of gain for "Direct Input", i.e. very low level signals (passive guitar pickups, etc)
4) Input Voltage Acceptance - 24dBu, or 34V Peak, required for integrating outboard recording gear
5) Output Voltage Drive - 24dBu, again 34V Peak, required for integrating outboard recording gear
6) Independent Headphone Mixes - Separate DAC outputs, so performer can hear a different mix than the main mix
7) Low Latency Mixer and FX - performers can be sensitive to less than 3mSec of delay, analog to analog, with FX
8) High driver stability at low IO Buffer sizes - work well in a DAW with buffer sizes as low as 32 samples
9) No thumps or clicks, ever - they can end up in the audio, but also note that these devices are plugged into active monitors with full gain
10) Various metering modes
11) Multichannel Digital IO - helping to integrate with outboard gear
12) External Clocking - ability to sync to external clock sources and maintain performance
13) Multi-unit aggregation - DAWs can only see one device, so if you need more I/O, devices have to aggregate at driver or below
14) Thunderbolt - Can typically reach lower latencies than USB (not about bandwidth, USB3 is fine for that)
15) Potentially complex routing capabilities - often achieved through FPGAs or DSPs
16) Headphone amplifier - Ability to drive 300Ohm headphones to high level.
17) Form Factor - Has large implications on cost, heat, and performance
18) Environmental Factors - Is the device stable under extreme thermal loads like a live show in the desert
19) Reliability - If something goes wrong, will it take down the Super Bowl Half Time show.
20) User Delight - May sound funny, but maybe the most important. Does it have a sound? Is it nostalgic? Does it inspire?
21) Workflow enhancements - Can you record an album faster, reducing expensive studio time?

I could go on, but these were the ones that jumped to mind. For many in this forum, these probably don't matter, in the same way that if you enjoy looking at high-end photography, you don't need a Full Frame DSLR Camera. That said, I wanted to focus on some of the choices in a device like the Twin X.

First of all, it is truly a Pro Audio Device. As such, it should be able to fully support 20dBu or 24dBu. Most lower end audio interfaces don't support that. So, why does it matter? Mixing desks and outboard studio gear tend to run at these higher voltage levels. But there are side effects to a feature like this. It generates more heat, for example, which is tough in a small chassis like the Twin X. It also means that if you are only driving 4V, like a consumer desktop DAC, you are not operating the DAC and ADC at peak performance. It's still good as can be seen in the review, but performance is always better near Full Scale digital.

World class mic preamps with programmable gain. This is a basic requirement of a pro audio device, but the programmable gain also makes the setup recallable if someone needs to go back and re-record something. Saves time and is a major workflow enhancement. High quality Programmable Gain devices are expensive though, and hit the budget. Lower end devices can't afford that.

Low latency mixer and FX. While you can use the mixer in your DAW and track through it with effects, it is pretty common for that to either add a lot of latency or glitching the audio under heavier loads. Having an extremely reliable hardware based mixer with FX, means you don't have to worry about it. Just make music.

Probably one of the top appeals of the Twin X comes in that user-delight bullet. We can not only emulate famous mixing consoles from studios like Abbey Road with physically modeled DSP (think PSpice level of circuit modeling), but we can physically alter the input impedance of the mic preamps and DI to load the microphone or instrument in the same way those devices would have. Whether that is nostalgia or just good sound, it can be very inspiring.

Lastly, studio customers, whether high-end or project studio, see these devices as a big investment and as such, they should last a long time. Sometimes this means industrial level components, sometimes it just means buying from a company that has a good long term record with driver support. Those things can be a non-obvious part of price points.

I hope this was helpful. We're pretty proud of the products we make, and I hope that comes across without being a sales pitch. These products are focused on music creation and definitely have tradeoffs versus a pure desktop focused DAC at the same price. And I hope this doesn't come across as disparaging "lower end" music creation devices either. There are a lot of musicians out there that don't want to spend $899 on an audio interface and may not value some of our decisions as much as others.

Dave, Thanks for this explanation. I am very impressed with my Apollo Twin X Quad which I've been using since August and hope to have many years of creativity with it.

 

[jonljacobi]

The Twin X Quad is indeed a fine interface. It all depends on your need. If two inputs is fine, it's great, but I augment it with a Clarett 4Pre for straight line input as it has far more. I use the Twin X for vocals and acoustic guitar and it's absolutely fantastic if you want to print to tape. I also seem to get better results (tastes vary) than I do with FX in post. That may just be me being used to working that way, or some sort of bias.

I never use the UA stuff in mixdown (I've never bought any additional UA plugins) as I have plugins that I find just as suitable and I don't generally exceed more than 20-30 tracks, and many of those summed to a buss. I know some guys who do, and they love them. I simply didn't want to start down that slippery slope.

 

[Liberte]

As a recording interface the Apollo Twin X is lovely to use and hasn't missed a beat for me. I've also enjoyed it as a way of listening to my digital music collection, it has a brighter sound than the audiolab M-DAC I'd been using for years previously so was a welcome novelty. I think of the M-DAC as more of a warmer HiFi sound and the Apollo as clinical/neutral/studio.

I recently picked up a turntable after years of digital listening and wanted to try vinyl 'pure analog', the Apollo has an inescapable chain of A/D > DSP > D/A processing and the M-DAC is all digital, so have tried a JDS Labs ELII+ amp. I've found the JDS sounds great, a thick weighty delivery but is less sharp in the details compared to the Apollo. I suppose this is the analog 'warmth' people talk about. The JDS amp is generally considered very neutral and doesn't add anything judging by many reviews, which makes me wonder if the JDS is the one giving the true presentation of the record, then the Apollo's input preamp, A/D, DSP and D/A processing is brightening the sound?

 

[DeadlyMixProductions]

We have an Apollo Twin sitting on the console to run plugins. I've used it to record. It's a lot better than other budget all-in-one audio interfaces, but not ideal for pro work. I noticed some audible "jitter clicks" in the recordings. Less than, say, a PreSonus AudioBox or something like that but more than the converters we normally use at the studio (D.A.D., Lynx, RedNet) or even RME.

As far as the DAC, it's sufficient for mixing songs ITB (in-the-box) but not mastering. For mastering (and pro services in general) you'd want to stick with something that sounds more detailed.
If you're an audiophile (as many in here seem to be), and for whatever reason are looking at recording gear to listen to your music on, this ain't so bad for the price. Better options are out there though.

We use Focusrite Pro RedNet AM2 headphone amps for artists recording. For DAC purposes, you could install Dante Virtual Soundcard on your computer and that would allow you to use the AM2's DAC. It gives you a headphone amp connected over ethernet (which allows you to be much further from the computer than USB, if need be) and has 2 line outs that could feed an analog receiver or amplifier for speaker systems. The outputs are XLR but XLR to ¼" cables are easy to find if that's what you need. As are XLR to just about any analog connector type. It's in the price range of a desktop Apollo but with a focus on the DAC and hp amp, rather than ADC, mic preamps, and DSP audiophiles have no need for.

Anything RME is likely a small step up or more also.

 

[Blumlein 88]

We have an Apollo Twin sitting on the console to run plugins. I've used it to record. It's a lot better than other budget all-in-one audio interfaces, but not ideal for pro work. I noticed some audible "jitter clicks" in the recordings. Less than, say, a PreSonus AudioBox or something like that but more than the converters we normally use at the studio (D.A.D., Lynx, RedNet) or even RME.

As far as the DAC, it's sufficient for mixing songs ITB (in-the-box) but not mastering. For mastering (and pro services in general) you'd want to stick with something that sounds more detailed.
If you're an audiophile (as many in here seem to be), and for whatever reason are looking at recording gear to listen to your music on, this ain't so bad for the price. Better options are out there though.

We use Focusrite Pro RedNet AM2 headphone amps for artists recording. For DAC purposes, you could install Dante Virtual Soundcard on your computer and that would allow you to use the AM2's DAC. It gives you a headphone amp connected over ethernet (which allows you to be much further from the computer than USB, if need be) and has 2 line outs that could feed an analog receiver or amplifier for speaker systems. The outputs are XLR but XLR to ¼" cables are easy to find if that's what you need. As are XLR to just about any analog connector type. It's in the price range of a desktop Apollo but with a focus on the DAC and hp amp, rather than ADC, mic preamps, and DSP audiophiles have no need for.

Anything RME is likely a small step up or more also.

Any opinion about the Apollo mic preamps vs the RME? Been considering an Apollo X4 for recording. I have a BabyFace Pro FS and Antelope audio Zen Tour.