Thanks for the feedback. I've been eyeing an Apollo Twin out of curiosity of the UAD plugins but seems like the smart move is to stay away from the hardware and maybe just check out the Native stuff.
@@JarickL as a long time UAD user, I’m really disappointed to see what the company is doing with their hardware and pricing currently. The price gouging on the new interface prices is really bad. It makes them really hard to recommend, and it wasn’t that easy to recommend before (based on the prices, underpowered DSP, converter, and preamp quality compared to the competition at the same or lower price points). When it comes time for me to upgrade, I’ll be considering the RME UCXII, which has some DSP for tracking and the SoundID support is free (speakers only though). I’ll also be seeing what other options are there at the similar price point and weighing it up from there. It seems like UAD are out here burning bridges with a lot of their loyal customers lately. I’d never consider them with their current pricing.
Thanks for your honest thoughts and pointing out several money making methods UA is using to those stuck in the ecosystem personally, If the gen 2 X , converters and pre amps sounded as good as Apogee Symphony or RME, ONLY then I would feel like "they have finally caught up" otherwise, same problem, software is great, but the converters are not as good as they should be (at this price point compared to their rivals) if you get a chance to hear the Gen 2 X, D to A and pre amps, pls share what you find.....
Cheers for the comment, and appreciate the feedback! My next interface will likely be an RME UCX II. I think that for the money, what UAD provide is not good value at all in terms of the converters and preamp quality. They aren't bad, but as you say, for the same, or less money, you can get much better. The strength of their interfaces is the low latency tracking through their DSP, regardless of sample buffers, but they have neglected low sample buffer performance and stability for whatever reason. Interesting to see that the RME UCX II has the SoundID intergration now too, but unlike for Apollos, Sonarworks are not charging 80euro for it...Only speaker calibration though, but better than nothing!
@@JohnMarshall-NI Thanks for your response! i didnt know that there is no charge for Sonarworks with RME! Just shows something ! I am considering Apogee Symphony desktop for the amazing pres and conversion quality and then add in outs via Optical. (something like Apogee Element or the new EVO 8)
Thanks for the update. Yeah think the value prop is there for some and not others. I have a less dramatic take on it all in that I think this will likely be the last of DSP anyway. If that’s the case and DSP is valuable then you should grab it for that reason and get the better conversion. If the native play goes accordingly for UA they will have another Apollo interface like the 16D without DSP at some point. The writings on the wall. Thats just how tech works in all categories bro you move with it or you complain wishing for things that no longer matter to the majority of the users. On paper it’s better than the alternatives no matter how you feel. having heard them head to head with antalope and apoggee at VK I’m gonna burn them out until we get a new platform without DSP and with Dante or Madi. That’s the future, along with whatever AI has to offer and not the old platform. I’m down to wait for that.
@@djcode6983 thanks for the comment. I’m actually considering an Antelope Zen Quadro synergy core as my next interface. It has all of the features that I need. I came from an Antelope Zen Tour to the Apollo, and the converters and preamps were a noticeable downgrade. Trying to find out whether they have improved their software and driver support since I last used them. On paper the Zen Quadro ticks all of the boxes. Other than that I was looking at the RME UCX II, but the Zen Quadro is less than half the price, and 1/4 of the price of a gen 2 Apollo X4 in the UK! UAD pricing is taking the piss.
They seem to be milking older customers for as much as they can at this point since they're already so invested in the ecosystem. Meanwhile diluting the value of overpriced hardware people have bought. Antelope honestly was better sound and way better support for me. I'm using the MT 48 now which is incredible sonically and portable if you can do with limited i/o.
@@aaronthomas7790 the Neumann looks interesting! I’m considering the RME UCX II as my next interface, but will have to weigh up all of the options. I’d have considered an Apollo X4, but the last gen was already over priced at 1500, and the gen 2 is now 2000. That’s wild for what it is!
@@JohnMarshall-NI I had the UCX ii for a little bit as well and that's a great interface. Rme is the best for low latency and stability. The headphone out in particular on the Neumann is what sold me on it. The depth and clarity is incredible with vsx. Lots of good options these days without being tied to the uad ecosystem.
@@JohnMarshall-NIsounds like you are leaning towards the exact same two options of upgrades as me. I think it will most likely be the MT48 but will wait for Dante ready version coming next month. I was leaning heavily towards the RME UCX II but conversion and headphone dac of the MT48 is what is swaying me. Although, the multiple I\O’s on the RME is appealing but ultimately conversion is more important to me. I am ditching my Apollo Twin mk1 in favour of one of these interfaces, as I am greatly disappointed with the gen2 version and will not be investing further, especially at the new price point. Glad to hear your take on the new release and I am in agreement with you.
UA rightly gets a lot of flack, but sometimes its a bit too much. - Why would they focus on native performance when their whole value prop is DSP-assisted tracking thru Console? Seems like a strange thing to complain about when they never once made it a priority. - The MkII is a 10 year old interface: Why do we expect them to continually add new features for a 10 year old interface when no other company is doing this? - Why does it matter if the SHARC chips are the same when they still have easily the most robust DSP-assisted plugin collection and feature set? If there was a competitor allowing you to do even more with DSP at the price range you might have a point but there simply is not. - It's cheaper than the Gen 1 was at launch, factoring in inflation. And they are throwing in more plugins - DSP powered sonarworks integration in console is a much more user friendly way of implementing this than standalone apps that will consume CPU and further fragment workflow. Overall, I think the Gen 2 is a no brainer if it's in your budget and you can get behind the Console workflow.
Thanks for the comment. To address your points: - Because a lot of their plugins are running natively now, some exclusively so, and there is a whole world of excellent native plugins out there that are not UAD. They could have the best of both worlds, but have chosen not to. - UAD have also released a bunch of virtual instruments that require stable low sample buffer performance to be useful at all. There is also a whole world of other non-UAD virtual instruments that require stable, well optimized low latency performance. - My Kemper toaster came out in 2012. It is still getting updates, with new effects, and even pretty radical features like allowing it to function as a USB audio interface. - RME interfaces also have probably the best driver support out there, and have been adding SoundID support as well, for free (although only for the speakers). - If you look at the newer UAD native plugin releases, Capitol Mastering Compressor, Sound City Studios, the new amps, vocal suites, the virtual instruments etc. they are incapable of running on the sharc DSP. - The new native guitar amps in the particular are direct ports of their hardware guitar pedals. Those pedals are running ARM based DSP chips, not sharc DSP chips. The native ports of those plugins are pretty CPU intensive. That indicates that the ARM based chips that UAD are already using are significantly more powerful than the sharc DSP chips in the Apollos and capable of near zero latency performance. - The first UAFX guitar pedal came out over 3 years ago now using that updated ARM DSP. - The price is not good value at all compared to competing devices with comparable or better I/O, superior converters, preamps, and headphone amps.
Great video. I actually happened to completely agree with you.
Thanks for the feedback. I've been eyeing an Apollo Twin out of curiosity of the UAD plugins but seems like the smart move is to stay away from the hardware and maybe just check out the Native stuff.
@@JarickL as a long time UAD user, I’m really disappointed to see what the company is doing with their hardware and pricing currently.
The price gouging on the new interface prices is really bad. It makes them really hard to recommend, and it wasn’t that easy to recommend before (based on the prices, underpowered DSP, converter, and preamp quality compared to the competition at the same or lower price points).
When it comes time for me to upgrade, I’ll be considering the RME UCXII, which has some DSP for tracking and the SoundID support is free (speakers only though).
I’ll also be seeing what other options are there at the similar price point and weighing it up from there.
It seems like UAD are out here burning bridges with a lot of their loyal customers lately. I’d never consider them with their current pricing.
Thanks for your honest thoughts and pointing out several money making methods UA is using to those stuck in the ecosystem
personally, If the gen 2 X , converters and pre amps sounded as good as Apogee Symphony or RME, ONLY then I would feel like "they have finally caught up"
otherwise, same problem, software is great, but the converters are not as good as they should be (at this price point compared to their rivals)
if you get a chance to hear the Gen 2 X, D to A and pre amps, pls share what you find.....
Cheers for the comment, and appreciate the feedback! My next interface will likely be an RME UCX II. I think that for the money, what UAD provide is not good value at all in terms of the converters and preamp quality.
They aren't bad, but as you say, for the same, or less money, you can get much better. The strength of their interfaces is the low latency tracking through their DSP, regardless of sample buffers, but they have neglected low sample buffer performance and stability for whatever reason.
Interesting to see that the RME UCX II has the SoundID intergration now too, but unlike for Apollos, Sonarworks are not charging 80euro for it...Only speaker calibration though, but better than nothing!
@@JohnMarshall-NI Thanks for your response! i didnt know that there is no charge for Sonarworks with RME! Just shows something !
I am considering Apogee Symphony desktop for the amazing pres and conversion quality
and then add in outs via Optical. (something like Apogee Element or the new EVO 8)
Thanks for the update. Yeah think the value prop is there for some and not others. I have a less dramatic take on it all in that I think this will likely be the last of DSP anyway. If that’s the case and DSP is valuable then you should grab it for that reason and get the better conversion. If the native play goes accordingly for UA they will have another Apollo interface like the 16D without DSP at some point. The writings on the wall. Thats just how tech works in all categories bro you move with it or you complain wishing for things that no longer matter to the majority of the users. On paper it’s better than the alternatives no matter how you feel. having heard them head to head with antalope and apoggee at VK I’m gonna burn them out until we get a new platform without DSP and with Dante or Madi. That’s the future, along with whatever AI has to offer and not the old platform. I’m down to wait for that.
@@djcode6983 thanks for the comment. I’m actually considering an Antelope Zen Quadro synergy core as my next interface. It has all of the features that I need.
I came from an Antelope Zen Tour to the Apollo, and the converters and preamps were a noticeable downgrade.
Trying to find out whether they have improved their software and driver support since I last used them. On paper the Zen Quadro ticks all of the boxes.
Other than that I was looking at the RME UCX II, but the Zen Quadro is less than half the price, and 1/4 of the price of a gen 2 Apollo X4 in the UK! UAD pricing is taking the piss.
They seem to be milking older customers for as much as they can at this point since they're already so invested in the ecosystem. Meanwhile diluting the value of overpriced hardware people have bought. Antelope honestly was better sound and way better support for me. I'm using the MT 48 now which is incredible sonically and portable if you can do with limited i/o.
@@aaronthomas7790 the Neumann looks interesting! I’m considering the RME UCX II as my next interface, but will have to weigh up all of the options.
I’d have considered an Apollo X4, but the last gen was already over priced at 1500, and the gen 2 is now 2000. That’s wild for what it is!
@@JohnMarshall-NI I had the UCX ii for a little bit as well and that's a great interface. Rme is the best for low latency and stability. The headphone out in particular on the Neumann is what sold me on it. The depth and clarity is incredible with vsx. Lots of good options these days without being tied to the uad ecosystem.
@@JohnMarshall-NIsounds like you are leaning towards the exact same two options of upgrades as me. I think it will most likely be the MT48 but will wait for Dante ready version coming next month. I was leaning heavily towards the RME UCX II but conversion and headphone dac of the MT48 is what is swaying me. Although, the multiple I\O’s on the RME is appealing but ultimately conversion is more important to me. I am ditching my Apollo Twin mk1 in favour of one of these interfaces, as I am greatly disappointed with the gen2 version and will not be investing further, especially at the new price point. Glad to hear your take on the new release and I am in agreement with you.
UA rightly gets a lot of flack, but sometimes its a bit too much.
- Why would they focus on native performance when their whole value prop is DSP-assisted tracking thru Console? Seems like a strange thing to complain about when they never once made it a priority.
- The MkII is a 10 year old interface: Why do we expect them to continually add new features for a 10 year old interface when no other company is doing this?
- Why does it matter if the SHARC chips are the same when they still have easily the most robust DSP-assisted plugin collection and feature set? If there was a competitor allowing you to do even more with DSP at the price range you might have a point but there simply is not.
- It's cheaper than the Gen 1 was at launch, factoring in inflation. And they are throwing in more plugins
- DSP powered sonarworks integration in console is a much more user friendly way of implementing this than standalone apps that will consume CPU and further fragment workflow.
Overall, I think the Gen 2 is a no brainer if it's in your budget and you can get behind the Console workflow.
Thanks for the comment. To address your points:
- Because a lot of their plugins are running natively now, some exclusively so, and there is a whole world of excellent native plugins out there that are not UAD. They could have the best of both worlds, but have chosen not to.
- UAD have also released a bunch of virtual instruments that require stable low sample buffer performance to be useful at all. There is also a whole world of other non-UAD virtual instruments that require stable, well optimized low latency performance.
- My Kemper toaster came out in 2012. It is still getting updates, with new effects, and even pretty radical features like allowing it to function as a USB audio interface.
- RME interfaces also have probably the best driver support out there, and have been adding SoundID support as well, for free (although only for the speakers).
- If you look at the newer UAD native plugin releases, Capitol Mastering Compressor, Sound City Studios, the new amps, vocal suites, the virtual instruments etc. they are incapable of running on the sharc DSP.
- The new native guitar amps in the particular are direct ports of their hardware guitar pedals. Those pedals are running ARM based DSP chips, not sharc DSP chips. The native ports of those plugins are pretty CPU intensive. That indicates that the ARM based chips that UAD are already using are significantly more powerful than the sharc DSP chips in the Apollos and capable of near zero latency performance.
- The first UAFX guitar pedal came out over 3 years ago now using that updated ARM DSP.
- The price is not good value at all compared to competing devices with comparable or better I/O, superior converters, preamps, and headphone amps.