I liked the Apollo better for your instruments and the Focusrite better for your vocals. I would have assumed that was reversed until I read the comments. Cheers
i agree with you, i personally own both scarlet and UA. I thought b was the UA. To someone looking on what to buy honestly if you aren’t making money off your music get the focusrite. There is a difference in quality that with good mixing and especially mastering you can make up.
I must be honest. Interface A sounded harsh in the upper mids and interface B sounded fuller and more detailed. So I guess I like the 2i2. You guys tend to forget that Rupert Neve had his hand in the focus rite designs and that man is a legend; may he rip.
Holy shit I thought the same… maybe it’s because I use the scarlet 2i2 so it’s what I’m used to, but that shouldn’t make it sound better to me. I wanted to make sure if I’m spending $1k on an interface it better be night and day difference. This kind of just throws another notch on the belt of skill/musical ability and mixing/mastering.
Apollo owner for more than 2 years, not really the audio difference that made me retire my Scarlett, it was the zero latency and UAs plugins that run with its own DSP instead of computers cpu. These of course aren’t required to get into recording but for me it’s definitely worth the money. To each their own though
Wait I didn’t know about the no latency. I was holding off on it because I didn’t think audio quality was that different and I was right. But the zero latency is a must for me. I got a guitarist who can’t adjust to 11ms. 😅
wow friend.. zero latency that's just what im looking for. Im tired of hearing white noise sounds everytime i plug in my guitar to my scarlett interface
Cheers for that, that was a great little experiment/demonstration! I actually thought that "A" sounded better when you spoke into the mic, but preferred "B" with the guitar examples. Both were incredibly similar thought. Would be great to try the same experiment right through the chain and see where it's worth spending the big bucks.
For vocals and first electric guitar, I like option A, but for bright electric guitar and acoustic guitar, I like option B better. We must keep in mind that the audio quality of an interface like Focusrite today is far superior to the best interface of 20 years ago. The quality of the result today depends much more on the quality of the music and the expertise of the producer, than on the price of the interfaces. In my opinion of course ;) Great video!
Listening via the speakers from my computer, to me A sounds more balanced across the frequencies with clear mids and a tighter bottom end. B sounds a bit compressed in the mids and a looser bottom end. The higher frequencies are pretty much similar. Thank you for doing the video.
Back in the days before digital recording, engineers relied on good mics, preamps and compressors. Oh and good ears too. There are many great recordings from them. I still believe the same holds true today. Good mics, preamps, compressors and recording techniques are the key. Yes, a good recording interface will produce better results than a mediocre one but it would be the last upgrade I would make.
Not just what you mentioned but also your power factor, such as the cables you use and how you treat the electricity in your studio. Power is a major factor we constantly over look..
This was a really good blind comparison. It also shows my ears are terrible after years of live sound and working in car shops. I picked A for the first guitar in the intro and B for the rest. But I have been a Scarlett 2i2 user for almost 10 years now. 1st Gen!
I genuinely convicted that B was the more expensive one as I preferred the sound of it, I am surprised. I'm also pleased as I am an owner of the 4th gen Scarlett . Happy days.
With the first demo I had a REALLY easy time hearing that the sample that turned out to be the Apollo was much better. The other sounded more like a blur. I have very little experience with this audio interface tech anyway but now I'm sold for the benefits of the Apollo.
Thank you for this video! This comment section is very telling. First of all, it pretty much proves there is no real difference other then purely subjective (and/or biased) preference. Second of all, it shows the huge difference in the two types of people. Folk who care about the music and people who consider gear über alles. It’s particularly fun for me to see the former be like “I though B was better, oh well” while the latter go, “yeah the UA is _so_ superior” sometimes not even mentioning if it’s A or B they picked. One person even used the word “mellifluous”! Are you kidding me? Mellifluous is not a word you use for voice samples and generic guitar chords! Anyway, music is what’s important - never the gear, no matter how expensive. There is not *a single listener in the world* throughout time who’s ever said “what wonderful preamps this song was recorded through”.
Gear matters a lot but not in this case. I agree with you on what some of these fools are saying about how the Apollo sounds "much better" - what a joke - there's a slight difference but it's not an improvement either way, and definitely not a 10x improvement in the case of the Apollo. The same song could be produced twice, an Apollo version and a Focusrite version, and there will be close to no difference between them.
I've been doing this for many years, and I'll admit I was pretty confused. At the beginning of the video I thought acoustic guitar B sounded brighter and better, but once he got to the voice examples I was hearing more harsh frequencies with the B ones. Very interesting video, thank you.
A sounded better to my ears. More open sound, brighter acoustics without sounding harsh. I'm glad to see I can perceive the differences in preamp quality.
Great video. I was not able to tell a difference at first. After listening carefully to the guitar samples multiple times I was able to hear that A sounded a little clearer than B. But wow is it subtle.
Glad to hear that I was right in my guess that A was the Apollo and B was the Scarlett. On my speakers, I was hearing a little more boom in the low mids, less articulation, and less flat response on the Scarlett, but it was pretty subtle. Good to know the Scarlett is so good for such an affordable price! I love my Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen.
I have both of these interfaces. The true benefit of the Apollo comes in with the use of the console software. Right out of the box, the Scarlett "sounds" more pleasing to me. Thanks for the comparison!
A all across the board. It's like the difference between a Camry and Lexus, there is that last 10% of elegance to it. That said, I couldn't give a crap which interface I use as long as it is quality. I still use an old Tascam from 7 years ago and everything sounds great. What does matter... and this is where you all should be focusing your time... is getting a magnificent performance captured. People will stay attentive and glued to an incredible performance that was recorded on a Tandy cassette recorder form 1981.
The differences are subtle. I use a Focusrite 3th gen myself and I'm happy with it. When I listen to the differences between A and B on my HEDD Type07 MKII monitors I must conclude that the Apollo Twin is a little bit warmer. But again... the differences are subtle.
Wow, well that proved my years of growing up in Recording Studios and both sitting in on and performing Sessions rubbed off somewhere. I immediately determined that A was my preference regardless of dollar value. Frankly B sounded more woolly to my ears whilst A retained a better clarity and overall fidelity.
I picked interface B in all examples as the one "sounding better". Turns out it's the Scartlett. That just makes me wonder, am I biased? I use Scarlett interfaces for a while now, first Sscarlett Solo for quite few years and about 2 years ago I upgraded to Scarlett 8i6. Is it that I am just accustomed and used to the sound of those interfaces makes me think that Scarlett sounds better?
To me, the focusrite (which I have so no hate) sounded like it had less clarity, but one could also perceive that as warmth which could be good for certain contexts.
using some KZ ZS10 Pro iems into my iphone, i found more warmth in interface B. not gonna lie, i was INCREDIBLY surprised with these results, especially considering i own interface B! very nicely done on this video !
as a music engineer, I have not seen the results yet, but interface B is better in low frequencies, in higher frequencies they are almost a perfect match, This is crazy how similar they both sound at a $1k difference, I would be very surprise if B is not the apollo, I'll say this, for a basic home studio 2 outputs 1 input you cannot go wrong with scarlette 2i2. I would buy the apollo for a very professional setup.
Awesome a/b test thanks for sharing. My ears liked A better right away vs B for the acoustic guitar. Felt slightly more full spectrum on my car speakers with a little more low end and nice clarity in the mids seemed full. B sounded slightly more clear but slightly harsher in the high end to my ears. For the electric guitar at the end I actually thought B sounded a little better xp. Lol. I will probably hold off on getting a super expensive interface and spend my savings on improving my room acoustics first. Thanks again for sharing this test.
Entiendo que Apollo UA sea más versatil y con mayores prestaciones, imagino que a largo plazo vale su dinero, pero para empezar y aprender durante 2 o 3 años merece la pena la opción B. Suena muy bien. Gracias por tu video, eres grande.
I could notice that Example A had more highs or clarity and B was a bit darker. I would use these quality as color. I wouldn't say one is better than the other. I would definitely use them both for different sound capture even within a project. I do it all time, great video I really liked this one.
using them for "color" is stupid. the difference is so slight that the slightest bit of EQing would 100% negate any difference in "color". if you need to "color" your signal like this, then you really need to learn the basics of EQing, and audio engineering in general. just my 2 cents (and common sense if im being honest lol)
Thank you for this. I came up in the time of recording on tape and when home digital recording was just starting. It cost me $1300 for a multitrack 16 bit digital audio card in the early 1990's plus $700 for a 1GB hard drive (that's right, just 1 gigabyte) so I could record "CD quality" at home. Now you can do that and better for less than $100. What is considered "professional quality" gear has become more and more affordable and the line between "consumer" and "professional" gear has become so thin as to make no real difference. I did hear a difference in the audio samples and I guessed correctly but I also wouldn't have been surprised if I had gotten it wrong. The difference was so subtle and in the high frequencies. Also the samples were already compressed by RUclips. RUclips today is filled with gear videos talking about what mic is better, etc., when you can make great music with just about everything available now compared to 30 years ago...when we were still making good music on "inferior" equipment. Don't sweat the gear. Go make music with whatever you've got. If you can touch someone with your music it won't matter what mic or interface you used.
CD quality doesn't mean anything. Its 16/44. Just a recording resolution. Try this. Record a piano using whatever equipment you think is good. Then compare it to some professional recordings. Old, new, compare it to whatever you want. Better yet, record it in 24/96 and compare it to professional CD's (16/44). You may change your mind (If you are honest with yourself).
@@AT-wl9yq My reference to "CD quality" was only to give an example of what was considered state of the art in the early 1990s, and yes this was marketing jargon for recording 16/44.1k. My very next sentence was that today you could do better and more for a tiny fraction of what it cost in the 1990s. What is considered a professional recording is a moving target. Commercial music mastered for distribution on 78, 45, LP, cassette & CD were all professional audio. Now we're being sold that these standards are not good enough. What is not a moving target is music that stands the test of time regardless of what format it is recorded on. For example, If one can listen to Billie Holiday on 78 sing "Strange Fruit" and *only* think it should have been recorded on better equipment, well, I'd argue that person doesn't know what music is about.
@@randorecumbent I shouldn't have made that post. I work in the industry and the biggest problem we have, by far, is getting quality recordings. Sometimes I get frustrated and let my emotions get the best of me. Its not your fault the recording industry has failed us, its theirs.
@@AT-wl9yq I hear you. Coming up recording on tape there was so much focus on learning about getting gain staging right, and understanding how to use EQ to compensate for how the audio prints to tape. It even gets down to what instruments you track next to each other on the tape. With digital we don't have to worry about that anymore, but the attention to that kind of detail may be what you see lacking. For me, on the equipment side, everything is so good now, so much better than the analog days for the price, there's no excuse not to do at least as well as tape regarding quality. Headroom issues are gone. I'd never ever think of printing a track on tape at -12db but we can do that now with really no quality penalty. It's easier to get a clean recording. So why do we split hairs over the differences between audio interfaces that are objectively excellent? The electronic engineers and software developers have done their jobs. We've arrived. Recording with high quality at home is here and it's easier than ever before. There's really nothing to argue over, except maybe what to do with all this bounty.
Great comparison, thank you for this. There's more of a difference than I expected to be able to hear, and it might have swayed me to get a UAD for my next interface even though I would ideally want more inputs. But A sounded a lot more detailed than B, which sounded more focused and tight. I actually liked the sound of B more often, but that was because it sounded more like it was already mixed, whereas A sounded like it captured a lot more of the original signal and thus might need some more processing to get it sounding smooth.
Definitely close, the only difference I noticed is that the focusrite sounds a tad more "muffled" vs the apollo. So guitar strumming and vocals is a bit "boxier". But the difference is so slight.
Thanks for the very nice comparison. The difference was quite small. From the 5 comparison, I chosed 4 A. But only in the latest comparison I was sure that there was some more distortion from the B. If there was not A-B comparsion, I'm sure that I cannot identfy if the recording belongs to A or B. But still, getting the bets still feels good :)
I listened to the samples through the speakers of my Samsung 8" tablet (only because the dang headphone socket is intermittent and only works sometimes!). However the A samples did sound slightly clearer (or cleaner) to my ears, even through the tiny speakers of my tablet. But as another commenter pointed out, a small amout of EQ would probably bridge the gap to almost imperceptible...
The Scarlett sounds much warmer, and picks up way more of the low end, where the Apollo twin is just picking up the natural tones from the instrument/mic, it’s easy to hear the difference for me when using the electric guitar
I was surprised to hear a difference at all, didn't expect to. Only explanation I can think of is that interface B has a bit higher harmonic distortion which gives an overall warmer sound.
In my listening environment (one person office, door open, fan about eight feet away), through my signal chain (Fiio E10 to HD600), with tinnitus on full blast, A sounded a tiny bit clearer at the high end on the acoustic guitar samples. Both sounded great, and I'm completely agreed that we're in a wonderful place where top notch gear is so affordable and prevalent. (I'll come back and give the samples another listen once I find the knob to turn down the tinnitus)
What we are hearing really is two different mic pre amps. I don't think the Apollo Twin is more expensive because of that particular component, but because of multiple features it offers, like DSP hardware, included software and slightly better input and output electronics. Your are paying extra for all of that!
It’s not so much the gear as it is the talent , arrangement and composition, i for sure thought b was the Apollo , and was wrong haha . I’m very dumbfounded that the cheaper focusrite sounded better to my ears then the higher end Apollo . I own an Apollo twin x and x16 and should have been able to notice but guess the guys at focusrite really put some magic in these cheaper interfaces . Cool Video man !
As an owner of the 2i2 I could tell that the 2i2 was interface B. It has a distinct sound to it, a dull-warmth when compared to the Apollo twin X. Apollo Twin had a clarity In the mids/upper-mids that sounded really clean to my ear, but far from enough to purchase an interface 4 times the price for someone on a tight budget like me. I am mostly interested in the 0 latency and seamless compatibility the Apollo’s twin is said to have with a Mac.
Great comparison. Listen to it with a Adam Audio A4 studio monitor setup corrected with SoundID Reference and Sennheiser IE900 in ear head phones. There is no way I could hear the difference blind folded. I wonder how so many people can make out a difference.
Thank god I picked the more expensive of the two. At first with the acoustic guitar I couldn't really tell the differences. However, once you started recording vocals of you talking, I immediately started saying A would be the Apollo and the more expensive of the two. Thankfully I was correct! I've been producing music for the past 20 years. If I ended up getting that one wrong, I would've been urged to call it quits! However.. I'm sad that the Apollo and it's quality isn't way more noticeable than what it is! Mostly because I just purchased a AKG C414 XLII microphone, and so far I don't think it sounds any better than the Shure KSM27 microphone that I've had and been using for the last 20 years! I am indeed using a Focusrite 2i2 interface, so I'm hoping/praying that maybe the Apollo will have my AKG sounding a lot better? After watching this video though.. I'm concerned that won't really be the case? Starting to wonder if maybe the C414 that I purchased was damaged somehow during shipment? Ugghhh!
I chose A as the better sound, most times, very subtle as you say, The Features of the UA make is WELL worth the higher cost, I speak as a UA Solo owner! Affordable hardware is good for mankind!
This test revealed what I thought it would. Some preferred one over the other, and they used the same words to describe the ones they liked and didn't. ie one was too compressed sounding, then someone else said the other was too compressed sounding. But the reality is that converters have been very flat and neutral for a decade. There is little difference. A bigger difference here might be in the differences in the two performances. You simply can not play both parts exactly the same twice, and subtle biases (because we're human and can't control it) might be working their way into the different performances.
Here’s my experience with both. I had one hell of a time recording my acoustic guitar on the Scarlet using the SM 57. The difference really was night and day when I upgraded to my UAD Apollo X Twin. The Scarlet was decent when using a condenser mic, but it would clip really quickly
I feel like when it comes to interfaces, there's definitely an additive quality that make each ones character a little more apparent. If you have a ton of tracks recorded through one it'll show more of whats going on in the sound. This is probably why more "professional" studios lean more towards UA stuff (also the plugins) just because its a tad more clearer and that inch goes a long way. But the Focusrite still sounds amazing and for the price anyone should be able to make more than decent recordings with it.
@@HarvinderSingh-yy8th that’s unlikely, there’s multiple genres that depend on digitally created sounds, rap has started also using them and it’s one of the most popular genres right now, plus hardware is usually a lot more expensive than software. Most people can’t hear a difference anyway
Citation needed for professional studios leaning toward more UA stuff. I've worked in dozens of different studios and almost never see UA converters. I see Avid 9 out of 10 times.
@@handssmelloh9173 fair. But we're in an age now where all converters and all the chips are so high quality, conversion should be great. There's no excuses for conversion not being great in 2023. The analog circuitry that supports the input and output is where the differences might lie. But as I was saying under another post, I think the difference in the way these two sound are related to the mic preamps. I wonder how they would sound if you went line in with an outboard mic preamp. I do tons of DIY and have lots of really cool outboard preamps and in devices like this I don't want preamps, I just want conversion, but they really only do that on the expensive thunderbolt devices. But there's no reason they couldn't do it on a USB-C device. Give me high resolution metering on front and 24 TRS ins and outs on the back. And I'm a happy camper.
Good video. A, sounded notably more open even on my phone and I did not expect it. So I guess worth the investment for the pros. But standalone b sounds just fine, I have a focusrite myself and it is fine.
Great video. May I ask you a few questions as I want to learn more about home recording for some songs I wrote on guitar. 1. What is the best method to record? A. electric and folk guitar B. Bass guitar C. Vocals D. Keyboard How can I get a good drum sound on my song? I am not a drummer. What plug in? I use Pro tools on my computer. Much thanks for taking the time to answer me. John
The A to the vocals sound pretty clear but also it's a little bit harsh and so...without power which I think the A it's Scarlett. The B to the vocals sound pretty clear but also you feel that warmth and so....without being sibilant, on the highs it's less harsh and more flat which is great. I Think that's Apollo. I've listened to a pair of Beyerdynamic 990Pro.
Both aren't far off to the normal hearing, but the noise floor was the first thing I noticed between the two. I've used both and of course, prefer my Apollo. Thanks for comparing :)
B sounded warmer to me for some reason. A little more low end forward. Thought it might be the headphones (Grado SR80x), so tried a better pair (Hifiman HE 400i) with similar result. Better headphones seemed to pick up the warmth a bit more.
There are four places you can hear important differences and how to listen to them. (listen with headphones and turn on hd1080) 1.) The volume consistency and smoothness * notice in the very first short sample clip (and throughout) A a has a lush and consistent volume and B has a choppy volume that cuts out almost like it has a gate 2.) The sustain * this is where A really shines. At the end of each guitar clip the sustain has a BLOOM to it and in A, it's smooth and blooms more musically. B has an unpleasant ring to it and decays in a sharp way 3.) Muted sound * some of you thought that B sounded better because it seem to have a more compressed sound. You're not wrong but that's all the information you get. A has a lot more information. You have a LOT of choices and flexibility with this extra information when it's time to treat it. 4.) How they handle gain * in the last guitar riff, Notice how A handles the high gain. It's smooth... It's nice. Immediately B chokes a bit on the high gain. The gen 4 scarletts are MUCH better at handling higher gain. The 4 generations went from 0 dBu, to +4 dBu, +9 dBu, to a respectable +16 dBu max input level. But the Apollo handles the higher gain better like it's eating a lovely cheesecake while the Scarlett chokes a bit. Nice video and comparison. At first "glance" I though B sounded better, but even with youtube compression the above mentioned factors immediately after shouted that A was Apollo. I was not surprised when it was revealed.
Writing before the reveal - B is just slightly more muddled sounding. Also, with the SM7b, the difference is beyond negligible as the mic itself sounds muddled lol
Remember guys this is the matching up with no plugins on the Apollo so yeah at that point they match but the focus can't run plugins live so once you start slapping the plugins in the Apollo's going to sound a hundred times better 🤷♂️ which then in return is going to give the artist recording a better performance when they're performing the best they can cuz they can hear themselves the way they want to you're going to end up with better music in the end. That's the whole point of the Apollo.
@@BrennonZSmith not without latency which basically means no you can't even when you got it down to the lowest setting 64 the latency is terrible it is not the same.
Considering headphones on a phone - B was nice on the spoken voice. Also bit more body on the acoustic. However, the electric examples were clearer or brighter on A. I thought B was the Focusrite
I struggled to determine which one I preferred, but I’d be shocked if there’s many people with healthy hearing who couldn’t tell any difference at all Very easy to hear even through iPhone speakers
I thought that the sound was a bit fuller out of A - a bit more definition throughout the range, and especially in the mids. A bit. They both sounded pretty solid to me.
B initially sounded more warm, but then I heard how the body of sound was just decimated by it. 3:08 is the easiest to hear this: the resonant sound of the bass notes was just completely lost. It's like someone pulled a sock over the E string! I'm glad budget options go so far, but there's a clear winner for music that is quieter or resonant.
Of course the apollo twin has the dsp and the plugins etc, in terms of sound the diffrence is subtle, but the price difference isnt subtle. You still can make decent music out of affordable gears!
Without knowing anything about music could tell the difference tight away! Thanks for the info! I was looking for this two interfaces to compare the quality!
One thing’s for sure; a tiny percentage of people consuming your finished recordings will have the faintest idea that these products even exist and a tiny fraction of that small group would be able to make a judgement on which you used with any confidence.
There is clearly a difference here, however; by no means does the Focusrite sound awful. Some of the combinations work better than others, the only one I really didn't like was the 58. It's important to remember when you are stacking up track after track, the differences become much more pronounced... Try recording a demo track multing it to each box, with a dozen tracks or so, and then see how things sound.
Wow! I picked B as the better sounding of the two, but I thought it was the UA. (I happen to use a Focusrite Scarlett 214, so this video pleases me no end.)
You can find the key to which interface is “A” and “B” in the description below the video. Thanks for watching!
i own the apollo this is a cool video for that fact thank you!
I would say Example A is the Apollo and example B is the Focusrite
@@erasmomoreno9460 same! The A has more ransparent sound wile B has a bit more 'mud', like less clear.To my ear, atleast)
I liked the Apollo better for your instruments and the Focusrite better for your vocals. I would have assumed that was reversed until I read the comments. Cheers
Thanks
Contrary to other comments, I heard B to have more "dynamic range," less compression, and seeming to be more transparent (which made me think UA).
Thanks for watching and commenting, Kevin!
i agree with you, i personally own both scarlet and UA. I thought b was the UA.
To someone looking on what to buy honestly if you aren’t making money off your music get the focusrite. There is a difference in quality that with good mixing and especially mastering you can make up.
B was picking up alot more muddy tones tho
@@d00m69 more like raw data
@@kenl.3298 more like raw doo-doo
I must be honest. Interface A sounded harsh in the upper mids and interface B sounded fuller and more detailed. So I guess I like the 2i2. You guys tend to forget that Rupert Neve had his hand in the focus rite designs and that man is a legend; may he rip.
I was 1000% sure B was going to be the duet.
I felt the same way.
True indeed. I really thought B was the Apollo.
Absolutely: for me B sound more warmer. Glad to know that my 2i2 3 gen it's an excellent interfase
Holy shit I thought the same… maybe it’s because I use the scarlet 2i2 so it’s what I’m used to, but that shouldn’t make it sound better to me. I wanted to make sure if I’m spending $1k on an interface it better be night and day difference. This kind of just throws another notch on the belt of skill/musical ability and mixing/mastering.
Apollo owner for more than 2 years, not really the audio difference that made me retire my Scarlett, it was the zero latency and UAs plugins that run with its own DSP instead of computers cpu. These of course aren’t required to get into recording but for me it’s definitely worth the money. To each their own though
I agree, JeremyHaze. The next video goes into those features in more detail. Thanks for sharing your experience!
Need that if you want that no latency auto tune too
Wait I didn’t know about the no latency. I was holding off on it because I didn’t think audio quality was that different and I was right. But the zero latency is a must for me. I got a guitarist who can’t adjust to 11ms. 😅
wow friend.. zero latency that's just what im looking for. Im tired of hearing white noise sounds everytime i plug in my guitar to my scarlett interface
Cheers for that, that was a great little experiment/demonstration! I actually thought that "A" sounded better when you spoke into the mic, but preferred "B" with the guitar examples. Both were incredibly similar thought. Would be great to try the same experiment right through the chain and see where it's worth spending the big bucks.
Same here, I think that for voice recordings the Apollo is better and for instruments the difference is slightly less noticeable 🙌
For vocals and first electric guitar, I like option A, but for bright electric guitar and acoustic guitar, I like option B better.
We must keep in mind that the audio quality of an interface like Focusrite today is far superior to the best interface of 20 years ago. The quality of the result today depends much more on the quality of the music and the expertise of the producer, than on the price of the interfaces. In my opinion of course ;)
Great video!
I agree, Jaime. It’s amazing how far digital audio has come!
Listening via the speakers from my computer, to me A sounds more balanced across the frequencies with clear mids and a tighter bottom end. B sounds a bit compressed in the mids and a looser bottom end. The higher frequencies are pretty much similar. Thank you for doing the video.
Thanks for watching, zenncatt!
Honestly that could be something as simple as subltle microphone position changes relative to the audio source
ME too, I hate the scarlett solo compression when I play clean funky guitar part. I want to change it but not with a so expensive apollo one
Back in the days before digital recording, engineers relied on good mics, preamps and compressors. Oh and good ears too. There are many great recordings from them. I still believe the same holds true today. Good mics, preamps, compressors and recording techniques are the key. Yes, a good recording interface will produce better results than a mediocre one but it would be the last upgrade I would make.
Thanks for watching and sharing this info, TB Player!
yeah but that's hard man
Not just what you mentioned but also your power factor, such as the cables you use and how you treat the electricity in your studio. Power is a major factor we constantly over look..
@@klew4321 So true. Every part of the equation counts.
@@klew4321 basically how the signal is been processed ain’t that right?
This was a really good blind comparison. It also shows my ears are terrible after years of live sound and working in car shops. I picked A for the first guitar in the intro and B for the rest. But I have been a Scarlett 2i2 user for almost 10 years now. 1st Gen!
I genuinely convicted that B was the more expensive one as I preferred the sound of it, I am surprised. I'm also pleased as I am an owner of the 4th gen Scarlett . Happy days.
With the first demo I had a REALLY easy time hearing that the sample that turned out to be the Apollo was much better. The other sounded more like a blur. I have very little experience with this audio interface tech anyway but now I'm sold for the benefits of the Apollo.
Loved how simple you made this video , clear and precise knformatjon ! Thank you !
Sound B touch me more than sound A.I guess A is UA and B is Focusrite ( like the thumbnail picture )
I'm really Glad that At Last someone Actually Did a Video on this. Very well done 👍
Thanks, Gurpyar! Glad to be helpful.
I preferred A but B was not too far off honestly. Modern Technology is wonderful! Thanks for comparing
Thanks, Krunk Cobain!
But did you prefer it before you knew which was which?
Awesome video, as always! 💚
Thank you!
Thank you for this video! This comment section is very telling. First of all, it pretty much proves there is no real difference other then purely subjective (and/or biased) preference. Second of all, it shows the huge difference in the two types of people. Folk who care about the music and people who consider gear über alles. It’s particularly fun for me to see the former be like “I though B was better, oh well” while the latter go, “yeah the UA is _so_ superior” sometimes not even mentioning if it’s A or B they picked. One person even used the word “mellifluous”! Are you kidding me? Mellifluous is not a word you use for voice samples and generic guitar chords! Anyway, music is what’s important - never the gear, no matter how expensive. There is not *a single listener in the world* throughout time who’s ever said “what wonderful preamps this song was recorded through”.
Gear matters a lot but not in this case. I agree with you on what some of these fools are saying about how the Apollo sounds "much better" - what a joke - there's a slight difference but it's not an improvement either way, and definitely not a 10x improvement in the case of the Apollo. The same song could be produced twice, an Apollo version and a Focusrite version, and there will be close to no difference between them.
Thank you for creating this channel 🙏🏽
Writing comment before hearing the answer - B is feels much natural, warm and more representative of actual sound
Well done! I believe that just applying a little equalization the difference would be even less.
Thanks, Adriano!
I agree. I was thinking the same, even though I knew immediately which was which.
I've been doing this for many years, and I'll admit I was pretty confused. At the beginning of the video I thought acoustic guitar B sounded brighter and better, but once he got to the voice examples I was hearing more harsh frequencies with the B ones. Very interesting video, thank you.
A sounded better to my ears. More open sound, brighter acoustics without sounding harsh. I'm glad to see I can perceive the differences in preamp quality.
This is an OUTSTANDINGLY well-done and helpful video - thanks for the great info!
I think you do an amazing job at explaining everything in the easiest way to understand. Thank you.
This was really helpful, great video!
Thank you for making this video! It's great to hear that the difference is so small, considering I can't afford the expensive stuff.
Glad to help, Brian. Thanks for watching!
Great video! Subtle difference. A for the voice and acoustic. Preffered B for the electric.
Great video. I was not able to tell a difference at first. After listening carefully to the guitar samples multiple times I was able to hear that A sounded a little clearer than B. But wow is it subtle.
Glad to hear that I was right in my guess that A was the Apollo and B was the Scarlett. On my speakers, I was hearing a little more boom in the low mids, less articulation, and less flat response on the Scarlett, but it was pretty subtle. Good to know the Scarlett is so good for such an affordable price! I love my Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen.
Nothing some eq can't fix in post anyway :)
I have both of these interfaces. The true benefit of the Apollo comes in with the use of the console software. Right out of the box, the Scarlett "sounds" more pleasing to me. Thanks for the comparison!
Good comparison video! Something to think about either way! 👍🏽
I couldn't tell any difference at all! I currently use the Scarlett Focusrite Solo & for the past year it has worked great.
I actually prefer the Focusrite. my music tends to be pretty heavy on the low mids anyway, but Apollo does have some great plugins.
A all across the board. It's like the difference between a Camry and Lexus, there is that last 10% of elegance to it. That said, I couldn't give a crap which interface I use as long as it is quality. I still use an old Tascam from 7 years ago and everything sounds great. What does matter... and this is where you all should be focusing your time... is getting a magnificent performance captured. People will stay attentive and glued to an incredible performance that was recorded on a Tandy cassette recorder form 1981.
The differences are subtle. I use a Focusrite 3th gen myself and I'm happy with it. When I listen to the differences between A and B on my HEDD Type07 MKII monitors I must conclude that the Apollo Twin is a little bit warmer. But again... the differences are subtle.
listen carefully again.. it's all about tone and clarity bro..
and it is currently only available by universal audio for now
@@alvaxrobi go away
The scarlet is really good and has gotten even better now with the 4th gen .
Wow, well that proved my years of growing up in Recording Studios and both sitting in on and performing Sessions rubbed off somewhere. I immediately determined that A was my preference regardless of dollar value. Frankly B sounded more woolly to my ears whilst A retained a better clarity and overall fidelity.
I picked interface B in all examples as the one "sounding better". Turns out it's the Scartlett. That just makes me wonder, am I biased?
I use Scarlett interfaces for a while now, first Sscarlett Solo for quite few years and about 2 years ago I upgraded to Scarlett 8i6.
Is it that I am just accustomed and used to the sound of those interfaces makes me think that Scarlett sounds better?
That's an interesting thought, Rudal! You might be on to something with that idea.
I don't use an audio interface, as I'm just not into that, and I found B "sounded better" to me.
To me, the focusrite (which I have so no hate) sounded like it had less clarity, but one could also perceive that as warmth which could be good for certain contexts.
listen carefully again.. it's all about tone and clarity bro..
and it is currently only available by universal audio for now
I like the timbre of your voice great content as always thanks
using some KZ ZS10 Pro iems into my iphone, i found more warmth in interface B. not gonna lie, i was INCREDIBLY surprised with these results, especially considering i own interface B!
very nicely done on this video !
Thanks, ZN!
Thanks for the video😜
Glad to help! Thanks for taking the time to watch!
as a music engineer, I have not seen the results yet, but interface B is better in low frequencies, in higher frequencies they are almost a perfect match, This is crazy how similar they both sound at a $1k difference, I would be very surprise if B is not the apollo, I'll say this, for a basic home studio 2 outputs 1 input you cannot go wrong with scarlette 2i2. I would buy the apollo for a very professional setup.
lol
@@ChunkyLover69420 i said the same thing😄
I liked the sound of "B" better. Sounded warmer and fuller in the low-mids.
Awesome a/b test thanks for sharing. My ears liked A better right away vs B for the acoustic guitar. Felt slightly more full spectrum on my car speakers with a little more low end and nice clarity in the mids seemed full.
B sounded slightly more clear but slightly harsher in the high end to my ears.
For the electric guitar at the end I actually thought B sounded a little better xp.
Lol. I will probably hold off on getting a super expensive interface and spend my savings on improving my room acoustics first. Thanks again for sharing this test.
Entiendo que Apollo UA sea más versatil y con mayores prestaciones, imagino que a largo plazo vale su dinero, pero para empezar y aprender durante 2 o 3 años merece la pena la opción B. Suena muy bien. Gracias por tu video, eres grande.
That's why i love my 2i2
Even on my iPad I heard the difference immediately. Especially the voice sounds much better with the UA interface. (I have a Focusrite 18i8)
I could notice that Example A had more highs or clarity and B was a bit darker. I would use these quality as color. I wouldn't say one is better than the other. I would definitely use them both for different sound capture even within a project. I do it all time, great video I really liked this one.
using them for "color" is stupid. the difference is so slight that the slightest bit of EQing would 100% negate any difference in "color". if you need to "color" your signal like this, then you really need to learn the basics of EQing, and audio engineering in general. just my 2 cents (and common sense if im being honest lol)
Thank you for this. I came up in the time of recording on tape and when home digital recording was just starting. It cost me $1300 for a multitrack 16 bit digital audio card in the early 1990's plus $700 for a 1GB hard drive (that's right, just 1 gigabyte) so I could record "CD quality" at home. Now you can do that and better for less than $100. What is considered "professional quality" gear has become more and more affordable and the line between "consumer" and "professional" gear has become so thin as to make no real difference. I did hear a difference in the audio samples and I guessed correctly but I also wouldn't have been surprised if I had gotten it wrong. The difference was so subtle and in the high frequencies. Also the samples were already compressed by RUclips. RUclips today is filled with gear videos talking about what mic is better, etc., when you can make great music with just about everything available now compared to 30 years ago...when we were still making good music on "inferior" equipment. Don't sweat the gear. Go make music with whatever you've got. If you can touch someone with your music it won't matter what mic or interface you used.
CD quality doesn't mean anything. Its 16/44. Just a recording resolution. Try this. Record a piano using whatever equipment you think is good. Then compare it to some professional recordings. Old, new, compare it to whatever you want. Better yet, record it in 24/96 and compare it to professional CD's (16/44). You may change your mind (If you are honest with yourself).
@@AT-wl9yq My reference to "CD quality" was only to give an example of what was considered state of the art in the early 1990s, and yes this was marketing jargon for recording 16/44.1k. My very next sentence was that today you could do better and more for a tiny fraction of what it cost in the 1990s. What is considered a professional recording is a moving target. Commercial music mastered for distribution on 78, 45, LP, cassette & CD were all professional audio. Now we're being sold that these standards are not good enough. What is not a moving target is music that stands the test of time regardless of what format it is recorded on. For example, If one can listen to Billie Holiday on 78 sing "Strange Fruit" and *only* think it should have been recorded on better equipment, well, I'd argue that person doesn't know what music is about.
@@randorecumbent I shouldn't have made that post. I work in the industry and the biggest problem we have, by far, is getting quality recordings. Sometimes I get frustrated and let my emotions get the best of me. Its not your fault the recording industry has failed us, its theirs.
@@AT-wl9yq I hear you. Coming up recording on tape there was so much focus on learning about getting gain staging right, and understanding how to use EQ to compensate for how the audio prints to tape. It even gets down to what instruments you track next to each other on the tape. With digital we don't have to worry about that anymore, but the attention to that kind of detail may be what you see lacking. For me, on the equipment side, everything is so good now, so much better than the analog days for the price, there's no excuse not to do at least as well as tape regarding quality. Headroom issues are gone. I'd never ever think of printing a track on tape at -12db but we can do that now with really no quality penalty. It's easier to get a clean recording. So why do we split hairs over the differences between audio interfaces that are objectively excellent?
The electronic engineers and software developers have done their jobs. We've arrived. Recording with high quality at home is here and it's easier than ever before. There's really nothing to argue over, except maybe what to do with all this bounty.
in comparison, A is brighter, while B is more low mid frequency. And I prefer A over B, not regarding to brand or budget.
Good shootout!
Great comparison, thank you for this. There's more of a difference than I expected to be able to hear, and it might have swayed me to get a UAD for my next interface even though I would ideally want more inputs. But A sounded a lot more detailed than B, which sounded more focused and tight. I actually liked the sound of B more often, but that was because it sounded more like it was already mixed, whereas A sounded like it captured a lot more of the original signal and thus might need some more processing to get it sounding smooth.
Definitely close, the only difference I noticed is that the focusrite sounds a tad more "muffled" vs the apollo. So guitar strumming and vocals is a bit "boxier". But the difference is so slight.
So I closed my eyes and I was still waiting for clip B when you finished playing 😂
Thanks for the very nice comparison. The difference was quite small. From the 5 comparison, I chosed 4 A. But only in the latest comparison I was sure that there was some more distortion from the B. If there was not A-B comparsion, I'm sure that I cannot identfy if the recording belongs to A or B.
But still, getting the bets still feels good :)
This channel is great. No bullshit, just the facts.
I listened to the samples through the speakers of my Samsung 8" tablet (only because the dang headphone socket is intermittent and only works sometimes!). However the A samples did sound slightly clearer (or cleaner) to my ears, even through the tiny speakers of my tablet. But as another commenter pointed out, a small amout of EQ would probably bridge the gap to almost imperceptible...
listen carefully again.. it's all about tone and clarity bro..
and it is currently only available by universal audio for now
The Scarlett sounds much warmer, and picks up way more of the low end, where the Apollo twin is just picking up the natural tones from the instrument/mic, it’s easy to hear the difference for me when using the electric guitar
In every instance, I felt the B version was richer in low tones, but only slightly.
I was surprised to hear a difference at all, didn't expect to. Only explanation I can think of is that interface B has a bit higher harmonic distortion which gives an overall warmer sound.
You really think that?
A is def cleaner.
In my listening environment (one person office, door open, fan about eight feet away), through my signal chain (Fiio E10 to HD600), with tinnitus on full blast, A sounded a tiny bit clearer at the high end on the acoustic guitar samples. Both sounded great, and I'm completely agreed that we're in a wonderful place where top notch gear is so affordable and prevalent.
(I'll come back and give the samples another listen once I find the knob to turn down the tinnitus)
Thanks for watching, ibalrog!
What we are hearing really is two different mic pre amps. I don't think the Apollo Twin is more expensive because of that particular component, but because of multiple features it offers, like DSP hardware, included software and slightly better input and output electronics. Your are paying extra for all of that!
B felt so warm and it's great for my taste.
Thanks for watching, Jomer!
It’s not so much the gear as it is the talent , arrangement and composition, i for sure thought b was the Apollo , and was wrong haha . I’m very dumbfounded that the cheaper focusrite sounded better to my ears then the higher end Apollo . I own an Apollo twin x and x16 and should have been able to notice but guess the guys at focusrite really put some magic in these cheaper interfaces . Cool
Video man !
As an owner of the 2i2 I could tell that the 2i2 was interface B. It has a distinct sound to it, a dull-warmth when compared to the Apollo twin X. Apollo Twin had a clarity In the mids/upper-mids that sounded really clean to my ear, but far from enough to purchase an interface 4 times the price for someone on a tight budget like me. I am mostly interested in the 0 latency and seamless compatibility the Apollo’s twin is said to have with a Mac.
Great comparison. Listen to it with a Adam Audio A4 studio monitor setup corrected with SoundID Reference and Sennheiser IE900 in ear head phones. There is no way I could hear the difference blind folded. I wonder how so many people can make out a difference.
my prediction was correct but the difference was subtle to my ear, likely due to me listening through airpods lol
Thank god I picked the more expensive of the two. At first with the acoustic guitar I couldn't really tell the differences.
However, once you started recording vocals of you talking, I immediately started saying A would be the Apollo and the
more expensive of the two. Thankfully I was correct! I've been producing music for the past 20 years. If I ended up
getting that one wrong, I would've been urged to call it quits! However.. I'm sad that the Apollo and it's quality isn't way
more noticeable than what it is! Mostly because I just purchased a AKG C414 XLII microphone, and so far I don't think
it sounds any better than the Shure KSM27 microphone that I've had and been using for the last 20 years! I am indeed
using a Focusrite 2i2 interface, so I'm hoping/praying that maybe the Apollo will have my AKG sounding a lot better?
After watching this video though.. I'm concerned that won't really be the case? Starting to wonder if maybe the C414
that I purchased was damaged somehow during shipment? Ugghhh!
I chose A as the better sound, most times, very subtle as you say, The Features of the UA make is WELL worth the higher cost, I speak as a UA Solo owner! Affordable hardware is good for mankind!
I am now very proud of my ear.
B sounded better to my ears but in the end it is hard to really tell the difference to the common ear
This test revealed what I thought it would. Some preferred one over the other, and they used the same words to describe the ones they liked and didn't. ie one was too compressed sounding, then someone else said the other was too compressed sounding.
But the reality is that converters have been very flat and neutral for a decade. There is little difference.
A bigger difference here might be in the differences in the two performances. You simply can not play both parts exactly the same twice, and subtle biases (because we're human and can't control it) might be working their way into the different performances.
We need a double-blind test lol
@@trys10studios yup
Here’s my experience with both. I had one hell of a time recording my acoustic guitar on the Scarlet using the SM 57. The difference really was night and day when I upgraded to my UAD Apollo X Twin. The Scarlet was decent when using a condenser mic, but it would clip really quickly
thats because the differences of dynamic range, so with UA you basically can push more
Even though I mostly use external preamp’s,
I still think my 18i20 preamp’s sound nice and full and would use them on anything!
I feel like when it comes to interfaces, there's definitely an additive quality that make each ones character a little more apparent. If you have a ton of tracks recorded through one it'll show more of whats going on in the sound. This is probably why more "professional" studios lean more towards UA stuff (also the plugins) just because its a tad more clearer and that inch goes a long way. But the Focusrite still sounds amazing and for the price anyone should be able to make more than decent recordings with it.
Extra ordinary pluggins make un- natural sound. Audio should have natutal sound. Virtual sounds don't last long.
@@HarvinderSingh-yy8th that’s unlikely, there’s multiple genres that depend on digitally created sounds, rap has started also using them and it’s one of the most popular genres right now, plus hardware is usually a lot more expensive than software. Most people can’t hear a difference anyway
Citation needed for professional studios leaning toward more UA stuff. I've worked in dozens of different studios and almost never see UA converters. I see Avid 9 out of 10 times.
@@Wizardofgosz I should have clarified, by UA I guess I meant most audio interfaces that are well above a bedroom artists budget.
@@handssmelloh9173 fair. But we're in an age now where all converters and all the chips are so high quality, conversion should be great. There's no excuses for conversion not being great in 2023. The analog circuitry that supports the input and output is where the differences might lie. But as I was saying under another post, I think the difference in the way these two sound are related to the mic preamps. I wonder how they would sound if you went line in with an outboard mic preamp. I do tons of DIY and have lots of really cool outboard preamps and in devices like this I don't want preamps, I just want conversion, but they really only do that on the expensive thunderbolt devices. But there's no reason they couldn't do it on a USB-C device. Give me high resolution metering on front and 24 TRS ins and outs on the back. And I'm a happy camper.
Greatest Video on this whole entire Planet
A - For instrument.
B-For Vocal.
B-Sounds more Natural with the voice going through it while A-Sound Fuller and Realistic with the Guitar 🎸
I feel like A picks up more tones and colors making them clearer than the B
Good video. A, sounded notably more open even on my phone and I did not expect it. So I guess worth the investment for the pros. But standalone b sounds just fine, I have a focusrite myself and it is fine.
Thank, simple easy good stuff
omg b is much better. thanks for the video! universal audio might be overrated. they are good at marketing
No offense, but B is clearly better. (This is before knowing which one is which)
Great video. May I ask you a few questions as I want to learn more about home recording for some songs I wrote on guitar. 1. What is the best method to record? A. electric and folk guitar B. Bass guitar C. Vocals D. Keyboard How can I get a good drum sound on my song? I am not a drummer. What plug in? I use Pro tools on my computer. Much thanks for taking the time to answer me. John
The A to the vocals sound pretty clear but also it's a little bit harsh and so...without power which I think the A it's Scarlett.
The B to the vocals sound pretty clear but also you feel that warmth and so....without being sibilant, on the highs it's less harsh and more flat which is great. I Think that's Apollo.
I've listened to a pair of Beyerdynamic 990Pro.
The answer is in the video description. Thanks for watching, Molo!
Can’t believe, whaaaat? The A it’s Apollo?
Both aren't far off to the normal hearing, but the noise floor was the first thing I noticed between the two. I've used both and of course, prefer my Apollo. Thanks for comparing :)
Thanks, Larry!
B sounded warmer to me for some reason. A little more low end forward. Thought it might be the headphones (Grado SR80x), so tried a better pair (Hifiman HE 400i) with similar result. Better headphones seemed to pick up the warmth a bit more.
There are four places you can hear important differences and how to listen to them. (listen with headphones and turn on hd1080)
1.) The volume consistency and smoothness
* notice in the very first short sample clip (and throughout) A a has a lush and consistent volume and B has a choppy volume that cuts out almost like it has a gate
2.) The sustain
* this is where A really shines. At the end of each guitar clip the sustain has a BLOOM to it and in A, it's smooth and blooms more musically. B has an unpleasant ring to it and decays in a sharp way
3.) Muted sound
* some of you thought that B sounded better because it seem to have a more compressed sound. You're not wrong but that's all the information you get. A has a lot more information. You have a LOT of choices and flexibility with this extra information when it's time to treat it.
4.) How they handle gain
* in the last guitar riff, Notice how A handles the high gain. It's smooth... It's nice. Immediately B chokes a bit on the high gain. The gen 4 scarletts are MUCH better at handling higher gain. The 4 generations went from 0 dBu, to +4 dBu, +9 dBu, to a respectable +16 dBu max input level. But the Apollo handles the higher gain better like it's eating a lovely cheesecake while the Scarlett chokes a bit.
Nice video and comparison. At first "glance" I though B sounded better, but even with youtube compression the above mentioned factors immediately after shouted that A was Apollo. I was not surprised when it was revealed.
Writing before the reveal - B is just slightly more muddled sounding. Also, with the SM7b, the difference is beyond negligible as the mic itself sounds muddled lol
Remember guys this is the matching up with no plugins on the Apollo so yeah at that point they match but the focus can't run plugins live so once you start slapping the plugins in the Apollo's going to sound a hundred times better 🤷♂️ which then in return is going to give the artist recording a better performance when they're performing the best they can cuz they can hear themselves the way they want to you're going to end up with better music in the end. That's the whole point of the Apollo.
You can run plugins live with any interface if your computer is decent. Dsp is unnecessary in most cases nowadays
@@BrennonZSmith not without latency which basically means no you can't even when you got it down to the lowest setting 64 the latency is terrible it is not the same.
@@lam6291 not sure what rig your running but I record with plugins and no audible latency all the time
Considering headphones on a phone - B was nice on the spoken voice. Also bit more body on the acoustic. However, the electric examples were clearer or brighter on A.
I thought B was the Focusrite
Thanks for watching, G!
I struggled to determine which one I preferred, but I’d be shocked if there’s many people with healthy hearing who couldn’t tell any difference at all
Very easy to hear even through iPhone speakers
I thought that the sound was a bit fuller out of A - a bit more definition throughout the range, and especially in the mids. A bit. They both sounded pretty solid to me.
Oh wow I was able to tell
B initially sounded more warm, but then I heard how the body of sound was just decimated by it. 3:08 is the easiest to hear this: the resonant sound of the bass notes was just completely lost. It's like someone pulled a sock over the E string! I'm glad budget options go so far, but there's a clear winner for music that is quieter or resonant.
Of course the apollo twin has the dsp and the plugins etc, in terms of sound the diffrence is subtle, but the price difference isnt subtle. You still can make decent music out of affordable gears!
Without knowing anything about music could tell the difference tight away! Thanks for the info!
I was looking for this two interfaces to compare the quality!
One thing’s for sure; a tiny percentage of people consuming your finished recordings will have the faintest idea that these products even exist and a tiny fraction of that small group would be able to make a judgement on which you used with any confidence.
Apollo just sound silky smooth, idk why but scarlet just gives me that homemade feeling
There is clearly a difference here, however; by no means does the Focusrite sound awful. Some of the combinations work better than others, the only one I really didn't like was the 58. It's important to remember when you are stacking up track after track, the differences become much more pronounced... Try recording a demo track multing it to each box, with a dozen tracks or so, and then see how things sound.
I was wrong and i love that
Wow! I picked B as the better sounding of the two, but I thought it was the UA. (I happen to use a Focusrite Scarlett 214, so this video pleases me no end.)
Glad to hear that, Ben! Thanks for watching.