💽 Get Your Tracks Mixed by Ed: edthorne.com/mixing 🎬 Best Interface For Mixing! This HP Amp is Insane!: ruclips.net/video/n0fyFRl2R24/видео.html 🎬 Scarlett 4th Generation vs 3rd Gen: ruclips.net/video/_LDDzsxp1a0/видео.html
Underground Raiload TV show in Chicago That’s great. I haven’t used one yet but I’ll look out for it. Rode are a popular brand and I would imagine will clear up a lot on the Podcasting circuit so I’ll look into reviewing one.
@@33yearsoldcarpenter buy whichever you can afford, i have the Scarlett and love it and i am sure i would love using the apollo also. With good plug ins and a good computer with at least 4 cores, i don't have any latency issues
@@EdThorne Ed ...to my ears i hear the UA is a little more thick sound but it goes a bit like to the edge of going distorted (kind of when you are way too close ti the mic effect) and is also way too much sensitive to pickup artifacts and that is for being so true\good in the Mic Preamp section ! The Scarlett is a bit thinner but not as bad that cant be fixed with ext gear or int plugins ! So, now that i know this thinning problem on the Focusrite, i will always add a bit of more body to the vocals i will record from now on !! Thanks for the video and alert me of this !
dnantis Hi, yeh, I didn’t quite get the gains matched in this video, my apologies. I did however get them identical in the video below and I think you can hear the same differences in the audio: ruclips.net/video/IkuuxFvNB_g/видео.html
People need to remember that there were albums recorded on old ADAT's and DIGI 001's . Many cheap off the shelf interface are now 24 bit, 96KHZ with better specs than those. The Shins first album was record on an old HP computer with a sound card. The gear isn't so important as much as the ability to make the most of what you have. And of course, great performances with emotion. If you have the money, then go ahead and buy the best you can afford. Otherwise, focus more on the music, instead of lusting over the latest sexiest UAD equipment.
Scary, you took my words out of my mouth almost verbatim. There is a 192KHz/24Bit 100 plugins frenzy out their with everyone thinking that's their edge. Wrong. Your music, passion, playing and compositional capabilities are your edge. I'll never forget an interview with The Spin Doctor's producer from the early nineties. They asked him how their drums sounded so good, what was the secret? His answer? "Aaron Comess is an excellent drummer". There you go.
very true after hearing this just shaprening up on your mixing skills can make all the difference as apose to spending that xtra money for something most may not use to its full potential
The funny thing about recording is the ones actually listening to the finished product would never say oh he use a Apollo interface or he used a Scarlett interface. If your a audio engineer you know how to make anything sound great 👍🏾
But the problem comes when you want a good translation from your DAW to out of the DAW to be same, and not sounding different. It's not a matter about quality anymore but colouration. And in Mixing/Mastering, that can be a hell to second-guess through because you want your mixes to sound exactly the same once they are bounced out.
@@wmurray003 bruh.... that's because it's lossless. You shouldn't be bouncing your mixes in mp3 anyways for whatever reason other than to test how your mix sounds under the stress test.
Vid just recommended to me. Seems like a lot of hate on the focusrite interfaces. I own multiple Scarlett interfaces and they all function beautifully. I have lots of interfaces from multiple manufactures and the reality is that anything manufactured recently sounds pretty decent. Years ago I wouldn’t work on anything but apogee converters. But converter tech is so good now for so cheap that you can get a decent converter paired with usable preamps for a crazy inexpensive price. Just because the Scarlett is cheaper, doesn’t mean that isn’t usable for pro work. There are plenty of affordable interfaces out there working right now. Very few products in the modern pro audio marketplace are “night and day different” from a competitor, regardless of price. Understand signal flow and gain structure, by the best interface you can afford and put time into your craft. All that to say this- if you only have Scarlett money, buy a scarlet and get to work. Your interface decision isn’t going to make or break your career.
I hate scarlett it always made my vocals sound extra bassy and i would have to do way more mixing to get close to the sound i was going for even had to pitch my vocals up a few times i've recorded on more expensive equipment didn't have that problem
I’ve used the Scarlett 2i2 for 5 years and I recently upgraded to the Apollo Twin Mkii... I’m not saying you can’t make great professional recordings with the Scarlett 2i2, because great records have been made on a tascam 244 four track, but I will say, I don’t regret upgrading to the Apollo and the plugins that you can only get on an Apollo Interface are truly amazing. I think if you’re looking to “open pandora’s box” and be inspired by new plugins and sounds, get an Apollo Twin. Otherwise stick to what you got and keep recording great music! (:
I got the focusrite and I made great recordings with it, it's scary to think how much better the recordings could be with the Apollo. I had a stand alone studio in a box recorder, people used to rave how great the recordings sounded and often would ask which studio I record at. I simply just added some effects and some EQ on the vocals. I was shocked how with the focusrite I didn't have to add EQ just a little reverb and gave me big studio quality recordings.
As someone that has owned both you’d be very underwhelmed and disappointed. The difference is minimal. Take a look at the Audient Evo4 or ID4 MKII. I consider it a step up from the Focusrite Scarlett and a good middle ground. I would consider it the best starting point or standard for budget friendly home studios that don’t need a ton of inputs and outputs. Otherwise just save up, get an Avalon 737 and then you’ll be left with no more questions about how the king of mic preamps sound and never need to consider another preamp ever again lol.
I've been hearing lots of "tests" on RUclips regarding both audio interfaces and so far I didn't notice so much difference between them until I got to your video. In my opinion when we are recording instruments, you can't tell the difference so easily, but when it comes to Vocals it becomes really obvious that Apollo has a warmer and clearer sound, thanks for sharing!
Yeah, we hear the difference and lots of people thinks is not worth the price and all that shit... if they want to compare this interface just direct sounding I can say to them just buy a cheap Beringer um2 and done. I guess compare focusrite scarlett with older apollo twin make a little bit more sense because this X series ada converters almost the best... new/cheaper tech compare with very expensive soundcards and all that stuff... ohh and the "downside" is converters too good for default headphone amp & preamps I think... Great video btw. Keep it up!
They sound the same to me... I mean honestly when you add drums and guitars and sythns... You'll never hear the "corona cough"... Scarlett is good enough...
Andrei Tarkovsky once said that art is never made under ideal conditions. When I mentioned this one day to Warren Chang he said “No, but it certainly is nice when you can.” 😉
The main Apollo benefit for me are the UAD plugins. The sense of presence/space and rich tone would be very difficult to create on the Scarlett. Not sure you would notice this so much in a mix, but side by side on good monitors there is a clear difference between Scarlett and Apollo. Worth it for me. Especially for recording challenging instruments with huge range like acoustic guitar.
@@sylvesterheisenberg7682 check arturia mini fuse. That 100 $ interface just kills Scarlett preamp. Like the Scarlett sounds tiny compare to minifuse! So yes it's overhyped.
I didn’t watch the video, just viewing comments about it. My question since you could tell the diff, did he show the interface as you listened to it or did he hide it from you and made you guess which interface you think it was. That would be more Legit in my opinion. Too often we say the brand is just better because it’s pricier, etc.
There was actually a much bigger difference than I expected. I'm a beginner and I bought the Scarlett not long ago. I'm not disapointed, but when I'm beginning to get good at this I would definitely invest in the Apollo Twin, or something even better.
For the money, the Scarlett is great, it does a good job. It’s worth getting familiar with all the plugins that come with it. Enjoy the creative process 🙂
Some have posted inaccurately about the specs of the two interfaces. 15dBu max o/p for the 2i2, and 20dBu max o/p for the twin. Likewise the 2i2 ha can handle 9dBu input level, while 25dBu for the twin. The 2i2 is similar to other usb powered interfaces in that it is low power and will not accommodate signal levels from pro outboard gear. Having an interface with low enough latency that one can monitor through the daw and not need a separate hardware (driver) mixer to handle headphone mixes. This really speeds up workflow. This is due to the Thunderbolt architecture in the twin. Likewise having DSP for headphone reverbs which don't force a higher I/O buffer is really helpful. As we are often needing a lot of plugins, having some that are DSP powered helps things. I would agree with others who have posted on this video that people sometimes try to replace an experience deficit with more costly gear purchases. However, the idea that someone who is wanting to approach the sound quality of Neve (UAD plugins) for example, wanting higher quality conversion, or engineers in a professional studio; are all compensating for something is ridiculous. There is a reason why historically the best albums have been recorded in professional studios: they have access to higher quality mics, preamps, consoles, monitoring acoustics. While one channel's worth of class A gear may not make the album way better, you can't deny the over all effect of Class A gear on all the tracks in a production. While the UAD is not really the same thing, at least it tries (preamp emulation, modeled plug-ins) and gets closer. There is also a reason why experience as an engineer or producer makes or breaks a recording. Some DAW users however view modeling of the harmonic characteristics of vintage gear or using vintage gear, as snake oil or unnecessary. Their productions tend to become bland and two dimensional. There is an art form in how the gear is used that isn't just dialing in compressor or eq settings. The UAD, while not quite the same as vintage gear, gives you more in this regard than a Scarlett interface. A Scarlett interface is cheaper and what I can say as an owner of the 18i8 is that there is nothing wrong with it. For the money, getting an 18i8 and having a system that has clean & quiet head-amps, no driver issues, and comes with some really useful Softube plugins is great, so long as someone doesn't expect the head amp to sound like a 1073.
I have both of the ones displayed in the thumbnail. I’ll be honest. The focusrite gives a more full distorted recording. The Apollo Twin gives a CLEAR clean recording. I prefer the rawness of the Focusrite
I am an Apollo owner. IMHO, they are both perfectly usable, professional tools. Apollo IS more high-end, because it gives you all the fancy options you mentioned and grants you access to UAD's plugin-library (which is pretty expensive, but the plugins that the interface comes with are more than enough to get you by) which is remarkably above other companies in regards to modeling analog sound, so if you know what these old, analog boxes do and are going for that specific vibe, then Apollo is a great way of getting those sounds ITB without breaking the bank. However, I've used the Scarlett a few times and it works perfectly and sounds wonderful as long as you're using a decent mic (even a SM57). It is all about taste and needs. I don't see much functionality in Apollo for EDM artists and the like, but if you're going to be tracking a lot, those extra $600 are REALLY worth it.
I own both interfaces. You can get good, pro-quality recordings from both. The big difference for me is that Apollo has a thunderbolt interface. This allows me to track vocals or guitars in real-time with plugins. I mainly use my apollo as a "digital" amp locker. I have most of the amp sims and they are excellent. When I'm tracking I can not detect any latency. When I'm tracking vocals on the Appollo I have several legendary vocal amp/sims and they are really good. I can also add EQ, compressors, reverb, and track in real-time with no latency. Is the overall sound better? For me, I really can't tell, they both do a great job. However, the Apollo is much more than a simple interface.
Totally agree.I own both,too. Apollo twin do very great job in vocal and guitar tracking.Also I'm very satisfying in compose,arrange and mix with scarlett 2i2.
nobody talks about Behringer U-phoria umc 404. This is just a stellar low price audio interface with midas preams, christal clear sound recording, low latenci (really low latency), mono/stereo button, multiple outs, a/b monitors, single earphones out, pad, inst, line buttons etc... Stellar for 110Euros I paid for it!
I have gotten great results with the focusrite. I also have a i7 cpu so I don't get any latency when recording. I won't be using the apollo unless it's gifted to me.
UAD Apollo for sure!!! I came from using Behringer Xenyx USB, M-Audio ProFire 2626, M-Audio 2X2M track, Focusrite 2i2 3rd gen, and now using Apollo Twin Duo mkii. Looking forward to upgrade x4 soon! The zero latency tracking solved most of my recording and practicing problems before. Yes, the differences are dramatic for me personally. And I love UAD plugins!!!
First off: two thumbs up for an excellent review. It was informative, enjoyable to watch - a time well spent. Thank you for taking the time make it available. To answer your question: to my ears, the Apollo sounded better than the Scarlet. Even with my humble setup (macbook and presonus 4.5 monitors), there was a more "immediate presence" with the apollo sample than with the scarlet. If I were a professional, I would buy the apollo - or something at that level - no questions about it. But if budget is a consideration the scarlet would be a good choice.
This showed me what an amazing deal the focusrite is. If I had a money making studio I’d get the Apollo but I’d feel like I’m getting ripped off for sure, there’s not 500-600$ difference. The Apollo feels like it would be at home at 349$
guitar guy The Scarlett is great value for money, especially with all the extra software. The value in the Apollo though is the offsite plugin processing and expansive monitor signal processing potential.
A big lure for the apollo is the plugins; especially using them in 'Unison' mode with the unit - in essence turning your mic input into either an api, neve or other desk through the software. I've been using the neve pre on the unison input for everything and the tonal character difference is amazing. I also print a lot of pre recorded tracks through the same plugin and the character difference is night and day to me. DSP limitations are annoying although i'm happy to put up with them due to the quality of the plugins. Its the diminishing returns thing really.... Had a scarlett 18i6 for 6 years and loved it, but I couldn't go back now (annoyingly!). Great vid
Thanks Paul. I have a new series starting tomorrow diving deeper into the Apollo world. I’ll be exploring Unison, monitoring/printing fx and DSP management in much more detail. 🙂
Thank you so much for the detailed reviews and comparison. The Apollo has a cleaner and more open sound (as you noted). It's not just how one track sounds, imagine the difference when used to record 20 tracks (it adds up).
Nice. At my studio I've been using the Focusrite Clarett 8pre for years with some outboard gear. It's an excellent unit for live rehearsals etc. Yet since the quarantine I've been marooned at home so just ordered the Apollo and I'm stoked to try it out for my living room setup.
What isnt being discussed here is that the output converters of any given interface are extremely important for mix decision making. I came from using MOTU interfaces and felt when I moved over to UAD that I could simply hear a bit more detail. This is something you cant really experience unless first hand. Also RUclips's audio compression as well as the compression in the video render is going to seriously limit your ability to hear the difference in clarity between the units. My 2 cents. Great review thanks!
EarthCry I agree with you, definitely best heard in person. Do you think it’s worth while posting the raw audio files on my website for people to hear themselves?
@@EdThorne sure! While its likely difficult to do with vocals, trying to gain match the takes would help. Louder is always perceived as "better" to the inexperienced.
I tried, but not hard enough it seems 😀 I adjusted the output signal so they were the same level but the Apollo is just a fuller sounding device with more top end making it sound louder. A lot of people have been listening using their eyes too because the wave forms are different. I definitely paid much more attention to this on my following interface video (across ten devices - that was tricky). 😀
The really huge difference comes in to play when using the unison feature of the, UAD when tracking. You get to record hrough the modeled Pre-amps. As well as complete latency free tracking with the plugins.
@@EdThorne The unison slot in the console makes the plugin in the recording. The rest you can choose. I choose not to. But if I start running out if DSP, I'll commit in protools, which basically dus an offline voice, then makes the existing track inactive.
I wasted so much time and money in the studio splitting hairs. Then I realized that the regular customer has absolutely no idea about the sonics. Either they like the song or they don't.
hahahahaha you cant look at it that way man......music is to be felt too....thats what all the money for good gear come in at. To get rid of the rugged and harsh unnecessary subtle stuff. It pays off in the end.✨
I just want to add something for those wanting to use the Apolo as your main sound card on your home studio/gaming rig and even Skype calls. The Apolo isn’t compatible with some applications like the the scarlet is. I couldn’t use it with my talk back mic on video games and Skype calls or any video call applications. Neither application nor web based video call websites couldn’t recognize the interface but had no problem recognizing the scarlet. If your a producer who also games and streams and does conference call on the same pc. The Apolo May give you complications on applications not meant for Audio engineering. I’m not sure if they have updated their compatibility by now but for me it was a major draw back and it definitely added more value to the scarlet for those reasons.
I used an MBOX 2 at my home studio for years and had a few songs actually make the radio with my recordings, mic placement and great mixing made the difference.
@@almas7123 if all you are recording is vocals, sound blankets are a godsend, I set them up in triangle and put the mic in a corner. Once I get a good signal, I know my vocal takes are will be good in general. I never mix at home though, unless it’s for reference for my mixing engineer. I do have a good relationship with someone who mixes for $150 a track, they not only do a great job but they also will zoom me in on the session to make sure the vision is complete. You also want a mixing engineer who is gonna add the proper treatment i.e. tuning and aligning, and in some cases sound additions or sound subtractions. There are mixing engineers that are more pricy, and they often doesn’t include a master either. I have had mixes done by engineers who charge $1000, which were in respect to the engineer, worth every penny, but I also NEVER write off my current mixing engineer because he has the same skills and charges way less and I know the tracks are just as good I’m quality, if not better in some cases. I also do know my mixing engineer does use an Apollo twin and has a ton of UA plugins that make up a lot of the sessions.
@@almas7123 also take some sound engineering class If you can it will really help with the basics of anything you might be missing, like learning Eqs and bus channels all which greatly make up the fundamental part of it
Apollo does sound more rounded and warm. Almost like more information is being captured in a smooth way. I’ve never really liked Focusrite interfaces besides their Clarett series.
Listening through: computer -> optical -> Arcam rDAC -> CI Audio VHP2 headphone amp -> Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 250Ω I would say the Apollo has a slightly "harder" sound than the Scarlett; also, what sounds to be the delayed bleed from the vocalist headphones is more apparent with the Scarlett. IMO the Scarlett is the more transparent. As with Hi-Fi equipment, it's easy to hear extra things in the music when one item is several times more expensive than the other; confirmation bias.
As with Hi-Fi equipment, it's easy to hear extra things in the music when one item is several times more expensive than the other; confirmation bias. What did you mean by this statement? I'm not understanding you.
I got both and you can definitely tell the difference when using them. It’s all about how you using it, like I use Scarlett to make beats and then when I need to record artist I switch to the Apollo, it’s good and worth the money if you have it. But if you got the Scarlett just use what you got until it’s time to buy a new one when you saved enough, don’t let people get to u , whether having the expensive one making you better at what your doing. #KeepGrindin
Thank you so much for this... you can tell the audio you recorded through both contain almost the exact same signal, with perfect gain setting/mic placement. This video is perfect for showing artists the difference in preamps. For me personally, it's definitely worth saving up for that apollo. But it's really subjective
Thanks for watching, I’m glad it was helpful. The value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, the expandability with other UA devices, and it’s desktop controller functionality. Plus, the monitor routing flexibility is far superior. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
in a studio monitoring situation, it's pretty obvious. but given I don't make music, I 100% can still hear it in the final product. as can the audience. many people have recognized the wider range for the apollo when it's layered with other effects. for voiceover, it's very helpful if youre working with cinematic music. For reference, you display it at 8:40. Look at those waves. great review!
@@Leonidas909 Yeh, I didn’t quite get the gains balanced in this comparison. I did however get the balance right in this video and the sound differences are the same: ruclips.net/video/IkuuxFvNB_g/видео.html
A big thing to consider is whether you plan on adding hardware pre-amps to your rig. The Apollo Twin usually comes with a small bundle of UAD plug-ins, which in my case included the UA-610 pre, LA-2A, 1176 and Fairchild compressors, and Pultec EQ. I use all of these, but the most important one for me, by far, is the "Unison" version of the UA-610. To my ears, this plug-in is indistinguishable from the hardware version, in every possible way. I've owned a lot of hardware pre's that I've been unloading since I bought the Apollo Twin. I no longer need ANY hardware pre-amps.
I've owned both units and for my purposes the focusrite was far more simple to use and the results I've gotten are excellent. I found the plug-ins for uad extremely overpriced and I also prefer the simplicity of the focusrite workflow.... just my two cents.
That's totally understandable. The Console routing/monitoring aspect of Apollo can be confusing but it's absolutely brilliant when you get your head around it, I can't imagine life without it now :-)
I use focusrite 2i2 and Mixcraft Pro studio 7. I've had pro engineers ask me how did I get this quality at home. Don't waist your money buy 2i2 focusrite, you'll be happy. Los Angeles 50 years behind this piece of wood and still learning everyday. Long live the Blues
You’re welcome. The value in the Apollo is also in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
I was hoping there was going to be someone mentioning presonus here. That company doesnt get the love it deserves. Ive been using the 1818vsl along with Studio One for years and couldnt be happier with it.
@@gweeds334 When Presonus first started their products were all hand made in the USA and nothing short of STELLAR. The problem started when that quality made them popular and they moved everything over to China to make a few extra bucks and the sound quality dropped off radically. Still good...but not great like they were. Rockford Fosgate did the SAME thing before coming back with their tail between their legs and correcting the mistakes. I have an original blue tube pre which isn't expensive, but I really liked the sound of it. I figured if I wanted that sound but better I would buy the new blue tube model ...along with another Presonus "class A" pre they had for sale to check things out and BOTH of them sounded bland and vanilla....non musical and tight. Just didn't sound good, was average at best, and didn't have that magic I was used to. If you love your stuff it was probably handmade back in the day...or you just know how to mix tracks really well to try and put life back into them. I talked with one of their head engineers and the first thing he said to me was "Hang onto that thing!" and then told me the story about how things had changed and the older products were just better. The original blue tube I have is what they call a starved plate design, which is a cheap way to make a "tube preamp", but it also adds this flavor in the sound that you don't get with normal tube pres. I've heard it said that they sound almost like a transformer based pre that runs tubes so they have this blended sound which might be why I like it. I've had recordings on that thing that went right into a standard sound blaster sound card that would blow your mind when mixed right. Damn the numbers..does it SOUND GOOD? People ask me ALL of the time what I'm using and their stunned when I tell them. The sound is just phenomenal and stands up to the very best equipment I've ever heard, no lie. It just worked. But it's getting old and depending on how long it's been turned on the sound will change radically. That makes getting a vocal take during that small pocket of time where it's been warmed up just enough to come to life, but not so long that it starts to muddy up and lose transparency and vibrancy.....more difficult. It's possible that certain preamps are just temperamental. I want to get that Amazing sound consistently and the UA Apollo twin looks good. But Presonus's equipment now...meh. I had one of their interfaces too and it was crap.
I have a Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen + Shure SM7B + Rode PSA1 Arm + 2 PreSonus Eris E44 Studio Monitors. All this cost me roughly $200 Canadian less than what an Apollo Twin would cost. I'm not saying it's not worth it for some folks, however the subtle increase in clarity / quality of the Apollo for me isn't worth spending an extra $900 Canadian. I'm likely gonna upgrade to the 4th Gen Scarlett today actually. I also use OBS Studio as I do gameplay videos on my channel, and I use FabFilter Parametric EQ, along with FabFilter De-Esser with a noise gate and compressor for VST's within my OBS. Those were expensive. Great video btw.
Dang. They are pretty close, which is surprising for the price difference. When I listen to them over and over, I am not sure I can tell the difference.
The value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
I bought my Scarlett for$80.00 . Obviously if I could afford the more expensive one right now I’d get it. But I appreciate the information for a future purchase. The Scarlett is just a starting point for my budget right now
I'm very satisfied with my $150 Roland Rubix22. I can see myself moving on to the Apollo for reasons entirely separate from audio quality--I want the external processing and access to UAD plug-ins, which sound amaaaaazing.
The biggest difference is the extra features that appolo comes with. Our consumers are nubes so the sound quality will go unnoticed tbh but getting antaras and all those plug ins AND the ability to track my guitar through it makes it better
I can hear the subtle difference. I like the sound of the apollo. The apollo makes the vocals sound a little more compressed and warm. As where the scarellet sounds a tiny bit more flat
I have Scarlett 18i8 and Octopre because I have lots of small synths that I like to jam live on so I need lots of inputs, so I am a fan because of price level. I couldn't do all this in the "Pro" line of interfaces. From my understanding when they say "Pro" the difference is if your sound is going to be used in a professional setting. If you are looking to make a track that is going to be played through a banging club sound system or in a movie theater, then you will then notice the difference. So I think it is hard to tell the difference much in normal environments. I could be wrong, that is just my understanding.
I have both units. I used the Scarlett 2i2 for nearly eight years and couldn’t be happier with what it did for me during that time. I got the Apollo in January as an upgrade, and it really surprised me. The UAD console was a game changer. I would say if you’re recording a lot of live instruments and vocals the Apollo is the way to go if you have the bones for it. Both interfaces are great but the Apollo is definitely better in terms of how it works with everything else going on in the music process. Just keep in mind you’ll need a computer with Thunderbolt 3 and a cable. Also as a side note I really wish LUNA was on PC...UAD PLISS.
What happens if you are using it ONLY for guitar playing/recording. Can you hear a difference in the guitar tone and how realistic the tube amps simulations sound?
gpapa31 I had a friend of mine listen to some recent unreleased WIP tracks that use a lot of guitars. The first thing he asked me was how I got my guitar tone sounding so good...well it was the Apollo. Vocal wise, you’re still going to need a decent condenser, but that’s just my experience.
Hi, I need advice, I don't record live however all my projects I use VST's , is their a different also on VST audio quality by upgrading?? Or the interface upgrade only applies for live event situations?.
The Apollo had a bit crisper/sharper sound whereas the Scarlett was a flatter perhaps duller sound IMHO! First time I heard the comparison between these interfaces, thank you for that! I use the Apollo as well. My main reasons for the purchase of AU II was 1. Latency reduction 2.dual processors.
When you played them side by side on the computer 8:35 , you can see in the wave forms. The apollo is capturing more dynamic range. Just look at the size of the peaks and blobs in the wave form vs the scarlett. I mean its expected given the price difference.
I have a 3rd gen Solo and a RME babyface and honestly on my ADAM A7x's I hear no difference between the two. Obviously the RME is a lot more expandable ( I have expert sleepers ES3 and ES6 for a modular/DAW hookup using RME's ADAT ins and outs ) and it has XLR outs and nice pres, but that's pretty much where it ends.
I like them both.... I can use either .... and still get top notch sound from both! I just use them both differently.... the Scarlett I’ll mainly use simple eq & compressors.... and with the Apollo I’ll use the plug-ins that I bought for it!
a point on your sound comparison at the end. the apollo recording is louder, it would have been helpful to address that and match the levels. thanks for the review
Yeh, I didn’t quite get the gains balanced in this comparison. They were however compensated for on the output so the volumes are almost identical. I think you’re hearing the perceived volume difference the preamps capture. Be careful not to listen with your eyes. I understand the difference in gain may have influenced the sound but I matched the gains in this video and the sound differences are the same: ruclips.net/video/IkuuxFvNB_g/видео.html
Great video Sir. I just wanted to say I have a Gen 1 Apollo Twin Solo. I have been using it constantly for over 7 years and it still works and sounds great. DSP limitations force me to render individual tracks on larger projects, but that's not too much of a problem. I have used lots of other interfaces that work and sound good, but to me the Apollo just seems to record source tracks that are just a bit more "real" sounding, especially on vocals and acoustic guitars. I recently purchased an Earthworks SR40V to use as my primary recording mic when making those types of tracks, and I found that the incredible detail that mic captures is not lost when the signal passes through the Apollo. Finally, after all these years, I'm really hearing what this Apollo is capable of recording. I thought it might be worth mentioning to anyone looking at setting up a home studio or upgrading one they already have that if you don't have a quality mic on the front end of your signal chain even the best interface will not give you the best sounding source tracks.
Thanks so much sir for your comment. It's much appreciated. I have watched some of the UAD Apollo interface reviews for some time and saw that they are like the interface any studio should have cause of their excellent sound quality. But one really see the pro's and cons once you own one I suppose. I hear some say about the DSP that limits the Apollos plugin usage but that their plugins are of the most wanted hardware emulations in the world. So now my question is, what are the differences between the Solo, Twin, etc? Does it mean the processor can handle more plugins on the different models? I am also considering going for the Volt 476 or an Apollo cause the Volt's are a bit limited regarding UAD's plugins. Also does the Volt, being fairly new, have sound quality difference compared to the Apollo's? Wish I knew a lot more in order to make the right decision. Any input will be appreciated. Kind regards.
this has been a question I've had for a long time. Thank you for this well edited video. I think it's clear that the Scarlett has placed itself in the market in a very specific combination of price range vs quality, while UAD has a different approach, mostly directed to who's a few years into home studio audio production. Thanks!
Thanks, Kenneth. I left a few key details out of this video in hindsight. The value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
It is always fun to see creators demonstrating high end audio devices sound samples in a youtube videos :) Like: - Yeah man, I can totally hear the difference after the youtube recoded it. 👍 Nice video tho
I couldn't hear a difference, and it was a slight difference, until I put on my hd280's. I guess if you want the best sound you can get you gotta spend more but I feel like if in the right hands the Scarlett can go a long ways.
If your trying to do serious stuff, upgrading is pretty important. U can fill a room with good stuff but this decides how high that ceiling (quality) goes.
Good comparison. I had a Focusrite 6i6 before I got the Apollo 8, and “felt” it sounded better, but was well-aware it could just be my own confirmation bias at work. So it was nice to hear them A-B’d. My initial impression, before you said anything, was that the UAD had more depth and more “air.” It may not make a huge difference in one track, but with multiple tracks stacked together could really have an impact. I’d be curious to hear the comparison with the Scarlett’s Air button engaged and disengaged, compared with both itself with the UAD. Anyway, good video, but the background music was entirely too distracting. Keep ‘em coming!
Dennis Kambury Thanks for the feedback Dennis. My model is also the 6i6 so I didn’t have the air button to hand, but I figured otherwise it would likely sound the same and it would be better to talk about the new model. Any particular bit of music you didn’t like? Too loud?
@@dkambury Haha. Too catchy - I'll take that. I have tried to pay attention this on subsequent videos and checked the audio levels on different systems. Thanks for the feedback :-)
Received my Twin X Heritage Edition a few days ago. One of our country's best sound engineers (a multi-platinum album engineer) said that the Twin X's A/D converters are second to none, on par with standalone converters costing several thousand dollars. After hearing it, I believe him. However, the preamps could be less noisy...
Some of the Unison preamps can be noisy because they emulate how the original analog hardware works. As stand-alone preamps they’re pretty good but, I agree, could still be quieter. Enjoy the TXH!
My 8i6 is great. I think whatever difference we're hearing between these two boxes is in their preamps, not their converters. I opted to save the money on and interface and spend the extra money on a used Blue Robbie and run it into one of the line-ins. On my Neumanns and Blue MixFis I cannot hear a difference between my Robbie on the Focusrite and my friend's nicer interface, leading me to believe it is just the Preamps that we're hearing in your video
Hi Michael, i am playing nayflute instrument and i have presonus studio one software in my laptop. I am blowing nayflute with backup music track in studio one. For better recording quality, could it be useful to supply focusrite Scarlett audio interface or Roland vt4 vocal processor ?
I was honestly surprised at how big the difference was. I expected the Scarlett to hold up better to the Twin actually. But it's good to know that spending a bit more still results in higher quality. Not that audio quality is the main reason why I love the Apollos. The workflow with the plugins in Console is the main selling point for me.
Good stuff, if you look at the manuals for the Apollo and the focusrite, in the technical specs section, you’ll see slight differences in things like THD+N (Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise), and if you research the physics of those measurements, you’ll understand the difference. The expensive sound cards are physically clearer. And prob have better physical transistors etc.
specs aren't always meaningful though. For instance even-harmonic harmonic distortion is warming, odd-harmonic distortion is nasty. 0.1% THD doesn't tell you whether the distortion it does have sounds good or not.
You would hear more difference between a cheap, ok, good or great interface by using an acoustic guitar, piano etc. There is where the different level mic pres will really make a different. Also need really good headphones to hear the difference or a really good sound system.
Exactly the video I wanted to see. I have been using a Scarlett for years and have heard about UAD and how great it is. But after this, I'll stick with Scarlett. $600 more.....it gets HOT....plugins are crazy expensive.....can only run 6 plugins before DSP gives out. Can't justify it in my book, I have a 4i4 Scarlett and it's great. II have a powerful laptop and plenty of RAM. 'll stick with Focusrite for now. Great video. Thank you.
Thanks for watching, I’m glad you liked it . The real value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html You’d get 6-10 plugins out of the Twin DSP and there’s loads of ways to manage your dsp so you won’t run out (video on this coming soon).
Gonna be honest, after having both interfaces, the Apollo blows the Scarlett out of the water Sonically. The plugins and converters took my mixes to another level. You’ll have to experience it for yourself, I felt like there wasn’t a difference until I actually had an Apollo in my setup.
I do agree but that air mode on the Scarlett with the best analog plugins in the world acoustica audio makes the over hyped Apollo sounds like plastic trust me mixing with the Scarlett and acoustica audio plugs make you don't Ned outboard gears
Considering the Scarlett is the budget sound card, and there’s a HUGE price difference, I’m not surprised. It would be a different story if it was using the Clarett range.
I have a 2nd gen Scarlett 6i6 and the main complaint is that I don't have a lot of headroom to work with. I use it for micing up Hammond organ (mono). That's for service use. When I patch Nord directly into the interface for recording (home) use It clips or even worse.. I get that there are ways to mitigate this but part of playing organ requires a change in volume.
@@Marijuana-Johnson recording keys in general is very good. It handles all of my stuff including my bass and synth patches. I believe this might be the best budget interface for personal use but if you need more channels definitely look at a Behringer
Apollo uses Thunderbolt which Apple and Avid claim is as fast as a PCIE card straight to the logic board (motherboard) so I'd go with Thunderbolt over any USB interface.
Uh, except what does that have to do with recording exactly? Bus speeds over USB are pretty damned quick, let alone recording things doesn't really factor into this much. A well written audio driver will compensate for any delay and such. Sorry man, but that's just marketing hogwash. If USB were so poor, they wouldn't make USB recording interfaces. ;)
@@JayKaufman Thunderbolt 3 data transfer speeds are 40Gbps while USB 3.1 is 10Gbps you are straight tripping. USB is designed to transfer data in separate chunks while Thunderbolt is able to continuously transfer data, and be daisy chained to more Thunderbolt devices saving inputs. USB interfaces work with most computers it would be insane for manufacturers to not make them.
@@AlexanderKorotkov42 yes since i got my appollo twin thunderbolt2 for PC, i never ever have experienced any chooking whatsoever (apart from the expected DSP overload) , it has been brilliant. To get it to work, driverwise, can be both thrilling and disapointing, many can testify. And for how long will UAD support drivers, if intel or windows change specificationS, I dont know. My own unit mysteriously ceased to work the other day.. Well, could be a hardware issue, so wount blame UAD at this stage.
Just upgraded from Maudio M track 2x2 C series, to the apollo twin x and I'm loving it. There is definitely a noticeable difference. Nice videos by the way new sub here👍👍
That’s great. Glad the video was useful. Check out my Everything Apollo playlist for Apollo/Console tutorials: ruclips.net/p/PLPGp5cq-hMjyC2_RhjC3dK5BaPrsqPyDu
You can do a better job at getting the loudness right. In the first run it wasn't too obvious, but when you're ABing the Apollos parts are definitelt louder, which can result in it feeling like there is more brightness and detail to it.
@fartpoobox ohyeah I am no measurement machine, nor am I a professional reviewer. Each to their own, and let's enjoy the process of exploration together :)
There is a little difference. In Comparison A and B when you put audio clips of Scar and UAD, the volume of the UAD is a little louder. Make the difference to lower the volume a little when the UAD sounds in that sector of the video and you will see that the ear practically does not detect the difference. The difference they have, you can emulate it 100% with equalization. As with many microphones and processors. There is a reference, but if you are not going to use all the DSP that the UAD brings, I am not too concerned about the difference. Hug from Argentina!
yes agreed. I took a music production mastering course and it included side chaining and compression, and when you consider the Dolby quality of the 70's, you need quality recording of course, and this is where the quality of the instrument, amp and microphone also figure, but the scarlett for its price point is so significant because it works well enough - and he then enhances the recording samples - reshaping them and manipulating them further during mastering. He used and recommended a scarlett 2i4 because he wanted to use equipment that was accessible to those taking the course. But he let us in on one thing, the library recordings which were a good stream of income for the studio where audio was recorded, it was recorded onto a flashdrive in an external recorder, before that it was CD drives, and before that it was an 8 track Reel to Reel, there is something about recording onto tape which still charms the ears. A quality which hasn't been matched as yet. Saying that however, many people just want to sing into the computer these days and earn good money sometimes doing so.and that's why quality is important, and if you have the resources I guess you 'd purchase a more expensive piece of kit. For people who don't value their own ability too highly - the scarlett is more than adequate, in fact excellent for recording into DAWs, because the results are usable and that is the only requirement of a good workflow ethic.
Bro great vocs and thank you for the vid i was about too break the bank on the appolo but im a baller on a budget and i can upgrade down the road :) You rock
Thanks 🙂 I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
I bought a apollo, best investment ever, the pre amp function is amazing and it gives your great quality vocals.. in my opinion better then the scralett DONT LET ME START ABOUT THE PLUGINS U GET WITH THE APOLLO I cant name a company with such a great plugins as universal audio
Yes but the isa preamp air mode makes that over price garbage sounds muddy and just take a time out and visit acoustica audio and trust me and when I say trust me those plugins let uad algos sounds fake with acoustica audio it's the real hardware you are using no need for dsp trash and you can just rest your outboard rack
On individual tracks there's not gonna be much difference but when your adding more tracks you'll be able to hear more. But I have a focusrite. No complaints.
It's worth it to me if you use their unison technology and if you like using their plugins without taxing the power from your computer. The Focusrite is amazing too; I used it for the first 6 years of my musical journey.
Unless you do a lot of recordings, mixing, mastering and I mean a lot...You can never hear the difference. A producer can make a song sound good with ANY interface, because his ears are well tuned and utilize the interface to their maximum potential. Vice versa, one who does not know how to mix and master can make a world-class interface sound equally crappy. Ultimately, everyone hears different stuff...and hearing takes experience.
The apollo is a bit brighter and more clear. I can see the effects of that pre stacking over a bunch of tracks. But also think that the scarlett could easily match it with a hair of eq.
I've used Focusrite for years. I just bought a UA Apollo Solo. Can't wait to use it. I think the Scarlett sounds great until you hit the point where you take your production seriously. Apollo is obviously levels above. You can hear it. Less coloration. More clarity. More depth and presence.
And Luna sounds incredible. And Console is the most advanced and flexible monitor routing/processing app on the market! Spend time learning how console works properly and you’ll really maximise the Solo’s potential.
Interesting choice of things to compare. There's not really anything unprofessional about the focusrite stuff but I think both units don't really have a lot in common.
After working with analog gear for some time you can instantly hear the quality, the richness in the details and harmonics you get from expensive gear. The Apollo all the way but Scarlet certainly holds its own for the price.
In terms of sound quality the uad is not at all worth three times the money. It is very easy to slightly process the vocals with an eq and have it sound the way it fits into your production. Even with a very expensive interface you have to process your vocals anyway to make it fit into your mix. Have you ever listened to the vocal tracks of very successful productions? They are processed like hell to pop out of the mix. The context changes everything.
I find the Scarlett to have a more uniform, more fluent, smoother sound, a togetherness and a more compressed sound than the Apollo. It actually sounds very pleasant. The clarity of the Apollo makes it noticeable to be a bit spiky. Much more expensive does not always mean overwhelmingly better. For years I had been looking for a smooth and transparent sound in an audio interface and I always thought to find that fine quality in very expensive machines and for that reason I always ignored the cheap ones until I came across a sound test on a budget Presonus interface that fully satisfied my quest. I don't own the Presonus and therefore I don't know how its recording quality would actually reproduce my vocal and guitar playing. That's how I proceed with my recording: TL Audio C-1 tube preamp compressor into the RME ADI-2 AD/DA converters and its SPDIF outputs into the SPDIF inputs of the AVID M Box which I connect to my laptop via USB 2. I run Protools Version 9.0.6 in Windows 10. I get my recordings mastered by CloudBounce and I'm happy with the end results for since I'm not a sound technician I just used plugins in their default settings for I wouldn't know how to tweak their parameters.
I agree with your statement but it's the very reason I use the Apollo. I prefer to apply compression outboard so the precision issue ( it is a precision issue, ie; no compression or eq whatsoever) does not affect me. For most users the Scarlet series or the Steinberg devices are a good choice. Good comment.
This is a good shout, and something I’ve done in more recent videos. This video was early into my RUclips career and the mix idea hadn’t occurred to me. Thanks for the suggestion. 🙂
💽 Get Your Tracks Mixed by Ed: edthorne.com/mixing
🎬 Best Interface For Mixing! This HP Amp is Insane!: ruclips.net/video/n0fyFRl2R24/видео.html
🎬 Scarlett 4th Generation vs 3rd Gen: ruclips.net/video/_LDDzsxp1a0/видео.html
Underground Raiload TV show in Chicago That’s great. I haven’t used one yet but I’ll look out for it. Rode are a popular brand and I would imagine will clear up a lot on the Podcasting circuit so I’ll look into reviewing one.
Yeh count me in 🙂 TheEdThorne@gmail.com
Which is the best interface!
@@bradleyc79 did you mean “Railroad” ?
@@33yearsoldcarpenter buy whichever you can afford, i have the Scarlett and love it and i am sure i would love using the apollo also. With good plug ins and a good computer with at least 4 cores, i don't have any latency issues
biggest difference, you cant have a coffecup standing on the apollo twin, but works just fine for scarlet
Haha🤣 I think this is my favourite comment on this video 🙂
@@EdThorne haha thanks man xD its so true for me thought, i have so little space on my desk so my coffe usually stands on my scarlet
@@Musicbypinge That’s a recipe for a wet mix 😜🤣
@@EdThorne haha
And that’s why the scarlet wins 😂
As Ray Charles once famously said, "If it sounds good, it is good."
ECS Media LLC True words. Apologies for my voice 😜
@@EdThorne Ed ...to my ears i hear the UA is a little more thick sound but
it goes a bit like to the edge of going distorted (kind of when you are way too close
ti the mic effect) and is also way too much sensitive to pickup artifacts and that is for being so true\good in the Mic Preamp section !
The Scarlett is a bit thinner but not as bad that cant be fixed with ext gear
or int plugins !
So, now that i know this thinning problem on the Focusrite, i will always add a bit
of more body to the vocals i will record from now on !!
Thanks for the video and alert me of this !
dnantis Hi, yeh, I didn’t quite get the gains matched in this video, my apologies. I did however get them identical in the video below and I think you can hear the same differences in the audio: ruclips.net/video/IkuuxFvNB_g/видео.html
I believe the author of that quote was Duke Ellington and later used too by british engineer Joe Meek
agreed
People need to remember that there were albums recorded on old ADAT's and DIGI 001's . Many cheap off the shelf interface are now 24 bit, 96KHZ with better specs than those. The Shins first album was record on an old HP computer with a sound card. The gear isn't so important as much as the ability to make the most of what you have. And of course, great performances with emotion. If you have the money, then go ahead and buy the best you can afford. Otherwise, focus more on the music, instead of lusting over the latest sexiest UAD equipment.
Truer than true. In the end, buying and upgrading gear can become an obsession and making music is all but forgotten.
Scary, you took my words out of my mouth almost verbatim. There is a 192KHz/24Bit 100 plugins frenzy out their with everyone thinking that's their edge. Wrong. Your music, passion, playing and compositional capabilities are your edge. I'll never forget an interview with The Spin Doctor's producer from the early nineties. They asked him how their drums sounded so good, what was the secret? His answer? "Aaron Comess is an excellent drummer". There you go.
very true after hearing this just shaprening up on your mixing skills can make all the difference as apose to spending that xtra money for something most may not use to its full potential
Well said.
Faxx
The funny thing about recording is the ones actually listening to the finished product would never say oh he use a Apollo interface or he used a Scarlett interface. If your a audio engineer you know how to make anything sound great 👍🏾
is the apollo twin good without using the console and plugins? I need it for my Neunmann u87.
But the problem comes when you want a good translation from your DAW to out of the DAW to be same, and not sounding different.
It's not a matter about quality anymore but colouration. And in Mixing/Mastering, that can be a hell to second-guess through because you want your mixes to sound exactly the same once they are bounced out.
@@samuelng6441 think I go with a RME babyface. Heard only good things about it.
@@samuelng6441 In REAPER my bounces always sound BETTER once rendered down into a Wave file. I always find this odd.
@@wmurray003 bruh.... that's because it's lossless. You shouldn't be bouncing your mixes in mp3 anyways for whatever reason other than to test how your mix sounds under the stress test.
I think the interface is no longer a limiting factor. Both sound good enough to record a hit (or a miss).
Try doing Dolby mix
Exactly! Spend the $ on your PC/Mac
Vid just recommended to me. Seems like a lot of hate on the focusrite interfaces. I own multiple Scarlett interfaces and they all function beautifully. I have lots of interfaces from multiple manufactures and the reality is that anything manufactured recently sounds pretty decent. Years ago I wouldn’t work on anything but apogee converters. But converter tech is so good now for so cheap that you can get a decent converter paired with usable preamps for a crazy inexpensive price. Just because the Scarlett is cheaper, doesn’t mean that isn’t usable for pro work. There are plenty of affordable interfaces out there working right now. Very few products in the modern pro audio marketplace are “night and day different” from a competitor, regardless of price.
Understand signal flow and gain structure, by the best interface you can afford and put time into your craft.
All that to say this- if you only have Scarlett money, buy a scarlet and get to work. Your interface decision isn’t going to make or break your career.
Once you upgrade, you'll notice the difference.
I used to have a Scarlett as we all have done. Was good! But the Apollo is another world
I hate scarlett it always made my vocals sound extra bassy and i would have to do way more mixing to get close to the sound i was going for even had to pitch my vocals up a few times i've recorded on more expensive equipment didn't have that problem
Subtle difference but I agree the Apollo is a bit more pro sounding sometimes the accumulation of small advantages wins the game
I’ve used the Scarlett 2i2 for 5 years and I recently upgraded to the Apollo Twin Mkii... I’m not saying you can’t make great professional recordings with the Scarlett 2i2, because great records have been made on a tascam 244 four track, but I will say, I don’t regret upgrading to the Apollo and the plugins that you can only get on an Apollo Interface are truly amazing. I think if you’re looking to “open pandora’s box” and be inspired by new plugins and sounds, get an Apollo Twin. Otherwise stick to what you got and keep recording great music! (:
Are you using the Unison Preamps? ruclips.net/video/PM8V9rb9D_4/видео.html
I came from a shitty lexicon omega and i can hear a massive difference in audio quality even the frequency spread changes in span
I got the focusrite and I made great recordings with it, it's scary to think how much better the recordings could be with the Apollo. I had a stand alone studio in a box recorder, people used to rave how great the recordings sounded and often would ask which studio I record at. I simply just added some effects and some EQ on the vocals. I was shocked how with the focusrite I didn't have to add EQ just a little reverb and gave me big studio quality recordings.
As someone that has owned both you’d be very underwhelmed and disappointed. The difference is minimal. Take a look at the Audient Evo4 or ID4 MKII. I consider it a step up from the Focusrite Scarlett and a good middle ground. I would consider it the best starting point or standard for budget friendly home studios that don’t need a ton of inputs and outputs. Otherwise just save up, get an Avalon 737 and then you’ll be left with no more questions about how the king of mic preamps sound and never need to consider another preamp ever again lol.
I've been hearing lots of "tests" on RUclips regarding both audio interfaces and so far I didn't notice so much difference between them until I got to your video. In my opinion when we are recording instruments, you can't tell the difference so easily, but when it comes to Vocals it becomes really obvious that Apollo has a warmer and clearer sound, thanks for sharing!
Thanks Fellipe. Yes, I agree, I think it's more obvious on vocals. Thanks for watching :-)
Yeah, we hear the difference and lots of people thinks is not worth the price and all that shit... if they want to compare this interface just direct sounding I can say to them just buy a cheap Beringer um2 and done. I guess compare focusrite scarlett with older apollo twin make a little bit more sense because this X series ada converters almost the best... new/cheaper tech compare with very expensive soundcards and all that stuff... ohh and the "downside" is converters too good for default headphone amp & preamps I think...
Great video btw. Keep it up!
@@polgar_tamas Thanks Tamás.
The huge difference is sgen you track latency free through the UAD unison preamp plugins.
They sound the same to me... I mean honestly when you add drums and guitars and sythns... You'll never hear the "corona cough"... Scarlett is good enough...
Andrei Tarkovsky once said that art is never made under ideal conditions. When I mentioned this one day to Warren Chang he said “No, but it certainly is nice when you can.” 😉
got an apollo twin mk2 a few weeks ago. upgraded from an older native instruments audio 6. the difference is undeniable.
Hey brotha I have the same interface what, about it did you notice ?
^^
The main Apollo benefit for me are the UAD plugins. The sense of presence/space and rich tone would be very difficult to create on the Scarlett. Not sure you would notice this so much in a mix, but side by side on good monitors there is a clear difference between Scarlett and Apollo. Worth it for me. Especially for recording challenging instruments with huge range like acoustic guitar.
I agree Daniel. Thanks for watching 🙏
heck, you don't even need good monitors to hear the differences... they were quite apparent to me, just listening on my laptop speakers
@@dustinthiessen The conversion in UAD apollos interfaces is far superior too :)
Thanks for the comments. Im paranoid about how much scarlet advertises youtubers I've been trying to see the differences cause it's clearly over hyped
@@sylvesterheisenberg7682 check arturia mini fuse. That 100 $ interface just kills Scarlett preamp. Like the Scarlett sounds tiny compare to minifuse! So yes it's overhyped.
The Apollo definitely was more clearer... I could tell and hear the difference... Whether or not it's a 600 pound difference I'm not convinced...
I didn’t watch the video, just viewing comments about it. My question since you could tell the diff, did he show the interface as you listened to it or did he hide it from you and made you guess which interface you think it was. That would be more Legit in my opinion. Too often we say the brand is just better because it’s pricier, etc.
RUclips dude go to soundcloud
There was actually a much bigger difference than I expected. I'm a beginner and I bought the Scarlett not long ago. I'm not disapointed, but when I'm beginning to get good at this I would definitely invest in the Apollo Twin, or something even better.
For the money, the Scarlett is great, it does a good job. It’s worth getting familiar with all the plugins that come with it. Enjoy the creative process 🙂
Ed Thorne ; Thanks, I will! :-)
Some have posted inaccurately about the specs of the two interfaces. 15dBu max o/p for the 2i2, and 20dBu max o/p for the twin. Likewise the 2i2 ha can handle 9dBu input level, while 25dBu for the twin. The 2i2 is similar to other usb powered interfaces in that it is low power and will not accommodate signal levels from pro outboard gear.
Having an interface with low enough latency that one can monitor through the daw and not need a separate hardware (driver) mixer to handle headphone mixes. This really speeds up workflow. This is due to the Thunderbolt architecture in the twin. Likewise having DSP for headphone reverbs which don't force a higher I/O buffer is really helpful.
As we are often needing a lot of plugins, having some that are DSP powered helps things. I would agree with others who have posted on this video that people sometimes try to replace an experience deficit with more costly gear purchases. However, the idea that someone who is wanting to approach the sound quality of Neve (UAD plugins) for example, wanting higher quality conversion, or engineers in a professional studio; are all compensating for something is ridiculous. There is a reason why historically the best albums have been recorded in professional studios: they have access to higher quality mics, preamps, consoles, monitoring acoustics. While one channel's worth of class A gear may not make the album way better, you can't deny the over all effect of Class A gear on all the tracks in a production. While the UAD is not really the same thing, at least it tries (preamp emulation, modeled plug-ins) and gets closer.
There is also a reason why experience as an engineer or producer makes or breaks a recording. Some DAW users however view modeling of the harmonic characteristics of vintage gear or using vintage gear, as snake oil or unnecessary. Their productions tend to become bland and two dimensional. There is an art form in how the gear is used that isn't just dialing in compressor or eq settings. The UAD, while not quite the same as vintage gear, gives you more in this regard than a Scarlett interface.
A Scarlett interface is cheaper and what I can say as an owner of the 18i8 is that there is nothing wrong with it. For the money, getting an 18i8 and having a system that has clean & quiet head-amps, no driver issues, and comes with some really useful Softube plugins is great, so long as someone doesn't expect the head amp to sound like a 1073.
Great thing about the 18i8 is that you you can bypass the AD converter's and choose your own via the digital input.
I have both of the ones displayed in the thumbnail.
I’ll be honest.
The focusrite gives a more full distorted recording.
The Apollo Twin gives a CLEAR clean recording.
I prefer the rawness of the Focusrite
Great, if you're going for the distorted sound...
I am an Apollo owner. IMHO, they are both perfectly usable, professional tools. Apollo IS more high-end, because it gives you all the fancy options you mentioned and grants you access to UAD's plugin-library (which is pretty expensive, but the plugins that the interface comes with are more than enough to get you by) which is remarkably above other companies in regards to modeling analog sound, so if you know what these old, analog boxes do and are going for that specific vibe, then Apollo is a great way of getting those sounds ITB without breaking the bank. However, I've used the Scarlett a few times and it works perfectly and sounds wonderful as long as you're using a decent mic (even a SM57). It is all about taste and needs. I don't see much functionality in Apollo for EDM artists and the like, but if you're going to be tracking a lot, those extra $600 are REALLY worth it.
All valid points 👌🙏
I own both interfaces. You can get good, pro-quality recordings from both. The big difference for me is that Apollo has a thunderbolt interface. This allows me to track vocals or guitars in real-time with plugins. I mainly use my apollo as a "digital" amp locker. I have most of the amp sims and they are excellent. When I'm tracking I can not detect any latency. When I'm tracking vocals on the Appollo I have several legendary vocal amp/sims and they are really good. I can also add EQ, compressors, reverb, and track in real-time with no latency. Is the overall sound better? For me, I really can't tell, they both do a great job. However, the Apollo is much more than a simple interface.
Totally agree.I own both,too.
Apollo twin do very great job in vocal and guitar tracking.Also I'm very satisfying in compose,arrange and mix with scarlett 2i2.
if you are setup correctly you should not be detecting any noticeable latency with usb
Interesting take. I have the Scarlett and use numerous plugins during tracking with no detectable latency.
@@Sen-lx4kl I have been very impressed with the quality of the Scarlet. Amazing for the price.
nobody talks about Behringer U-phoria umc 404. This is just a stellar low price audio interface with midas preams, christal clear sound recording, low latenci (really low latency), mono/stereo button, multiple outs, a/b monitors, single earphones out, pad, inst, line buttons etc... Stellar for 110Euros I paid for it!
Use Scarlett 4i4 just starting DAW. But did a research. So far solid guitar strait, then with plugins. Studio One Professional. And no hookup issues.
I have gotten great results with the focusrite. I also have a i7 cpu so I don't get any latency when recording.
I won't be using the apollo unless it's gifted to me.
UAD Apollo for sure!!!
I came from using Behringer Xenyx USB, M-Audio ProFire 2626, M-Audio 2X2M track, Focusrite 2i2 3rd gen, and now using Apollo Twin Duo mkii.
Looking forward to upgrade x4 soon!
The zero latency tracking solved most of my recording and practicing problems before. Yes, the differences are dramatic for me personally.
And I love UAD plugins!!!
First off: two thumbs up for an excellent review. It was informative, enjoyable to watch - a time well spent. Thank you for taking the time make it available.
To answer your question: to my ears, the Apollo sounded better than the Scarlet. Even with my humble setup (macbook and presonus 4.5 monitors), there was a more "immediate presence" with the apollo sample than with the scarlet. If I were a professional, I would buy the apollo - or something at that level - no questions about it. But if budget is a consideration the scarlet would be a good choice.
Thank you for the comments. I agree with your assessment there 🙂
This showed me what an amazing deal the focusrite is. If I had a money making studio I’d get the Apollo but I’d feel like I’m getting ripped off for sure, there’s not 500-600$ difference. The Apollo feels like it would be at home at 349$
guitar guy The Scarlett is great value for money, especially with all the extra software. The value in the Apollo though is the offsite plugin processing and expansive monitor signal processing potential.
The scarlet don't compare lol
A big lure for the apollo is the plugins; especially using them in 'Unison' mode with the unit - in essence turning your mic input into either an api, neve or other desk through the software. I've been using the neve pre on the unison input for everything and the tonal character difference is amazing. I also print a lot of pre recorded tracks through the same plugin and the character difference is night and day to me. DSP limitations are annoying although i'm happy to put up with them due to the quality of the plugins. Its the diminishing returns thing really.... Had a scarlett 18i6 for 6 years and loved it, but I couldn't go back now (annoyingly!). Great vid
Thanks Paul. I have a new series starting tomorrow diving deeper into the Apollo world. I’ll be exploring Unison, monitoring/printing fx and DSP management in much more detail. 🙂
Thank you so much for the detailed reviews and comparison. The Apollo has a cleaner and more open sound (as you noted). It's not just how one track sounds, imagine the difference when used to record 20 tracks (it adds up).
Exactly this 👌
First video to give a good explanation as to why there is such a big price difference. Thanks
operation kickass Thanks.
Nice. At my studio I've been using the Focusrite Clarett 8pre for years with some outboard gear. It's an excellent unit for live rehearsals etc. Yet since the quarantine I've been marooned at home so just ordered the Apollo and I'm stoked to try it out for my living room setup.
That’s great, Justin. I’m sure you’ll love it 👌
Justin Garcia hows it been? I’m in the exact situation! Is it worth it
Apollo rules. Consider getting a satellite unit if you need more SHARC processing power.
What isnt being discussed here is that the output converters of any given interface are extremely important for mix decision making. I came from using MOTU interfaces and felt when I moved over to UAD that I could simply hear a bit more detail. This is something you cant really experience unless first hand. Also RUclips's audio compression as well as the compression in the video render is going to seriously limit your ability to hear the difference in clarity between the units. My 2 cents. Great review thanks!
EarthCry I agree with you, definitely best heard in person. Do you think it’s worth while posting the raw audio files on my website for people to hear themselves?
@@EdThorne sure! While its likely difficult to do with vocals, trying to gain match the takes would help. Louder is always perceived as "better" to the inexperienced.
I tried, but not hard enough it seems 😀 I adjusted the output signal so they were the same level but the Apollo is just a fuller sounding device with more top end making it sound louder. A lot of people have been listening using their eyes too because the wave forms are different. I definitely paid much more attention to this on my following interface video (across ten devices - that was tricky). 😀
so you're saying crappier interfaces compress well and better ones don't?
@@ghostbaum I don't think either of them do compression on their own. The quieter sound isn't compressed, it just didn't capture as much data.
The really huge difference comes in to play when using the unison feature of the, UAD when tracking.
You get to record hrough the modeled Pre-amps. As well as complete latency free tracking with the plugins.
Yes. Do you monitor with plugins, and do you record/write any of these when recording?
@@EdThorne The unison slot in the console makes the plugin in the recording. The rest you can choose. I choose not to. But if I start running out if DSP, I'll commit in protools, which basically dus an offline voice, then makes the existing track inactive.
I wasted so much time and money in the studio splitting hairs. Then I realized that the regular customer has absolutely no idea about the sonics. Either they like the song or they don't.
James Brown This is very true. And most people listen to music through their phone speakers or AirPods anyway 🤦🏼♂️
UAD has talk back mic and processes the plug ins independently of the DAW. That’s why it’s more expensive
@@ghostbaum tru
They don’t “realize” it , but better mixes don’t cause ear fatigue and are easier to replay.
hahahahaha you cant look at it that way man......music is to be felt too....thats what all the money for good gear come in at. To get rid of the rugged and harsh unnecessary subtle stuff. It pays off in the end.✨
I just want to add something for those wanting to use the Apolo as your main sound card on your home studio/gaming rig and even Skype calls. The Apolo isn’t compatible with some applications like the the scarlet is. I couldn’t use it with my talk back mic on video games and Skype calls or any video call applications. Neither application nor web based video call websites couldn’t recognize the interface but had no problem recognizing the scarlet. If your a producer who also games and streams and does conference call on the same pc. The Apolo May give you complications on applications not meant for Audio engineering. I’m not sure if they have updated their compatibility by now but for me it was a major draw back and it definitely added more value to the scarlet for those reasons.
The Apollo can be used for Loopback. Set inputs one and two to record outputs 1&2.
I used an MBOX 2 at my home studio for years and had a few songs actually make the radio with my recordings, mic placement and great mixing made the difference.
Ok you got my attention. Help this rookie out. What or how to I mix great?
@@almas7123 if all you are recording is vocals, sound blankets are a godsend, I set them up in triangle and put the mic in a corner. Once I get a good signal, I know my vocal takes are will be good in general. I never mix at home though, unless it’s for reference for my mixing engineer. I do have a good relationship with someone who mixes for $150 a track, they not only do a great job but they also will zoom me in on the session to make sure the vision is complete. You also want a mixing engineer who is gonna add the proper treatment i.e. tuning and aligning, and in some cases sound additions or sound subtractions. There are mixing engineers that are more pricy, and they often doesn’t include a master either. I have had mixes done by engineers who charge $1000, which were in respect to the engineer, worth every penny, but I also NEVER write off my current mixing engineer because he has the same skills and charges way less and I know the tracks are just as good I’m quality, if not better in some cases. I also do know my mixing engineer does use an Apollo twin and has a ton of UA plugins that make up a lot of the sessions.
@@almas7123 also take some sound engineering class If you can it will really help with the basics of anything you might be missing, like learning Eqs and bus channels all which greatly make up the fundamental part of it
I listened on headphones. They both sound great. To me the cheaper one has a better over all sound. I can work with that
Apollo does sound more rounded and warm. Almost like more information is being captured in a smooth way. I’ve never really liked Focusrite interfaces besides their Clarett series.
Listening through: computer -> optical -> Arcam rDAC -> CI Audio VHP2 headphone amp -> Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro 250Ω I would say the Apollo has a slightly "harder" sound than the Scarlett; also, what sounds to be the delayed bleed from the vocalist headphones is more apparent with the Scarlett. IMO the Scarlett is the more transparent. As with Hi-Fi equipment, it's easy to hear extra things in the music when one item is several times more expensive than the other; confirmation bias.
As with Hi-Fi equipment, it's easy to hear extra things in the music when one item is several times more expensive than the other; confirmation bias. What did you mean by this statement? I'm not understanding you.
I got both and you can definitely tell the difference when using them. It’s all about how you using it, like I use Scarlett to make beats and then when I need to record artist I switch to the Apollo, it’s good and worth the money if you have it. But if you got the Scarlett just use what you got until it’s time to buy a new one when you saved enough, don’t let people get to u , whether having the expensive one making you better at what your doing. #KeepGrindin
Well said 🙂
why you dont just use the apollo for beats too?
Thank you so much for this... you can tell the audio you recorded through both contain almost the exact same signal, with perfect gain setting/mic placement. This video is perfect for showing artists the difference in preamps. For me personally, it's definitely worth saving up for that apollo. But it's really subjective
Thanks for watching, I’m glad it was helpful. The value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, the expandability with other UA devices, and it’s desktop controller functionality. Plus, the monitor routing flexibility is far superior. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
in a studio monitoring situation, it's pretty obvious. but given I don't make music, I 100% can still hear it in the final product. as can the audience. many people have recognized the wider range for the apollo when it's layered with other effects. for voiceover, it's very helpful if youre working with cinematic music. For reference, you display it at 8:40. Look at those waves. great review!
Thank you 🙂🙏
I don't get it, one wave is just louder than the other, which is bad A B comparison btw, people will always choose the louder sound.
@@Leonidas909 Yeh, I didn’t quite get the gains balanced in this comparison. I did however get the balance right in this video and the sound differences are the same: ruclips.net/video/IkuuxFvNB_g/видео.html
Yeah the pre amp in the apollo must have a little nip on dynamic range pick up, judging by the wave difference
Can't compression and EQ fix the Focusrite. You can make templates for your vocal chain channel. That's what I've done.
A big thing to consider is whether you plan on adding hardware pre-amps to your rig. The Apollo Twin usually comes with a small bundle of UAD plug-ins, which in my case included the UA-610 pre, LA-2A, 1176 and Fairchild compressors, and Pultec EQ. I use all of these, but the most important one for me, by far, is the "Unison" version of the UA-610. To my ears, this plug-in is indistinguishable from the hardware version, in every possible way. I've owned a lot of hardware pre's that I've been unloading since I bought the Apollo Twin. I no longer need ANY hardware pre-amps.
I've owned both units and for my purposes the focusrite was far more simple to use and the results I've gotten are excellent. I found the plug-ins for uad extremely overpriced and I also prefer the simplicity of the focusrite workflow.... just my two cents.
That's totally understandable. The Console routing/monitoring aspect of Apollo can be confusing but it's absolutely brilliant when you get your head around it, I can't imagine life without it now :-)
@@EdThorne The quality in UAD is certainly there! I plan on buying a UAD Ox Box for my tube amps very soon.....cheers!
They have sales every now and then.
Also, there is the Twin X Heritage Edition, which comes with lots of additional great premium plugins.
I use focusrite 2i2 and Mixcraft Pro studio 7. I've had pro engineers ask me how did I get this quality at home. Don't waist your money buy 2i2 focusrite, you'll be happy. Los Angeles
50 years behind this piece of wood and still learning everyday. Long live the Blues
The Apollo definitely sounds better and as soon as I can I'm upgrading from my 2i2 to the Twin. Thank you!
You’re welcome. The value in the Apollo is also in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
"I don't hold the answers but I know that this feels right......"
I woke up to these vocals repeating in my head lol
Ha. Awesome. You can hear the full song here (with much better vocals): open.spotify.com/album/3WZWJfHlOkTDy9faRObW8j?si=olQ0Lg64T1mzoNZQVzPmbw
Ive practiced hard on the guitar and Ableton, and im ready for this amazing thing!
Kristoffer2791 Awesome. I have a video demonstrating the UAD guitar amp sims coming soon👌
Practice makes a man perfect. Carry on.
All I’m going to say is, the best gear is the GEAR YOU HAVE. & I sold my apollo to get a presonus studio 26c.... 🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️
Fair point. Whatever gets you creating when inspiration occurs 👌
Absolutely! I love gear but that doesn’t make much difference if you’re not making music.
I was hoping there was going to be someone mentioning presonus here. That company doesnt get the love it deserves. Ive been using the 1818vsl along with Studio One for years and couldnt be happier with it.
@@gweeds334 When Presonus first started their products were all hand made in the USA and nothing short of STELLAR. The problem started when that quality made them popular and they moved everything over to China to make a few extra bucks and the sound quality dropped off radically. Still good...but not great like they were. Rockford Fosgate did the SAME thing before coming back with their tail between their legs and correcting the mistakes.
I have an original blue tube pre which isn't expensive, but I really liked the sound of it. I figured if I wanted that sound but better I would buy the new blue tube model ...along with another Presonus "class A" pre they had for sale to check things out and BOTH of them sounded bland and vanilla....non musical and tight. Just didn't sound good, was average at best, and didn't have that magic I was used to. If you love your stuff it was probably handmade back in the day...or you just know how to mix tracks really well to try and put life back into them.
I talked with one of their head engineers and the first thing he said to me was "Hang onto that thing!" and then told me the story about how things had changed and the older products were just better.
The original blue tube I have is what they call a starved plate design, which is a cheap way to make a "tube preamp", but it also adds this flavor in the sound that you don't get with normal tube pres. I've heard it said that they sound almost like a transformer based pre that runs tubes so they have this blended sound which might be why I like it. I've had recordings on that thing that went right into a standard sound blaster sound card that would blow your mind when mixed right. Damn the numbers..does it SOUND GOOD?
People ask me ALL of the time what I'm using and their stunned when I tell them. The sound is just phenomenal and stands up to the very best equipment I've ever heard, no lie. It just worked. But it's getting old and depending on how long it's been turned on the sound will change radically. That makes getting a vocal take during that small pocket of time where it's been warmed up just enough to come to life, but not so long that it starts to muddy up and lose transparency and vibrancy.....more difficult. It's possible that certain preamps are just temperamental. I want to get that Amazing sound consistently and the UA Apollo twin looks good. But Presonus's equipment now...meh. I had one of their interfaces too and it was crap.
I have a Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen + Shure SM7B + Rode PSA1 Arm + 2 PreSonus Eris E44 Studio Monitors. All this cost me roughly $200 Canadian less than what an Apollo Twin would cost. I'm not saying it's not worth it for some folks, however the subtle increase in clarity / quality of the Apollo for me isn't worth spending an extra $900 Canadian. I'm likely gonna upgrade to the 4th Gen Scarlett today actually. I also use OBS Studio as I do gameplay videos on my channel, and I use FabFilter Parametric EQ, along with FabFilter De-Esser with a noise gate and compressor for VST's within my OBS. Those were expensive. Great video btw.
Dang. They are pretty close, which is surprising for the price difference. When I listen to them over and over, I am not sure I can tell the difference.
The value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
I bought my Scarlett for$80.00 . Obviously if I could afford the more expensive one right now I’d get it. But I appreciate the information for a future purchase. The Scarlett is just a starting point for my budget right now
You’re welcome. The Scarlett is great for the money. And what’s most important is getting recording. 🙂
Ed Thorne sorry for the tinge of sarcasm there 😁😉
Thank you Ed Thorne, for providing this shoot out. Many commenting here do get the purpose and appreciate it.
Thank You John 🙏
Nice one
Magic!
there is a difference that i could hear but the scarlett was right up there and since I have the 18i20 I feel pretty damn good about it
The Scarlett’s are great 😀
I'm very satisfied with my $150 Roland Rubix22. I can see myself moving on to the Apollo for reasons entirely separate from audio quality--I want the external processing and access to UAD plug-ins, which sound amaaaaazing.
Those are good reasons to upgrade. Plus the Unison preamp emulations are great, and it’s a much more functional desktop controller.
The biggest difference is the extra features that appolo comes with. Our consumers are nubes so the sound quality will go unnoticed tbh but getting antaras and all those plug ins AND the ability to track my guitar through it makes it better
I agree. Glad you like it
I can hear the subtle difference. I like the sound of the apollo. The apollo makes the vocals sound a little more compressed and warm. As where the scarellet sounds a tiny bit more flat
I agree. Thanks for watching 🙂
I have Scarlett 18i8 and Octopre because I have lots of small synths that I like to jam live on so I need lots of inputs, so I am a fan because of price level. I couldn't do all this in the "Pro" line of interfaces. From my understanding when they say "Pro" the difference is if your sound is going to be used in a professional setting. If you are looking to make a track that is going to be played through a banging club sound system or in a movie theater, then you will then notice the difference. So I think it is hard to tell the difference much in normal environments. I could be wrong, that is just my understanding.
I have both units. I used the Scarlett 2i2 for nearly eight years and couldn’t be happier with what it did for me during that time. I got the Apollo in January as an upgrade, and it really surprised me. The UAD console was a game changer. I would say if you’re recording a lot of live instruments and vocals the Apollo is the way to go if you have the bones for it. Both interfaces are great but the Apollo is definitely better in terms of how it works with everything else going on in the music process. Just keep in mind you’ll need a computer with Thunderbolt 3 and a cable. Also as a side note I really wish LUNA was on PC...UAD PLISS.
What happens if you are using it ONLY for guitar playing/recording. Can you hear a difference in the guitar tone and how realistic the tube amps simulations sound?
gpapa31 I had a friend of mine listen to some recent unreleased WIP tracks that use a lot of guitars. The first thing he asked me was how I got my guitar tone sounding so good...well it was the Apollo. Vocal wise, you’re still going to need a decent condenser, but that’s just my experience.
Hi, I need advice, I don't record live however all my projects I use VST's , is their a different also on VST audio quality by upgrading?? Or the interface upgrade only applies for live event situations?.
The Apollo had a bit crisper/sharper sound whereas the Scarlett was a flatter perhaps duller sound IMHO! First time I heard the comparison between these interfaces, thank you for that! I use the Apollo as well. My main reasons for the purchase of AU II was 1. Latency reduction 2.dual processors.
You’re welcome. Thanks for watching, Andrew 🙂
This was a great ad for the Scarlet. I couldn't honestly tell the difference on the compare it recordings.
The Scarlett is great value for money. The Apollo is on another level in terms of monitoring and functionality.
When you played them side by side on the computer 8:35 , you can see in the wave forms. The apollo is capturing more dynamic range. Just look at the size of the peaks and blobs in the wave form vs the scarlett. I mean its expected given the price difference.
The Focusrite is amazing, I have the 3rd gen Solo and it's so good! I love it!
Levi Its great value for money, especially with all the free plugins and samples. 👌
I have a 3rd gen Solo and a RME babyface and honestly on my ADAM A7x's I hear no difference between the two.
Obviously the RME is a lot more expandable ( I have expert sleepers ES3 and ES6 for a modular/DAW hookup using RME's ADAT ins and outs ) and it has XLR outs and nice pres, but that's pretty much where it ends.
bill borez You have the new one or older one?
@@reekrodriqguez6552 I have the original RME babyface.
I like them both.... I can use either .... and still get top notch sound from both! I just use them both differently.... the Scarlett I’ll mainly use simple eq & compressors.... and with the Apollo I’ll use the plug-ins that I bought for it!
a point on your sound comparison at the end. the apollo recording is louder, it would have been helpful to address that and match the levels.
thanks for the review
Yeh, I didn’t quite get the gains balanced in this comparison. They were however compensated for on the output so the volumes are almost identical. I think you’re hearing the perceived volume difference the preamps capture. Be careful not to listen with your eyes. I understand the difference in gain may have influenced the sound but I matched the gains in this video and the sound differences are the same: ruclips.net/video/IkuuxFvNB_g/видео.html
Great video Sir. I just wanted to say I have a Gen 1 Apollo Twin Solo. I have been using it constantly for over 7 years and it still works and sounds great. DSP limitations force me to render individual tracks on larger projects, but that's not too much of a problem. I have used lots of other interfaces that work and sound good, but to me the Apollo just seems to record source tracks that are just a bit more "real" sounding, especially on vocals and acoustic guitars. I recently purchased an Earthworks SR40V to use as my primary recording mic when making those types of tracks, and I found that the incredible detail that mic captures is not lost when the signal passes through the Apollo. Finally, after all these years, I'm really hearing what this Apollo is capable of recording. I thought it might be worth mentioning to anyone looking at setting up a home studio or upgrading one they already have that if you don't have a quality mic on the front end of your signal chain even the best interface will not give you the best sounding source tracks.
Fire Side Studios That’s great. Are you using the Unison preamps too? I’ve got a video coming exploring those in detail.
@@EdThorne yes sir. I use a Neve pre and just a little LA-2A compression whenever I track something. Always sounds great.
Fire Side Studios Awesome. I’m comparing the Neve 1073 with my Warm Audio preamp this weekend. Interesting results.
Thanks so much sir for your comment. It's much appreciated. I have watched some of the UAD Apollo interface reviews for some time and saw that they are like the interface any studio should have cause of their excellent sound quality. But one really see the pro's and cons once you own one I suppose. I hear some say about the DSP that limits the Apollos plugin usage but that their plugins are of the most wanted hardware emulations in the world. So now my question is, what are the differences between the Solo, Twin, etc? Does it mean the processor can handle more plugins on the different models? I am also considering going for the Volt 476 or an Apollo cause the Volt's are a bit limited regarding UAD's plugins. Also does the Volt, being fairly new, have sound quality difference compared to the Apollo's? Wish I knew a lot more in order to make the right decision. Any input will be appreciated. Kind regards.
That was really interesting, thanks so much for taking the time to make this video. The A/B comparison was especially interesting. Very helpful 👍
You’re more than welcome. Stay tuned for a part two later this year 🙂🙏
I appreciate you doing this little breakdown for noobs like myself. Definitely got a new subscriber. Off to another one of those vids. Thank you!
Thanks Elhanan. Welcome to the channel 🙂
this has been a question I've had for a long time. Thank you for this well edited video.
I think it's clear that the Scarlett has placed itself in the market in a very specific combination of price range vs quality, while UAD has a different approach, mostly directed to who's a few years into home studio audio production. Thanks!
jdutra Thank you 🙏 The Scarlett is great value for money, especially with the bonus plugins etc. Thanks for watching.
A perfect example of the law of diminishing returns.
Great review.
Thanks, Kenneth. I left a few key details out of this video in hindsight. The value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
It is always fun to see creators demonstrating high end audio devices sound samples in a youtube videos :)
Like: - Yeah man, I can totally hear the difference after the youtube recoded it. 👍
Nice video tho
Why do you look like the bad guy from the incredibles
😂 Fortunate DNA 😉
Lol im just foolin
Sheamus you mean
lool
I couldn't hear a difference, and it was a slight difference, until I put on my hd280's. I guess if you want the best sound you can get you gotta spend more but I feel like if in the right hands the Scarlett can go a long ways.
Very true 🙂
I use Scarlett nothing wrong with it
If your trying to do serious stuff, upgrading is pretty important. U can fill a room with good stuff but this decides how high that ceiling (quality) goes.
I have the best music content check me out
Good comparison. I had a Focusrite 6i6 before I got the Apollo 8, and “felt” it sounded better, but was well-aware it could just be my own confirmation bias at work. So it was nice to hear them A-B’d. My initial impression, before you said anything, was that the UAD had more depth and more “air.” It may not make a huge difference in one track, but with multiple tracks stacked together could really have an impact.
I’d be curious to hear the comparison with the Scarlett’s Air button engaged and disengaged, compared with both itself with the UAD.
Anyway, good video, but the background music was entirely too distracting.
Keep ‘em coming!
Dennis Kambury Thanks for the feedback Dennis. My model is also the 6i6 so I didn’t have the air button to hand, but I figured otherwise it would likely sound the same and it would be better to talk about the new model.
Any particular bit of music you didn’t like? Too loud?
Ed Thorne, the music itself was fine, but I guess too loud, cause I kept having my focus drawn away by it. Too catchy, maybe ;)
@@dkambury Haha. Too catchy - I'll take that. I have tried to pay attention this on subsequent videos and checked the audio levels on different systems. Thanks for the feedback :-)
Received my Twin X Heritage Edition a few days ago.
One of our country's best sound engineers (a multi-platinum album engineer) said that the Twin X's A/D converters are second to none, on par with standalone converters costing several thousand dollars. After hearing it, I believe him.
However, the preamps could be less noisy...
Some of the Unison preamps can be noisy because they emulate how the original analog hardware works. As stand-alone preamps they’re pretty good but, I agree, could still be quieter. Enjoy the TXH!
My 8i6 is great. I think whatever difference we're hearing between these two boxes is in their preamps, not their converters. I opted to save the money on and interface and spend the extra money on a used Blue Robbie and run it into one of the line-ins. On my Neumanns and Blue MixFis I cannot hear a difference between my Robbie on the Focusrite and my friend's nicer interface, leading me to believe it is just the Preamps that we're hearing in your video
Mike Baum I suspect you’re right. It may be a combination of the two factors.
Hi Michael, i am playing nayflute instrument and i have presonus studio one software in my laptop. I am blowing nayflute with backup music track in studio one. For better recording quality, could it be useful to supply focusrite Scarlett audio interface or Roland vt4 vocal processor ?
I was honestly surprised at how big the difference was. I expected the Scarlett to hold up better to the Twin actually. But it's good to know that spending a bit more still results in higher quality.
Not that audio quality is the main reason why I love the Apollos. The workflow with the plugins in Console is the main selling point for me.
The desktop functionality is brilliant
Good stuff, if you look at the manuals for the Apollo and the focusrite, in the technical specs section, you’ll see slight differences in things like THD+N (Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise), and if you research the physics of those measurements, you’ll understand the difference. The expensive sound cards are physically clearer. And prob have better physical transistors etc.
Exactly. Good info, Conrad.
specs aren't always meaningful though. For instance even-harmonic harmonic distortion is warming, odd-harmonic distortion is nasty. 0.1% THD doesn't tell you whether the distortion it does have sounds good or not.
You would hear more difference between a cheap, ok, good or great interface by using an acoustic guitar, piano etc. There is where the different level mic pres will really make a different. Also need really good headphones to hear the difference or a really good sound system.
Exactly the video I wanted to see. I have been using a Scarlett for years and have heard about UAD and how great it is. But after this, I'll stick with Scarlett. $600 more.....it gets HOT....plugins are crazy expensive.....can only run 6 plugins before DSP gives out. Can't justify it in my book, I have a 4i4 Scarlett and it's great. II have a powerful laptop and plenty of RAM. 'll stick with Focusrite for now. Great video. Thank you.
Thanks for watching, I’m glad you liked it . The real value in the Apollo is in the Unison Preamps, UAD plugins, near zero latency whilst monitoring with the plugins, the ability to print these monitoring effects as you record, and it’s desktop controller functionality. I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html You’d get 6-10 plugins out of the Twin DSP and there’s loads of ways to manage your dsp so you won’t run out (video on this coming soon).
Gonna be honest, after having both interfaces, the Apollo blows the Scarlett out of the water Sonically. The plugins and converters took my mixes to another level. You’ll have to experience it for yourself, I felt like there wasn’t a difference until I actually had an Apollo in my setup.
Yeh, when you get mixing and adding effects, which amplify the difference it really becomes clear the Apollo is better.
I do agree but that air mode on the Scarlett with the best analog plugins in the world acoustica audio makes the over hyped Apollo sounds like plastic trust me mixing with the Scarlett and acoustica audio plugs make you don't Ned outboard gears
Considering the Scarlett is the budget sound card, and there’s a HUGE price difference, I’m not surprised. It would be a different story if it was using the Clarett range.
@@roadreg1820 Video with the Clarett is coming soon :-)
Ed Thorne yes!! Looking forward to that 🤩
I have a 2nd gen Scarlett 6i6 and the main complaint is that I don't have a lot of headroom to work with.
I use it for micing up Hammond organ (mono). That's for service use. When I patch Nord directly into the interface for recording (home) use It clips or even worse.. I get that there are ways to mitigate this but part of playing organ requires a change in volume.
Does it actually clip fat?
How good is it for recording keys in general? Should I look into something else
@@Marijuana-Johnson recording keys in general is very good. It handles all of my stuff including my bass and synth patches.
I believe this might be the best budget interface for personal use but if you need more channels definitely look at a Behringer
Apollo uses Thunderbolt which Apple and Avid claim is as fast as a PCIE card straight to the logic board (motherboard) so I'd go with Thunderbolt over any USB interface.
Uh, except what does that have to do with recording exactly? Bus speeds over USB are pretty damned quick, let alone recording things doesn't really factor into this much. A well written audio driver will compensate for any delay and such. Sorry man, but that's just marketing hogwash. If USB were so poor, they wouldn't make USB recording interfaces. ;)
Jay Kaufman and you prolly believe 4G is faster than 5G too
@@JayKaufman Thunderbolt 3 data transfer speeds are 40Gbps while USB 3.1 is 10Gbps you are straight tripping.
USB is designed to transfer data in separate chunks while Thunderbolt is able to continuously transfer data, and be daisy chained to more Thunderbolt devices saving inputs.
USB interfaces work with most computers it would be insane for manufacturers to not make them.
@@AlexanderKorotkov42 yes since i got my appollo twin thunderbolt2 for PC, i never ever have experienced any chooking whatsoever (apart from the expected DSP overload) , it has been brilliant. To get it to work, driverwise, can be both thrilling and disapointing, many can testify. And for how long will UAD support drivers, if intel or windows change specificationS, I dont know. My own unit mysteriously ceased to work the other day.. Well, could be a hardware issue, so wount blame UAD at this stage.
Just upgraded from Maudio M track 2x2 C series, to the apollo twin x and I'm loving it. There is definitely a noticeable difference. Nice videos by the way new sub here👍👍
That’s great. Glad the video was useful. Check out my Everything Apollo playlist for Apollo/Console tutorials: ruclips.net/p/PLPGp5cq-hMjyC2_RhjC3dK5BaPrsqPyDu
@@EdThorne thank you :) your videos are very helpful
Would love to hear a comparison between the Scarlett and the Neve 88m
You can do a better job at getting the loudness right. In the first run it wasn't too obvious, but when you're ABing the Apollos parts are definitelt louder, which can result in it feeling like there is more brightness and detail to it.
The apollo sounds more immediate and upfront. Definitely more engaging and convincingly realistic
@fartpoobox ohyeah I am no measurement machine, nor am I a professional reviewer. Each to their own, and let's enjoy the process of exploration together :)
There is a little difference. In Comparison A and B when you put audio clips of Scar and UAD, the volume of the UAD is a little louder. Make the difference to lower the volume a little when the UAD sounds in that sector of the video and you will see that the ear practically does not detect the difference. The difference they have, you can emulate it 100% with equalization. As with many microphones and processors. There is a reference, but if you are not going to use all the DSP that the UAD brings, I am not too concerned about the difference. Hug from Argentina!
yes agreed. I took a music production mastering course and it included side chaining and compression, and when you consider the Dolby quality of the 70's, you need quality recording of course, and this is where the quality of the instrument, amp and microphone also figure, but the scarlett for its price point is so significant because it works well enough - and he then enhances the recording samples - reshaping them and manipulating them further during mastering. He used and recommended a scarlett 2i4 because he wanted to use equipment that was accessible to those taking the course.
But he let us in on one thing, the library recordings which were a good stream of income for the studio where audio was recorded, it was recorded onto a flashdrive in an external recorder, before that it was CD drives, and before that it was an 8 track Reel to Reel, there is something about recording onto tape which still charms the ears. A quality which hasn't been matched as yet.
Saying that however, many people just want to sing into the computer these days and earn good money sometimes doing so.and that's why quality is important, and if you have the resources I guess you 'd purchase a more expensive piece of kit.
For people who don't value their own ability too highly - the scarlett is more than adequate, in fact excellent for recording into DAWs, because the results are usable and that is the only requirement of a good workflow ethic.
totally agree that the level was a bit higher. could've just been a more confident take but it is misleading.
You're a 100% right. Thank you for sharing your voice of reason 🫶
Hugs back TO Argentina 🌸🤗
Bro great vocs and thank you for the vid i was about too break the bank on the appolo but im a baller on a budget and i can upgrade down the road :) You rock
Yeh man, that’s what a I did. I used a Scarlett for years before upgrading.
Smashing review Ed they both sounds great to my ear and I agree the Apollo has a little more depth yet an almost transparency in the detail.
Thanks 🙂 I glossed over the Unison feature a little bit in this video but there’s more info about it in this video reviewing the new Apollo Solo: ruclips.net/video/lYDFQP3kBcE/видео.html
I bought a apollo, best investment ever, the pre amp function is amazing and it gives your great quality vocals.. in my opinion better then the scralett
DONT LET ME START ABOUT THE PLUGINS U GET WITH THE APOLLO
I cant name a company with such a great plugins as universal audio
FSM BAZZA That’s great. Glad you’re happy with it. And yes, the plugins are lovely 😀
Ed Thorne its amazing! And thank you for creating this type content. Much love
Better Mic Inputs Better A-D conversion Dsp Processing on board Digital Mixer
Yes but the isa preamp air mode makes that over price garbage sounds muddy and just take a time out and visit acoustica audio and trust me and when I say trust me those plugins let uad algos sounds fake with acoustica audio it's the real hardware you are using no need for dsp trash and you can just rest your outboard rack
I totally don't hear the 600£ difference
On individual tracks there's not gonna be much difference but when your adding more tracks you'll be able to hear more. But I have a focusrite. No complaints.
RUclips is not tidal my friend :\
@@jhohanmusic True dat
It's worth it to me if you use their unison technology and if you like using their plugins without taxing the power from your computer. The Focusrite is amazing too; I used it for the first 6 years of my musical journey.
Unless you do a lot of recordings, mixing, mastering and I mean a lot...You can never hear the difference. A producer can make a song sound good with ANY interface, because his ears are well tuned and utilize the interface to their maximum potential. Vice versa, one who does not know how to mix and master can make a world-class interface sound equally crappy.
Ultimately, everyone hears different stuff...and hearing takes experience.
The apollo is a bit brighter and more clear. I can see the effects of that pre stacking over a bunch of tracks. But also think that the scarlett could easily match it with a hair of eq.
I think you’re right about the stacking effect compounding the difference.
I've used Focusrite for years. I just bought a UA Apollo Solo. Can't wait to use it. I think the Scarlett sounds great until you hit the point where you take your production seriously. Apollo is obviously levels above. You can hear it. Less coloration. More clarity. More depth and presence.
And Luna sounds incredible. And Console is the most advanced and flexible monitor routing/processing app on the market! Spend time learning how console works properly and you’ll really maximise the Solo’s potential.
Interesting choice of things to compare. There's not really anything unprofessional about the focusrite stuff but I think both units don't really have a lot in common.
That’s the point of the video, to explain how a cheaper and more expensive interface differ in functionality and features.
After working with analog gear for some time you can instantly hear the quality, the richness in the details and harmonics you get from expensive gear. The Apollo all the way but Scarlet certainly holds its own for the price.
Agreed.
In terms of sound quality the uad is not at all worth three times the money. It is very easy to slightly process the vocals with an eq and have it sound the way it fits into your production. Even with a very expensive interface you have to process your vocals anyway to make it fit into your mix. Have you ever listened to the vocal tracks of very successful productions? They are processed like hell to pop out of the mix. The context changes everything.
I find the Scarlett to have a more uniform, more fluent, smoother sound, a togetherness and a more compressed sound than the Apollo. It actually sounds very pleasant. The clarity of the Apollo makes it noticeable to be a bit spiky. Much more expensive does not always mean overwhelmingly better. For years I had been looking for a smooth and transparent sound in an audio interface and I always thought to find that fine quality in very expensive machines and for that reason I always ignored the cheap ones until I came across a sound test on a budget Presonus interface that fully satisfied my quest. I don't own the Presonus and therefore I don't know how its recording quality would actually reproduce my vocal and guitar playing. That's how I proceed with my recording: TL Audio C-1 tube preamp compressor into the RME ADI-2 AD/DA converters and its SPDIF outputs into the SPDIF inputs of the AVID M Box which I connect to my laptop via USB 2. I run Protools Version 9.0.6 in Windows 10. I get my recordings mastered by CloudBounce and I'm happy with the end results for since I'm not a sound technician I just used plugins in their default settings for I wouldn't know how to tweak their parameters.
I agree with your statement but it's the very reason I use the Apollo. I prefer to apply compression outboard so the precision issue ( it is a precision issue, ie; no compression or eq whatsoever) does not affect me. For most users the Scarlet series or the Steinberg devices are a good choice. Good comment.
Scarlet designs the sound.
To get a complete comparison of the two, it would help to hear the vocal track in the context of the mix.
This is a good shout, and something I’ve done in more recent videos. This video was early into my RUclips career and the mix idea hadn’t occurred to me. Thanks for the suggestion. 🙂