People keep confusing the chip with the architecture. SHARC or Super Harvard Architecture Single-Chip Computer does indeed date to 1994. However, even though the ARM family of chips was introduced in 2011, they are based on RISC (reduced instruction set computer) architecture which was commercialized in the early 1980s and the concept goes back even further to the 1960s. ARM is not optimized for DSP (digital signal processing) it is optimized for low power consumption. DSPs are usually optimized for streaming data and use special memory architectures that are able to fetch multiple data or instructions at the same time, such as the Harvard architecture or Modified von Neumann architecture, which use separate program and data memories. SHARC DSP is current technology and is being deployed in new cars and commercial jet cockpits as I type this comment. UAD is just not using the latest generation of SHARC.
@@blasegangbeats1865 or you can buy a satellite if you need a ton of plugins in your chain. If I were you I would figure out why my recordings are so bad that I would need a ton of plugins in my chain.
And even if they did, it doesn’t mean they could add more DSP to the current units without additional cost. People are really weird with their whining and never research anything. Thanks for this comment
There are some ppl like myself that don’t care about the price if it’s compelling if I had dsp that was as powerful as the current Mac’s I’d pay another 2k no issue and the other side of the argument these chips are so old they probably cost pennies at this point the way they milk us they could of added 2 more chips at least.
I‘m sorry, could you provide a press release mentioning updates to the preamps or the A/D converters? Every official release I’ve read only mentions new D/A
Everyone is saying it’s ‘better’ but by how much?! Like based on the specs it’s like 1-2db better dynamic range and less distortion, the headphone outputs actually look significantly better though, but i don’t care about good headphone outputs I’d rather have good clean inputs which i already feel i have in gen 1. I’d love to see someone do a true A/B test with the gen 1 and gen 2. Or even better across a few generations of Apollo interfaces. Show unison pres throughout the ages, show how it responds to dynamics by having a singer scream/belt into it and then whisper and how clean it all is when the gain is cranked. Who how the unison pres hold up with the various plugins. So many videos are just going over the specs like i can go to the website for that. That being said i do like that you go into a bit more detail than other videos. But I’d like to see things stepped up a bit.
You’re saying better microphone preamps and A/d but I don’t think that’s true. None of that is stated anywhere and Apollo has said only D/A and headphone amp. This has been the most vague release ever the only information they’re giving is pretty much like it’s a software update mostly.
I don't know about the preamps, but the official Gearspace press release mentions A/D and D/A updates. Also, it states this on Sweetwater's product page.
hmmm! i don't know about this one scooby. i would take antelope or apogee over this everyday of every other day of the week. not much to be impressed by, if at all. cool demo jam, doe.
Your point on SHARC doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So what if the architecture has been around since the 90's? X86 has been around longer and the "more modern ARM processing architecture" you mention predates SHARC by almost a decade. Lke Intel, AMD and ARM, ADI don't stand still when it comes to updating their processors. Any company that develops an eco-system around a given DSP architecture isn't going to change that completely just because there are ignorant people out there who know absolutely nothing whatsoever about how these systems work, want them to. The development cost is prohibitive. It's bitter pill to swallow? Why? You don't have the first idea what in a SHARC, let alone what's different from what ADI are offering today as opposed to what they offered in the 90's. You mention FPGA like it's some panacea yet you admit you don't even know what it is. The UA Sharc doesn't what it's supposed to in the system it's designed into. Since it does that, there's no reason to change it.
In my opinion UA is going to regret this damn decision to hang on to ancient DSP chips in 2024 because it will be a tough pill 💊 for many of us existing Apollo users. They could have at least bumped the number of chips by two at every Apollo level. So I'm not buying their story at all. I also feel like recording with plugins is way overated. I'm done with Apollos and will be going with RME for my next interface.
have fun!! keep chasing new chips the M1 outperforms the M2 chip Prism still use the same converters for over 10 years and still sounds better or as good as the comp including the high end like Burl and Cranesong.. you still want new??!!
People keep confusing the chip with the architecture. SHARC or Super Harvard Architecture Single-Chip Computer does indeed date to 1994. However, even though the ARM family of chips was introduced in 2011, they are based on RISC (reduced instruction set computer) architecture which was commercialized in the early 1980s and the concept goes back even further to the 1960s. ARM is not optimized for DSP (digital signal processing) it is optimized for low power consumption. DSPs are usually optimized for streaming data and use special memory architectures that are able to fetch multiple data or instructions at the same time, such as the Harvard architecture or Modified von Neumann architecture, which use separate program and data memories. SHARC DSP is current technology and is being deployed in new cars and commercial jet cockpits as I type this comment. UAD is just not using the latest generation of SHARC.
Great knowledge!
Yeah wished they’d use that latest or add 2 more chips at least
@@blasegangbeats1865 or you can buy a satellite if you need a ton of plugins in your chain. If I were you I would figure out why my recordings are so bad that I would need a ton of plugins in my chain.
And even if they did, it doesn’t mean they could add more DSP to the current units without additional cost. People are really weird with their whining and never research anything. Thanks for this comment
There are some ppl like myself that don’t care about the price if it’s compelling if I had dsp that was as powerful as the current Mac’s I’d pay another 2k no issue and the other side of the argument these chips are so old they probably cost pennies at this point the way they milk us they could of added 2 more chips at least.
I‘m sorry, could you provide a press release mentioning updates to the preamps or the A/D converters? Every official release I’ve read only mentions new D/A
No need to be sorry. I’ll see if I can get approval.
The official Gearspace press release mentions A/D and D/A updates. Also, it states this on Sweetwater's product page.
Everyone is saying it’s ‘better’ but by how much?! Like based on the specs it’s like 1-2db better dynamic range and less distortion, the headphone outputs actually look significantly better though, but i don’t care about good headphone outputs I’d rather have good clean inputs which i already feel i have in gen 1. I’d love to see someone do a true A/B test with the gen 1 and gen 2. Or even better across a few generations of Apollo interfaces. Show unison pres throughout the ages, show how it responds to dynamics by having a singer scream/belt into it and then whisper and how clean it all is when the gain is cranked. Who how the unison pres hold up with the various plugins. So many videos are just going over the specs like i can go to the website for that.
That being said i do like that you go into a bit more detail than other videos. But I’d like to see things stepped up a bit.
Will I still be able to daisy chain my existing twin x with the new generation rack mount?
In short. YES.
You’re saying better microphone preamps and A/d but I don’t think that’s true. None of that is stated anywhere and Apollo has said only D/A and headphone amp. This has been the most vague release ever the only information they’re giving is pretty much like it’s a software update mostly.
UA gotta eat.
Where does it say anywhere the AD and pre amps have been upgraded? I can’t find it anywhere :(
I don't know about the preamps, but the official Gearspace press release mentions A/D and D/A updates. Also, it states this on Sweetwater's product page.
How about sound quality comparison between the Antelope discrete behind you?
Mmmmmm you know what they say.... never bite the hand that feeds you.
Holy moley 😮 Great stuff!
nice review, well done!
Thanks Michael. Hope you are well.
Note: thunderbolt cable NOT included on a $5000 interface. Let that sink in.
does it work under linux?
I very much doubt it. The UA console and control panel software is Mac OS and WINDOWS only.
@@TSR-JiveyTalksTech so they force you to use spyware... thx but no
James , Waiting for SSL console. We got Neve and API ,now we need the SSL .
thnx
Theres no better A to D. The only hardware change is the OUTPUT converters
The official Gearspace press release mentions A/D and D/A updates. Also, it states this on Sweetwater's product page.
hmmm! i don't know about this one scooby.
i would take antelope or apogee over this everyday of every other day of the week.
not much to be impressed by, if at all.
cool demo jam, doe.
Ha. Yes the Apogee Symphony MKII is a fantastic unit and would out proform most UA products. They seems to be chasing their tail.
Your point on SHARC doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So what if the architecture has been around since the 90's? X86 has been around longer and the "more modern ARM processing architecture" you mention predates SHARC by almost a decade. Lke Intel, AMD and ARM, ADI don't stand still when it comes to updating their processors.
Any company that develops an eco-system around a given DSP architecture isn't going to change that completely just because there are ignorant people out there who know absolutely nothing whatsoever about how these systems work, want them to. The development cost is prohibitive.
It's bitter pill to swallow? Why? You don't have the first idea what in a SHARC, let alone what's different from what ADI are offering today as opposed to what they offered in the 90's. You mention FPGA like it's some panacea yet you admit you don't even know what it is.
The UA Sharc doesn't what it's supposed to in the system it's designed into. Since it does that, there's no reason to change it.
naw sounds like a cash grab. not enough to ditch an older apollo x
Agreed. Not sure who this would be for. Maybe someone who doesn't have one or a live environment situation?
In my opinion UA is going to regret this damn decision to hang on to ancient DSP chips in 2024 because it will be a tough pill 💊 for many of us existing Apollo users. They could have at least bumped the number of chips by two at every Apollo level. So I'm not buying their story at all. I also feel like recording with plugins is way overated. I'm done with Apollos and will be going with RME for my next interface.
have fun!! keep chasing new chips the M1 outperforms the M2 chip Prism still use the same converters for over 10 years and still sounds better or as good as the comp including the high end like Burl and Cranesong.. you still want new??!!
@@muzicmanc945 We all want new..... new is audio catnip.