How good is Unison?

[pryan]

Ok, I appreciate how subjective a question this is. Sorry!!

I’m a home studio enthusiast with good instruments but have always gone for decent but less expensive recording hardware (primarily a player, not much of a singer!) I mostly just record my own stuff and once in a while a few friends.

At present I’m running a Rode NT-1 into either an Axe I/O or a Volt 1 and monitoring with either AKG K7xx headphones (Realphones) or a Blue Sky 2.1 system.

I’ve picked up Luna Pro and Signature so have already quite a few Unison ready plugins and am dying to try out Luna in DSP mode!!

Now I love the sound of the UADx preamp plugins in Native mode but am trying to find out how much more the same plugins in Unison would offer. I know there’s an interaction with the hardware (impedance matching?) but I have no idea how to find out how much it adds. Would I need a better mic / or a treated room to notice? Impedance-wise, I’ve never noticed anything missing in my current interfaces’ Hi-Z.

Looking at an Apollo Solo I guess as I only record one or two things at a time and I am happy to leave the heavy-lifting processing to the CPU.

Grateful for any insights. My wallet will probably think the opposite

 

[rodd]

I think you'd have to look at the specs of your Axe I/O versus the Apollo you are considering, but it's likely to be negligible. It is true that Apollo will match the impedance of the equipment it is emulating in the Unison slot, but this may not make much of a difference in practice. Also for hi-z it really doesn't matter, this would only (maybe) make a difference for a mic. One thing that Apollo does really well, is it simplifies the gain staging. In other words, you know how now you have to set the input gain on your Axe I/O, and then adjust the input gain on the UADx plugin? Using the Unison version eliminates that extra fiddling. For things like guitar amp sims this is very nice. Also, an Apollo will give you access to the rest of the DSP plugin catalog. Overall, I'd say if you're happy with how your gear sounds now then switching to Apollo isn't going to blow you away. It will be subtle, if noticeable at all. You just have to take all these things into account when making a decision.

 

[RogueM]

To me, Unison is the selling point of the Apollo. But I’m not sure it is worth replacing an interface that you are satisfied with. Buying a good quality preamp makes more sense to me. At the very least I would consider a Twin, perhaps, so as to provide an ADAT input later down the line, if you feel like investing in the DSP platform.

 

[UniversalAudio]

Ok, I appreciate how subjective a question this is. Sorry!!

I’m a home studio enthusiast with good instruments but have always gone for decent but less expensive recording hardware (primarily a player, not much of a singer!) I mostly just record my own stuff and once in a while a few friends.

At present I’m running a Rode NT-1 into either an Axe I/O or a Volt 1 and monitoring with either AKG K7xx headphones (Realphones) or a Blue Sky 2.1 system.

I’ve picked up Luna Pro and Signature so have already quite a few Unison ready plugins and am dying to try out Luna in DSP mode!!

Now I love the sound of the UADx preamp plugins in Native mode but am trying to find out how much more the same plugins in Unison would offer. I know there’s an interaction with the hardware (impedance matching?) but I have no idea how to find out how much it adds. Would I need a better mic / or a treated room to notice? Impedance-wise, I’ve never noticed anything missing in my current interfaces’ Hi-Z.

Looking at an Apollo Solo I guess as I only record one or two things at a time and I am happy to leave the heavy-lifting processing to the CPU.

Grateful for any insights. My wallet will probably think the opposite

Have you seen this?

 

[klasaine]

I record primarily audio and I have no problem printing preamps, EQ, comp, and fx. Unison is definitely not snake oil. To my ears, there’s a noticeable difference from the native versions.

 

[UniversalAudio]

Looking at an Apollo Solo I guess as I only record one or two things at a time and I am happy to leave the heavy-lifting processing to the CPU.

I only recommend the Solo if portability is job #1.

 

[EoSNJ]

Have you seen this?

That video is a great comparison of Unison plug-ins compared to hardware units.

However, since they used splitters, the effect of unison impedance matching is unknown. And that's what the OP is asking about.

 

[UniversalAudio]

That video is a great comparison of Unison plug-ins compared to hardware units.

However, since they used splitters, the effect of unison impedance matching is unknown. And that's what the OP is asking about.

Mentioned in the vid, they used isolated splitters.

 

[EoSNJ]

Ok, I appreciate how subjective a question this is. Sorry!!

I’m a home studio enthusiast with good instruments but have always gone for decent but less expensive recording hardware (primarily a player, not much of a singer!) I mostly just record my own stuff and once in a while a few friends.

At present I’m running a Rode NT-1 into either an Axe I/O or a Volt 1 and monitoring with either AKG K7xx headphones (Realphones) or a Blue Sky 2.1 system.

I’ve picked up Luna Pro and Signature so have already quite a few Unison ready plugins and am dying to try out Luna in DSP mode!!

Now I love the sound of the UADx preamp plugins in Native mode but am trying to find out how much more the same plugins in Unison would offer. I know there’s an interaction with the hardware (impedance matching?) but I have no idea how to find out how much it adds. Would I need a better mic / or a treated room to notice? Impedance-wise, I’ve never noticed anything missing in my current interfaces’ Hi-Z.

Looking at an Apollo Solo I guess as I only record one or two things at a time and I am happy to leave the heavy-lifting processing to the CPU.

Grateful for any insights. My wallet will probably think the opposite

It really depends on the mic, and how reactive it is to the impedance load, and the unison pre (and its adjustments to the impedance). Some combinations are barely perceptible, others quite significant.

I agree with Drew on the Solo - only for mobile. Go at least Twin if it's for studio use, and quad if you can swing it.

 

[EoSNJ]

Mentioned in the vid, they used isolated splitters.

Right. So the mic is seeing the impedance load from either the splitter, or from one leg.

 

[UniversalAudio]

Right. So the mic is seeing the impedance load from either the splitter, or from one leg.

Right, so they're good to go in either case. The mic is loaded as it should be.

 

[EoSNJ]

Right, so they're good to go in either case. The mic is loaded as it should be.

The audio clips are comparison of tracks recorded simultaneously.

the mic is plugged into the splitter. It's not simultaneously reacting to multiple impedance loads.

The whole point of isolation is to isolate the microphone from the impedance of multiple preamps.

What's not stated in the video is whether one leg is passive. Nor are they switching legs back and forth.

But it doesn't matter - the mic can't be simultaneously reacting to both.

 

[UniversalAudio]

The audio clips are comparison of tracks recorded simultaneously.

the mic is plugged into the splitter. It's not simultaneously reacting to multiple impedance loads.

The whole point of isolation is to isolate the microphone from the impedance of multiple preamps.

What's not stated in the video is whether one leg is passive. Nor are they switching legs back and forth.

But it doesn't matter - the mic can't be simultaneously reacting to both.

Correct, and it doesn't need to be. One will do the job.

 

[Alexxon]

I prefer ITB anyway though it’s nice and romantic to have some real ones if possible.

 

[EoSNJ]

Correct, and it doesn't need to be. One will do the job.

Which means it's not an actual comparison of 2 things. Especially not a demonstration of the Unison impedance matching - it's literally isolated from the comparison. That was my point.

 

[UniversalAudio]

Which means it's not an actual comparison of 2 things. Especially not a demonstration of the Unison impedance matching - it's literally isolated from the comparison. That was my point.

I just confirmed with Gannon that both sides had transformers so the load was the same.

 

[EoSNJ]

I was not there, but the Apollos very likely are doing the load.

But it doesn't really matter if the mic has the load, it has the load.

Either or is not a comparison.

Drew - I have 22 Unison Pre's. I love them. They do affect how the mic's respond and sound. I'm a fan. Get it?

But that video invalidates it purpose by its own methodology. Is the load on a unison channel demonstrated to be the same as the hardware? No. And since we don't know if both output legs are isolated or not, we don't know if the Mic is being loaded by either pre or just the Splitter.

 

[UniversalAudio]

Either or is not a comparison.

Drew - I have 22 Unison Pre's. I love them. They do affect how the mic's respond and sound. I'm a fan. Get it?

But that video invalidates it purpose by its own methodology. Is the load on a unison channel demonstrated to be the same as the hardware? No. And since we don't know if both output legs are isolated or not, we don't know if the Mic is being loaded by either pre or just the Splitter.

Both chains had the same Ω as they were both on the other side of the splitter. It's the ONLY way to do the test in parallel. As I mentioned, to do it otherwise, would be separate performances. The primary goal was the big picture, not specifically A/B'ing the Ω matching.

 

[EoSNJ]

Both chains had the same Ω as they were both on the other side of the splitter. It's the ONLY way to do the test in parallel. As I mentioned, to do it otherwise, would be separate performances. The primary goal was the big picture, not specifically A/B'ing the Ω matching.

But the selling point of Unison is the impedance matching. That's the point.

 

[UniversalAudio]

But the selling point of Unison is the impedance matching. That's the point.

That and the gain staging and the modeling. All 3 are part of it. And as I mentioned, the mics had a load as they would with either the hardware or the Apollos so their tonal changes are included.

I get that you wanted it to test what each device sounded like when loading the mic, but for the reasons I've pointed out, you can't do that with the same performances.