Input level on desktop vs rack Apollos

[Mike Lachelt]

Hi all,

1. I have an Apollo x4 and am considering buying some outboard gear with output levels of 26db (the Shelford channel for instance). My understanding is that the x4 is limited to input levels of 20db, but that the rack mount options (x6, x8, x8p) allow you to select an input level of 26db (or is it 24?).

I'm wondering if anyone can speak to the significance of this limitation with the x4? I'm looking at the Shelford channel. Would I be in a better position to utilize the full potential of its sound quality if swapped out my x4 for one of the rack mount Apollos? Or is the x4's limitation to 20db more or less immaterial from a sound quality perspective?

2. Are there any further reasons to prefer the rack mount apollos for use with top quality outboard gear? With the x4, I have to route the Shelford into one of the combo jacks of the x4, and fully turn down the gain on the Apollo's pre. This steals a preamp from the Apollo, and also raises the question of whether it completely bypasses the Apollo's pre or not? Does anyone know if this is the case, and if so, if there's a loss in quality that results? And: Do the rack mount Apollo's also require routing outboard gear into the Apollo's preamp jacks? Or do they offer a better option to bypass them, ideally one that doesn't tie up one of the Apollo's preamps?

Thanks,
Mike

 

[FutureLegends]

1. The Shelford Channel has a -6dB output as well, so the headroom shouldn't matter much!

2. The rack mount apollos can bypass the preamps, not sure if the x4 does that, my Apollo Twin mkII doesn't. And the x6 and x8 have line inputs to "spare" so you don't have to "waste" a preamp. The rack mounts also have 6 DSPs compared to 4 on the x4.

 

[DrumatiC]

Indeed the x4 is not best suited for using outboard gears. But it will work nevertheless.

Not having +24dBu is not the end of the world, but not being able to bypass the pre is not that good.

Anyway if you really want to enjoy high end analog devices, x4 or apollo X rack will not be the best in my opinion.

 

[Mike Lachelt]

1. The Shelford Channel has a -6dB output as well, so the headroom shouldn't matter much!

2. The rack mount apollos can bypass the preamps, not sure if the x4 does that, my Apollo Twin mkII doesn't. And the x6 and x8 have line inputs to "spare" so you don't have to "waste" a preamp. The rack mounts also have 6 DSPs compared to 4 on the x4.

Hi, thanks for your reply! I suppose a natural follow up to your point is whether using the -6db output on the Shelford will sacrifice audio quality?

Cheers,
Mike

 

[Mike Lachelt]

Indeed the x4 is not best suited for using outboard gears. But it will work nevertheless.

Not having +24dBu is not the end of the world, but not being able to bypass the pre is not that good.

Anyway if you really want to enjoy high end analog devices, x4 or apollo X rack will not be the best in my opinion.

Hi, thanks for your comments. Is not being able to bypass the pre a problem just because it unnecessarily ties up a preamp? Or, is there also bound to be a loss/change of quality due to sending the signal through a second pre?

Can you explain why you say the apollos (whether desk or rack) aren't ideal for use with outboard gear? Is this due to the quality of conversion in the Apollo? Or, due to difficulties with routing when using the Apollos? Or something else?

Cheers,
Mike

 

[DrumatiC]

Hi, thanks for your comments. Is not being able to bypass the pre a problem just because it unnecessarily ties up a preamp? Or, is there also bound to be a loss/change of quality due to sending the signal through a second pre?

Can you explain why you say the apollos (whether desk or rack) aren't ideal for use with outboard gear? Is this due to the quality of conversion in the Apollo? Or, due to difficulties with routing when using the Apollos? Or something else?

Cheers,
Mike

Hey Mike,

Converters are pretty good, but not as good as it should to really enjoy high end analog device in my experience. Since I upgraded to better converters (Antelope Orion gen 4, Hilo and Burl B2), I have trully discovered the sound of my gears, things are really more obvious and clear now.

And don't get me started on the routing of the Apollo ! In this range of price, this is not acceptable, period (I had x8p and x4).

But this is just me, things would probably be different for another user I guess.

 

[Mike Lachelt]

Hey Mike,

Converters are pretty good, but not as good as it should to really enjoy high end analog device in my experience. Since I upgraded to better converters (Antelope Orion gen 4, Hilo and Burl B2), I have trully discovered the sound of my gears, things are really more obvious and clear now.

And don't get me started on the routing of the Apollo ! In this range of price, this is not acceptable, period (I had x8p and x4).

But this is just me, things would probably be different for another user I guess.

That's interesting. I do like some of the advantages the Apollo provides...I quite like the unison pre's, and feel the overall sound quality is pretty good. But what I like most in recorded music is 3-dimensionality and a sense of space from which the music beautifully arises. That's what I like about using the Shelford over the Apollo's pre's + plugins - which are nice but seem 2 dimensional by contrast - and I wonder if it's that very quality that a higher level converter could bring out further? Is this what you find?

Also: are these units you've mentioned really more like pure A/D conversion devices, as opposed to standard interfaces that offer A/D conversion as well as mic preamps? If so, is the choice to go with these sorts of high quality A/D devices a choice to go even more modular than a standard interface: one device for conversion (and monitoring I suppose), and a different device for outboard mic preamps?

This is a new idea to me...which is why I find it interesting! I always thought an interface was a combo unit, but perhaps at the highest quality it's divided into separate units. Is this right?

Cheers,
Mike

PS -- yes, so far I've found it impossible to do even the simplest routing with the Apollo. Ive spent three nights for a total of about 8 hours trying to figure out how to route tracks recorded in the Apollo x4 into the shelford (to apply eq + comp), and back again. It MUST be possible, but so far I haven't been able to figure it out. Stupid.

M

 

[FutureLegends]

Hi, thanks for your reply! I suppose a natural follow up to your point is whether using the -6db output on the Shelford will sacrifice audio quality?

Considering the quality of the Shelford Channel, I doubt you'd notice any difference in audio quality using the -6dB output.

 

[DrumatiC]

The Apollo X works and sounds great. One can definitively make good music with them.

Unison preamps are really good sounding, but in my experience, 99% of the time I found that hardware preamps add life and depth to the source.

I had 12 Unison preamps and I have now 16 hardware preamps (and 24 more with my console if needed), with different flavors and for different use cases. It is not possible to directly compare Unison preamp with hardware equivalent, too many factors in play. But for instance, my drums recordings sounds really better with hardware preamps to my ear. It sounds more like I am in the room.

But I am not saying you cannot do good recordings with unison preamps only. It also work, just it don't fit my expectations. I'm still a fan of the DI of the Apollo X though, I have better DI box or preamps with DI, but the combo of Hi-Z input + Unison preamp I like the sound. I know some people rate it not that good, but it has a sound that speaks to me. So again, it is very subjective topics.

The converters make a real difference, both in monitoring and recording. It is indeed a luxury, but if you have money to spend, don't hesitate and try by yourself. You will enjoy the difference.

Obviously, it goes without saying that you need a good acoustic and good speakers to really appreciate the benefits.

On the subject of routing and hardware inserts, the x4 is not well suited for this use case. No preamp bypass, no +24dBu, and no direct routing (you have to use the cues for that, it works, but is is not ideal). The rack version are better for that indeed, but still, routing is really basic.

As a recent user of Antelope interfaces, I was amazed by the routing matrix and possibilities it allows. You can do whatever you want, there is almost no limitation. For my use cases (drums recording, band recording, rehearsals, mixing) it is night and day compared to my previous setup with Apollos. I imagine RME users would become mad using Apollos

And yes I prefer the most the modular approach, combining together devices that do one thing and do it well.