Hello,

I'm currently looking at an Apollo x6 interface for my system. I currently own an Antelope Pure 2 but for different reasons, I want to go for something else.

I tried a few months ago an Apollo Twin MKII but I sent it back as I didn't like at all the converters. It sounded muffled to me, lack of definition, too much low mids, compared to the Pure 2 which sounded clearer and punchier.

My question is : are the converters identical on the Apollo X and Twin series ? When comparing the Pure 2 converters specs vs the Apollo X, the Apollo specs better. Are the X converters as colored as the Twin ones ?

Thanks

Ok so I'm replying to my own post. Bought the Apollo X6 to keep working as my Pure 2 was being checked and calibrated.

The converters do sound better than on the Twin MKII. There is also this low mid presence and top end (very slight) roll off, but in a good way, sounds very "analogue". In the end, it sounds much clearer, punchier, wider, and more dynamic than the Twin which sounds muffled and narrow in comparison. I love the DAC on the X, especially the headphone one which sounds much better than on the Pure 2. The DAC on the X is very natural and balanced.

Now regarding the AD, comparing to the Pure 2, the Pure sounds a bit clearer and punchier. However the X sounds more musical. Bass seems deeper, high end less harsh and overall the sound stage seems a bit wider. It's just a matter of taste, you can't go wrong with either one, but I guess I prefer the sound of the Apollo. Plus I get the UAD plugins which are great, and also this unit works flawlessly on a 2013 Mac Pro with rock solid drivers. So I guess I'm keeping the Apollo and selling the Antelope when it comes back.

The only thing I don't like about the X is the console software which is a pain to setup, at least if you want to use it as an AD/DA loop, and the fact that you cannot control the headphones volume in the software (you can control the main monitor volume however).

Are you saying the Apollo X doesn't have any extra top end/treble compared to the original? I have the mk2. I find my mk2 way too dark and tend to plug it out and use my Apogee Duet for mixing which is might brighter and clearer and more accurate in my opinion. I was considering selling my Twin mk2 and buying the new Twin X for the better converters which uses the same as the rest of the X series but if they are just as dark, I think I'll pass as I'll probably just end up wanting to use the Apogee still.

Compared to the MK2, to me the X sounds a little clearer, wider, but still has that low mid bump that I don't like on some mixes. Overall, the X is more defined and bass seems a little more extended and natural, so it's a step up above the MK2, but not a night and day difference. It's still on the soft and dark side.

Compared to the Pure 2, I think the Pure 2 sounds a little more dynamic, punchier whereas the transients seems a bit softer on the X. The bass is tighter on the Pure 2 but bigger on the X. It's really a matter of taste. I'd like to have the low end of the X, the low mids of the Pure 2, the high end of the X, the punch of the Pure 2 and the soundstage of the X. I know I ask too much lol.

That's why in the end I'm thinking of maybe keeping both. Using the X as main interface / DAC and the Pure 2 for the AD/DA loop in ADAT. I will see.

Did you ever try RME? Would be interested how you would rate / describe their sound.

Never tried RME but I think it's more on the clean / punchy side like Antelope.

Yeah, clean I think describes it very well. I currently use the RME Babyface Pro but thinking of switching to a UAD Apollo x4, cause I already use a UAD Octo Satellite and UAD Plugin. Not sure if I'd loose some of the overall sound quality I get from the Babyface Pro, cause this is pretty good (clean /neutral).

Unfortunately can't help you as I've never tried RME products. What I can say is that Apollo X sounds "analogue", meaning there is a small bump in low mids and soft high end (meaning : not harsh). Which may be a good thing for some people, but not for others.

Thanks for your help. Yes, the low mid bump is what I dislike about the mk2 as well as the rolled off highs from around 12-16k and over all cloudiness compared to high end converters.

I like the opposite of soft and dark. Which is basically the Apogee stuff.

Thanks man. So you just saved me the heartache of selling the mk2 and buying the X only to find what I dislike about the mk2 still exists in the X.

I'm thinking of trying the black lion audio mod of the Apollo Twin mk2. They also add a toslink out so I could connect it to another converter that I like if I still don't like the sound of the DA after the mod.

Either that or I might get the Apollo x4 since it has ADAT out. I like the Apollo but their style of converters is not for me.

In the Apollo x6 that you have, can you route the main outputs to the ADAT out in the Apollo x6 in a way that it will mirror the analogue outs in terms dimming the speakers during talkback and following the volume knob so you can still use it like a monitor controller? Basically, can you do a post fader send of the monitors outs to ADAT? It looks like you can only do that on output 3/4 on the Twin in UAD console but I don't know if it would show the other outputs if they existed since the Twin has no digital outs, only analogue.

Can't help you with that, I'm not using ADAT, but I think it should work. The Apollo console is a little mess to setup, but you can have a lot of possibilities. I'm using Output 1-2 as monitoring, and I have an AD/DA loop on input/output 3-4 so I can patch my outboard gear. This is not a common way to use the unit because most of people use it to record stuff, but it works great that way.

Regarding the converters, like I said it's a step up to the MK2, but still has the Apollo signature, so don't expect an Apogee sounding unit. I tend to think the DAC is more transparent than the ADC.

I want to know if converters and clocking on Twin X are identical to The x6/x8 units. I wish I had the money to just buy both and compare.

I think it's the same but you should ask UAD to be sure.

I ended up selling the Apollo X and keeping the Pure 2 only, the UAD sounds definitely too soft and too dark for me.

can you use an adapter for thunderbolt 3? i have a laptop with type C usb but not thunderbolt 3.
It would be a shame if i have to get a new computer for this.

Thanx!

The Twin X and the Rackmount Apollo X have the same converters, correct? Just different clocks?

For monitoring, does the rack mount sound much different?

I’ve always had this feeling with the mk2. How’s the bass of the pure 2?

That is correct. Same as x6, x8, and x8P. x16 has our best D/A and is a different.

If I clock the Twin X off an external clock via SPDIF (Burl B2), will that improve the sound while mixing ITB?

Sorry, I have no idea, I've never tried it.

But it's arguable that external clocking can "improve" the sound of another device, unless that device has a really bad internal clock.

Great; I was just curious if the Twin X clock was on par with the X6/X8 etc like the converters

It is not the same.

The rack units have our dual crystal clocking.

No it's not, clocking is pretty crucial to a converter's sound, which means the Apollo x rack will sound a lot better than the twin x.

What if I clock the Apollo Twin X off a Burl ADC connected still the digital in? Will that sound better or as good as the Apollo racks?

You can't clock the Twin with the Burl, it's only a digital in, you're just bypassing the A/D stage of your Twin. You'd need clocking inputs on the Twin. I don't understand why the UAD support can't give educated answers. They're probably trying to hide the fact that their portable interfaces have a different clock, which is crucial to the sound of an interface.

I hoped they had the same clock which means they'd sound the same as the rack Apollos but they don't. So going from the Twin X to a rack interface is probably a big Sonic difference.

Although it sounds nice when you say they're using the same conversion, nice misleading marketing.

The new chips are going to mean nothing if I don't get the same quality of clocking, that's where the transparency is coming from.

Someone is another thread was talking about clocking the twin to a burl adc too. I’m pretty sure it’s possible.

I have the x8 and twin mk2. I find the x8 crisper? More extended highs that def take away that darker mid bump thing to me. I never tried apogee but want to try lynx soon

Sure I can clock the Twin off the Burl via TOSLink Spdif. I do this for tracking. Was just wondering if it would improve the sound of the DAC in the Twin when mixing since it would have the superior Burl clock....when I a/b I don’t hear much of a difference, if at all.

Well if you can select spdif over wordclock in UADs mixer then it should work. I'm just really disappointed they aren't using the same clocking as their xrack counterparts.

power, heat, space. It's tight in there!!

I find it hard to hear much of a difference in playback when clocking the Twin X to the Burl's clock, vs the internal clock. I'll do some more A/Bing later, but if there is a different it's extremely subtle...so not sure that the clock is that big of a concern between the Twin X and the Racks

It has to be tied in with the design but when I tested the Burl, I always felt like it was pretty muddy sonically.

anyone know if a twin x duo will work with MBP 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5?

some spec's state that it needs an i7 processor ?..

..i'm trying to decide between the twin x duo and the twin mkii quad for at home work..