Should I get an Apollo Twin to replace my Duet 2?

[Jan___]

OK guys, I have an apogee Duet 2. It sounds perfect. I mostly use it for recording guitar straight into the Hi Z or with my Kemper (recording Kemper + dry Hi Z). Sometimes I record vocals with it. The thing basically does everything I NEED in a convenient package.

However, even after updates the Apogee drivers give me some grief from time to time (though fortunately not often). Also, I dislike the cables running over my desk and sometimes accidentally unplugging them because you can't lock the main connector properly. First world problems, I know.

I am looking at the UAD Apollo Twin (Solo or Duo) because it is currently on promotion (you get some free plugins). Benefits over the Duet:

1.) Less hassle with cables
2.) Super-low latency monitoring WITH good FX to record guitars (with the Friedman or ENGL Retro plugins) and vocals. Wouldn't always need the Kemper at home then.
3.) Expansion possibilities (SPDIF, ADAT)

HOWEVER, I am curious/concerned about the following things:

A) Are the UAD amp plugins good?
B) Is the overall converter and preamp quality on par with Apogee? Also the Hi Z input?
C) Are the drivers stable?

Has anyone tried out both of these guys? What do you think?

 

[Cephara]

First, UAD has pretty much stated that it has no intent to support thunderbolt on Windows machine, so this interface is will always be OS X only.

My preamble since I don't have a Kemper) -- I have my Twin Solo hooked up to my iMac 2011 with a 1TB SSD in there and its shitty 4 core cpu. I have no issues tracking in Pro Tools at 64 or 32 rate in low latency on a minimal session. However, I run into clipping when I use the noise gate in TSEx50v2 or any other similar processing, so I can't really beat my setup through a DI Box (my guitar I use mainly is passive) with the DI's throughput directly into my Mesa while I track. If I have to be quiet, I have a hard time noticing latency when recording with low latency monitoring turned off and can play a dual track rhythm (with no gate turned on) at 32 in hardware settings quite accurately. I don't think Apollo Twin is really meant for tracking heavy rhythm guitars.

A1) Where I found my love for the Apollo Twin is with acoustics guitars, a DI bass, and singers. The preamp emulators processed inside the Twin work out quite well, but don't add a lot of tonal characters I've seen with other preamps. Where the Twin really shines in my opinion are the vintage plugins they give free with the Twin. Having their LA-2A-Leveling Amplifier and a 1176 Limiter in each channel has made tracking vocals stupid easy with easier and much better results in a mix in the end (less automation on volume). Same is true with bass in the HiZ input (bass is active so it does not like my DI Box). When I track acoustic guitars, usually 1 mic and 1 di from their pickups, I am able produce tracks that doesn't even need any EQ or reverb (when layered) because the quality of the plugins inside the Twin produce that good of a quality track.

A2) I've never purchased any additional plug-ins, and I probably never will. They are too damn expensive, and my brainworx plugins (or any other ones they offer) can't be xfered to the Twin (you have to purchase their version). The lower rated user reviews for each plugins really provide a realistic heads up compared to other plugins provided by other vendors for a lot cheaper. I use this interface to produce high quality, low latency, accurate tracks only. I find it better to track your song then exports stems and mix that way anyway, so interface is exactly what I was looking for coming from a UX2.

B) I can't honestly compare the two since I've never used an Apogee.

C) I've never had any problems with their drivers thus far, and UAD recently updated their mixer software for the hardware. I couldn't tell you whats new besides a makeover of the GUI.

Final thoughts) I'm glad I went with the Solo. I like my mixing plugins I own already, so the 100% increase in memory in the Duo's processing would have been wasted on my setup.

 

[Matt-Steele]

Here we go...

I am an Apollo owner. I've also been a PC user. Universal Audio literally just divorced me with the release of the console 2.0 software. They've broken my heart. I now believe the original design intent for UA's Apollos was always to be Thunderbolt. I hope they originally meant well by supporting PCs, (with the hope that PCs and Mac would both support Thunderbolt connectivity) but since the release of console 2.0 and their refusal to support any PC operating system above Windows 7, has shown where their alliances now lie.

I had a serious choice to make... Stay with PC for my DAW and move to a different audio interface, and in doing so... forfeit the thousands of dollars worth of plug-ins I've purchased for my Apollo, or stay with the Apollo and buy a supported Mac. Either way, I lose.

I bought a new 5K Mac. The hardware in the Mac is overall inferior to my PC's but I must admit, installation of software and general use with the Mac has been flawless, where I've always seen issues in the past on the PC, but I was always able to overcome them. Still... I would have appreciated the ability to grow with my Apollo with the platform of my choosing.

For the record, Universal Audio plug-ins are IMHO the best in the industry.

 

[Machinated]

I'm close to buying an Apollo Quad. unison pre's offer a bit of versatility, and overall it works out cheaper than an ensemble or avid interface which have fairly comparable conversion.

The DSP also works in the UAD's favour - I guess the difference would similar regarding duet vs twin in terms of functionality and price. the DSP doesn't appeal too much even with my 7 year old computer. tracking guitars with barely any latency might be cool although it's never bothered me running plugins for amps.

 

[Jan___]

Thanks a lot for the super useful and detailed replies so far!! Still not sure what to do but this helps already