Neumann MT-48 vs UA Apollo || Recording band Club Oro
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- This video compares the sound of two popular audio interfaces, the Neumann MT-48 and Universal Audio Apollo. They are both used in professional and home recording studios and each offers a unique sound quality and workflow. In this video, we compare the sound of solo vocals, drums, guitar, acoustic, bass, keys, and the full band so you can hear the differences to help you pick the interface that is best for you and your sound.
We are @ProvidenceSoundandVision and we are a dealer of high-quality professional audio equipment in Los Angeles, California. Please visit our website and follow us on Instagram. We would love to help you craft your sound in the same way we helped Club Oro.
www.provsv.com/
/ providencesoundandvision
Band: Club Oro
Song: Poison
Spotify Link
open.spotify.c...
(Chapter links below this comment)
There have been a lot of questions in the comments about how we produced this session and some doubting that the way it was done was fair or accurate. We would like to breakdown exactly how the session was produced and we invite anyone who would like the files to email us so you can hear it on your own DAW. Pleaes email us at info@provsv.com
To be clear, we are a pro audio dealer. We sell this stuff. This is a promotional video. We made this video to highlight two popular products on the market, meet you all and hopefully do business with you. We paid for the studio time, videographers, editing out of pocket. We gave the session to the band as a gift for contributing and for the use of their song. We also purchased two Radial OX8 splitters so we would have a clean and accurate way to record to two inputs at once.
The entire song and video were produced in one day. It was about 12 hours. We tracked at Nest Recorder in East Los Angeles. Chris Sorem who owns the studio engineered the session, placed all the mics and got the sounds. Chris is a very talented and GRAMMY awarded engineer and we are grateful for his help. We have an arrangement with Chris to use his studio one day per month to do shoots. Providence's Brian Gross was the Pro Tools operator. Brian is highly skilled at Pro Tools he has worked as a professional engineer for over 10 years and gives lessons on most DAWs.
Every microphone or DI box used on the session went straight to the Radial OX8 splitter. We ran two computers, each running Pro Tools and it's own interface. One had the Apollo and the second the three Neumann MT-48s tied together. Since this gave us only six Neumann mic pre amps we used a Millennia HV-8 for some extra drum mic pres, fed into the Neumann Line Input and AD.
Drums were the only source to have some additional mic pres. Bass, Guitar, Acoustic, Keys and Vocal all used the UA and Neumann mic pres evenly.
The path from mic pre to splitter to interface to pro tools tracks were all mono.
Since we only had one Pro Tools operator we left one system running all day long that created a 12 hour long session. The second session was cut into a new playlist for each take. When the day was done, we cut the 12 hour session into new playlists to match the other session. We tried our best to make sure the files from each take matched. That was the entire effort and expense of buying the splitter and running two simultaneous DAWs. There is a chance that in juggling hundreds of files from two computers over 24 combined hours that one or two might have got crossed, but we don't think so. The goal of what you hear A/B'd was performances recorded at the exact same time.
(Somone pointed out that the waveforms look different and don't phase alighn. This is a visual example of what we are trying to present sonically. Each interface is picking up different frequencies, harmonics, and details and every AD/DA has a different latency for processing the analog to digital. If you were to take a track in your DAW and send it out through two different AD/DA converters at the same time, and back to two new tracks they would not be in time or in phase.)
We then gave the band some time away from the studio to listen to the takes and they gave us a comp list of the performances they liked best. Once they gave us their favorite takes, we created a new session that compiled the takes with tracks from both interfaces stacked on top of each other. We used the RMS level match tool in Pro Tools to get the levels as close as possible and make up for the small db differences between the gain steps and level control of the Apollo and MT-48.
We then created a mix that was intended solely for this video. You can hear the mix the band released on spotify and you'll hear there is a lot of additional production and effects. open.spotify.com/track/3JjUJT6R416K7kcykZMhtb?si=84759d3e39b64413
We didn't want too many effects to cloud the comparison so we left just a little vocal tuning so the singer would feel good about it and a base layer of effects.
Each track was bounced out for the solo examples and complete mix. We worked with the video editor to make sure he had the right audio to work with. The performance seen in the video image might not sync to the audio. This is just for visual reference.
That's it. It was a lot of work. This was our first UA-cam video and we are thrilled to see it already has over 12K views and a lot of you commenting. Thank you to everyone who contributed and gave kind words. We are shooting two more videos in the next two weeks with similar comparisons so if you like this type of content please subscribe and like. If you would like to touch base with us or visit our shop in Los Angeles please drop us a line. info@provsv.com
Snare 2:12
Kick 2:31
Kit 2:49
Bass 3:07
Acoustic 3:32
Electric 3:52
Vocals 4:14
Keys 4:43
Band 4:59
Radial ox 8
I think both these are great. The small differences between the two to my mind aren’t as important as other aspects they both offer. I owned the Apollo x4 and now halve the MT-48 the pros of the mt-48 for me are the headphone amps. I feel mixing on phones gives me better fidelity, especially since i live in an apartment. The other pro of the mt-48 i guess would be the expandability providing it’s supported. Currently limited apart from Adat, the Ethernet gives lots of options however I’m not sure the Aes in/out is supported properly ( i could be wrong).
The big pro of the UAD and one they may make me swing back to UAD is the unison preamp and monitoring / low latency that it offers. Especially for instruments and amps. I feel that this is quite a big advantage with UAD, they do low latency better than most in my opinion. Sonically can’t really fault them both. The MT-48 may have a little edge but it’s a subjective thing. I’f you like uad plugins. Stick with Apollo. If you want to mix on headphones more and don’t want to use an external headphone amp. MT-48.
I personally am leaning to Apollo and add a headphone amp externally. That way i get good low latency in the box etc and good fidelity for headphone mixes. I’m 99% of the way there but still testing and am not totally sold on either just yet… Help!
Mix of both recordings will be just right sound.
Crazy how much better the MT 48 sounds. The Apollo sound is very dated in comparison.
Damn, I'm an Apollo user and the MT48 is CLEARLY superior. It's like going from 1080p to 4K. The Apollo sounds good, fine even, but with the MT48 it's like you can actually hear more depth in everything. It's a remarkable difference. I was expecting it to be different but the only thing I couldn't really hear a huge difference in was the bass guitar, but I think that's also because of how it was recorded.
To me the MT 48 is a much fuller/richer sound. I am using one of the UA interfaces myself, so it pains me to say so!! But I think MT48 is more pleasing to my ears and I like the roundness of the low end that it brings. Definitely got me thinking as I already own the Neumann KH80's!! Great comparison👍
Thank you for your comment and compliment. Stay tuned for more similar videos.
Agreed, more air on the MT48. Quite easy to hear on decent monitors.
For me Neumann MT 48 better than UA Apollo in this video. Thanks
Glad this was helpful. Thanks for stopping by our channel and for your feedback.
Clear winner.
Hell yeh Neumann mt48 fatter clearer, wider sounding, & sonically powerfull.👍 thanks for review.
Please comparr the Neumann T-48 vs Neve 88M. Much appreciated.
Noted...will do!
Looking between these two as well
After hearing that, I'd just buy whichever one is cheaper. The difference is way too minimal. You think 99% of music listeners would notice any difference? Quit fooling yourselves.
If you have a full range system, this difference is not small. WOW!!
This is a very helpful video! Thanks a lot for your time and effort.
To my ear, the Neumann has more separation over all. Especially on drums, there is a huge difference. The Apollo seems a little hyped in the lower midrange to my ear. Therefor, compared to the Neumann, sounds a little muffled when all tracks are playing.
I personally prefer the Neumann in this particular case.
FYI to all those wondering, these aren't really "Neumann" Converters or micpres. This is a rebranded Merging Technologies Anubis Pro with a different interface(Thunderbolt vs Ethernet). This unit came out within a year of Sennheiser, Neumann's parent company, acquiring Merging Technologies. There is a Premium Anubis with even better converts and preamps as well. Merging makes stellar units that are very high end and pretty popular amongst classical engineers.
did not know this this is very illuminating thank you!!
What i just found out today. probably why this video was suggested me
Correction ....all Anubis and MT48 have the same pre amps....
Your details are wrong. The Anubis has the exact same converters and preamps as the MT-48. And the MT-48 uses USB, not Thunderbolt. There are several differences in I/O and software between the Anubis and the MT-48, but the sound is not any different.
The anubis has a version with higher sample rate on the converters. That is what he means.
For me the Kick is way better and generally the drums with the Neumann, in the acoustic guitar Apollo took the win. I can't believe that an interface can make such a difference. This is really great.
Should’ve showed the vocals with no auto tuning.
MT48 offers a fuller, rounder, wider, in-your-face, and 3D sound, thanks to its superior converters and preamps. Apollo is duller, tighter and definetily has a high end roll off; In this video it sounds better/warmer on the acoustic guitar and maybe on the female vocals (perhaps it will on every other instruments with a higher pitched tone or you can use a darkest mic for her when using the MT48). I have both and love them but definitely the MT48 is a superior unit. It's like you turn on and off something everytime you switch between them both. A null test would definitely highlight what's going on. Thanks for the video.
If you email us, we will send you the hi-res files for use on your system. info@provsv.com
MT48 has only one sound. Apollo has many preamps. Using the stock preamp is not what Apollo is for lol. Unison gives a massive change in the sound and the stock Apollo pres are made to be ultra flat.
Lovely song and voice! I definitely liked the MT-48 on the vocal
Me too - but only.
Ok objectively there are 6 MT 48’s being used to get to 12 tracks for simultaneous recording vs. 1 Apollo 8XP. $$$$$ I going with a simple Apollo set up. Both units actually sound excellent.
On Drums I like the Neumann more. Acoustic Guitrar, Bass, Vocals wins the UA for me.I have the feeling that the Neumann kinda compresses the sound to much (idk). Overall mix is better on the UA.
The fundamental issue is 1st - is your hearing good enough to hear the difference, and 2nd do you have a good monitoring environment (speakers/room) or headphones and headphone tools, capable of distinguishing the difference?
At 1st I thought the UA was better, but on critical listen, on the drums, it became obvious that the Neumann was superior. 1st immediate win was the kick drum - definitely captured the low frequencies better. Then on further listens, I could hear the improvement in the Neumanns on the entire drum kit, on acoustic guitar, and just that bit crisper on vocals.
Definitely the Neumann is the better audio interface - judging by audio quality alone, of the preamps and analog to digital converters.
UA-cam already compresses audio quality, and I can imagine that listening to the uncompressed audio files, would have made the Neumann sound even more superior.
Sure, the Neumann is on my wish list.
The kick definitely had more of a deeper and fuller tone with the Neumann.. The vocals I think is down to taste.. But using a variety of different headphones, from budget to high end.. I closed my eyes and ran the full kit etc a number of times, and found it very difficult to tell the and differences worth talking about. This also ran true for the full band. Well done Providence, this is how comparisons should be done.! It’s nice to get a feature presentation from a trusted engineer of choice.. But as for sound, matching a device with its closest price point etc, is definitely my video of choice.. Would love to hear A/B with an equal in price, RME unit. That would be a very interesting next choice A/B video.
Copy-pasta, spent time typing it for another comment, thought why not
"Bit late, but had the DA shot out against the RME ADI-2 DAC FS R, and the Apollo Twin X, as well as many other like Motu M4, Arturia Audiofuse, older Apogee and the MT48 wins bar none, it's not even close, and on both the speaker outs and headphones. Which is surprising especially when it came to the RME, which was much more expensive price per channel, and has superior DA chip specs. It all comes down to implementation and neumann is one of the best at that. Also talked to a guy that has experience with lots of very expensive gear, runs a trinnov direct out for his studio, and he says the only converters that can surpass it are the super high-end rack mounted converters.
AD-wise it's the best I've personally tried, tho I've not done very detailed side-to-side comparison. The AD conversion itself is better than the built-in one on a Neve 88M (used the sends from 88M's pre), and miles ahead my old Arturia Audiofuse, which I thought was already really good. Specs wise the AD chip is higher spec'ed than the one in the Apollo Twin X, also a few voiceover channels had reviewed the AD.
For an audible grasp you can check out this vid by Jack Spade titled "The Best Audio Interface under $2000).
I'm obviously passionate about this interface as it has improved my working life so much over the past few months of ownership. The few downsides tho, are that I get freezes about 2% of the time (still records and plays, but settings are frozen until restart), it takes close to a minute to start up, and it runs rather hot and requires good ventilation."
To me they both sound great! The Neumann had crisp almost brighter sound. Definitely fuller in the mid/highs. The UA while it does sound a bit duller on some of the individual elements, has a well rounded record sound in the full mix. The UA just sounds like a record to me. Hope that makes sense.
Thank you for stopping by and contributing to our channel and video.
I love this video !!! Thank you for making this !
been loving my mt! came from a apollo twin x . every one says its a big difference!
Wow, I didn't think that there would be such a big difference. The MT-48 had more depth and detail to my ear. But they both sound great really. Either one is a top quality recording. So I'm not rushing to replace my Apollo with the MT-48. There are much more important things to focus on for me.
With my eyes closed, I can't really even tell when it switches. I'm a big fan of the UAD Apollo ecosystem, but I want to say that the Neumann seems to have more or better low-end and possibly less distortion. I thought the differences would be more apparent in the full-band mix, but to my ears it's even harder to tell. I think most of the time in these type of shootouts, so much of the perceived differences is psychological.
Thanks for your comment Kevin. You are right that the Neumann has more low end, less distortion and we think it's deeper sounding. The UA has more of a "warm" mid range which we imagine some people will prefer. We could definitely hear more difference before the compression of UA-cam but when so much music is compressed by UA-cam or streaming services then this end result does matter. We hear the biggest difference on the drums and vocals. We'd be happy to send you the audio files if you like. Please email us at info@provsv.com and we'll send a folder to you. Thanks for checking it out!
I thought the Apollo sounded way fuller and pleasing on the acoustic guitar. Sounded harsh on the MT.
Neuman wins
night and day my friends, night and day. MT 48 is so good!
Been a Apollo user for a decade. I think it’s time to upgrade, the acoustic gave it away, huge difference.
Don't jump yet. This comparison is flawed, it's playing different takes for reach interface.
Would love see y’all add the Apogee in comparison 😊
We'll be doing more converter videos soon. Please subscribe and stay tuned.
Yes, a comparison beteende the Apogee symphony & MT 48 would be great. Thanks for a great video
Thanks for taking the time to do this! While relatively slight, I heard the most difference on kick and vocals, and loved how the little extra stacked for the Neumann full mix. What a golden time to be recording, these both offer so much.
I hope to see more audio over ethernet in this form factor of interface as time goes on!
We heard a rumor at AES that your wish will be coming true!
Man Iam good I got a Neumann mic on my Apollo 😮💨 uad have the best plugins u can get that sound with a mix
I think the Apollo owners commenting here who "don't hear a difference" are only trying to comfort themselves. On the drums, esp. the kick, and the vocals, I think the Neumann outperforms the Apollo but I also think, in the final mix played with all recorded instruments, the Neumann is at another level entirely. While I imagine the people conducting these recordings are honest, there's no way of knowing what subtle differences might have taken place when the actual recording was done. If the recording circumstances were absolutely identical, I'd say the Neumann, with that "it" factor in the full recording, is the clear winner here. And, by the way, I am a longtime Apollo owner. Great job, Providence! I just subscribed.
True. Had Apollo X4 and Apollo X6 here. Returned them both for the MT 48. MT 48 sounds much much better in every aspect.
@@Neekzu The clarity and separation (without any harshness) in the full song is astonishing. Real excellence.
@@andyr72 You are 100% right.
The MT 48 sounds richer, fuller and more audible in the low end. The MT 48 has surgical precision in its sound. It is fully transparent and didn't have that smeary sound vs. any of the Apollo Interfaces. When I did testing with Apollo X4, Apollo X6 and the MT 48 it was instantly clear which one I am keeping. The MT 48 also has that punch, that high resolution punch in its transients. On drums it sounds like a cloth has been lifted from the mic. Absolutely insane.
Furthermore the MT 48 is a very stable interface with very good drivers. The Apollos lost connection sometimes during the week. Or they minimized fullsize applications on my mac. Also the Apollo interfaces don't fully work on windows. UAD is lying there.
Longtime Apollo Twin X owner. Long time Apollo X user and tester. Now fulltime MT 48 lover and user. Bye UAD (hardware)
The 1st time I critically listened to this, I would have thought - oh this is about the converters, but on 2nd listen, I realise that its also about the microphone preamps, so it's a pretty difficult comparison. It would have been wonderful if it's possible to use the same external preamps and split the signal to a line in on the Neumann as well as the UAD audio interfaces, so we are comparing just the converters. I feel that the Neumann has a topier sound, which captures more of the harmonics, making it sound richer, but its not a huge difference, both of them are decent. If you want a more bottomy sound docussed on the fundamental frequencies, use the UAD.
The difference in the audio recorded could also be a function of the inut impedance of each microphone preamp. The Neumann is 10K Ohms, while the Apollo's are 5K Ohms
MT48 sounds brighter.
When you use a mic splitter you don't get the benefit of UAD's Unison technology...so this does not show the true potential of the Apollo...or the reason many people use it.
The whole idea there is the pre amp emulations and their interactions with the impedance of the microphones.
This is more a converter comparison...and sounds to me like the MT-48 hypes the top and bottom as a default.
Cual diferencia? Plop
I agree with many opinions here. MT48 by an appreciable bit.
well the sound is amazing ! great video guys !
Thank you for your compliment. Feedback like yours inspires us to keep doing more videos. More coming soon!
thanks so much. no major differences in my opinion. workflow over G.A.S.
MT48 are transparent and flat
Nuemann is at whole new level than uad interface
Back to this one, I'll try don't make fast conclusions in the future. I thought that 48 was noticeable better than UA on vocals, but in other examples this difference is very small for me. They close and I really like it. So I'll go uad x4. Thank you for the example, it's very helpful.
Both sound super. That MA1000 mic on vocals is just incredible.
The MA-1000 is indeed. It's my go-to
For someone who owns the Apollo this was a review i was definitely waiting for, and it has me thinking because clearly Neumann wasnt here to play!! So full, the kick for me was night and day.. With the vocals too, made that MA1000 shine and then when it comes to the mix the MT-48 did have this unnecessary heft in the bottom, it was just right and so much clearer please put the Apollo up against the UFC II next, would really appreciate that
Glad our video was helpful to you. You're right, the MA-1000 was perfect for the singer and the song. We tried a handful of mics on her voice and the MA-1000 nailed it. We will be doing more converter and interfaces comparison videos so please stay tuned.
This kind of videos doesn't save the listener from their own bias... The test would be better if done BLIND. I couldn't help to drive my ears once side to another when I read the source.
Thanks for the feedback. We’ll consider doing a blind mode next time.
Presently, I'm listening from UA-cam using Sennheiser HD58X through a Monolith THX Portable DAC from my Mac.
I have an x8p, so I'd prefer not hearing a difference for my wallet's sake.
This is what I hear for the MT48:
Generally, MT48 has a deeper range, smoother sound, clearer highs, better depth of sound stage for individual tracks and mix, so everything sits in the mix better. It is more 3D of a mix. It had a sense of space and room.
For individual instruments, kick is definitely deeper, snare sounds fuller (not as punchy, but more natural sounding). Bass sounded almost identical. Acoustic had more woody sound as the mic sounded closer/inside having more instrument character. Electric sounded smoother and crisper on high end without piercing sound, more sparkle? Vocals were subtly rounder, sounded closer mic'd, a little better balance/smooth, she had a generally rounder sound with more wet articulation and rounder vocal resonance. Rhodes might have had more depth.
Overall mix sounded smoother and more balanced. Vocals sat up in the mix slightly, where you could hear her low notes more clearly, and silky highs cut through the mix with less harshness than Apollo mix. Overall, fuller and easier to listen to. I'd rather start mixing from this than the Apollo.
For the Apollo:
Overall, many of the tracks sounded crisp due to sounding 2D, or flatter. Upper mid and lower highs could sound more nasal and sibilant.
On snare, the strike sounded tighter, but also flatter. Less character. Kick had more "thwap" than "thump". Bass, almost identical? Acoustic, could hear more string noise and sounded mic'd out front. Electric had a little more twang. Vocals had slight more sibilance, not as silky as MT48. Keys almost the same, the analog tube sound and line level didn't show as much difference?
Overall mix for the Apollo sounded flatter, harder to hear vocalist, but highs cut through more with more sibilance. Low notes were lost, and she sat deeper in the mix.
In summary, the overall mixes were different. Neumann's ability to pick up space, smoother sound, wider natural frequency range, and dynamic range on individual tracks probably also makes tracks sit naturally into the mix. The Apollo mix sat the vocals deeper into the mix and got lost because each track sounded flatter, and together the mix had less depth of sound stage with the Apollo. In the end, I heard a difference. Worth the money? Enough to annoy me? Not sure. I need to sleep on it. Time to reevaluate my x8p.
Loved your honest comparison here, much appreciated 🙏🙏🙏.
I need to record Electric guitar 🎸, so should I go ahead with MT48? I am going for a miked cab sound. Also, does this work better on Windows or Mac (M1 pro/M2 pro/M3 pro).
nice video!! Thanks!
MT48 all the way... So much clarity and separation... Outstanding sound quality!!! The Merging AD/DA converters doing the magic here :))
Next, try using a high quality clock on the Apollo - like a Black Lion Audio Micro Clock MKIII XB and redoing the comparison. I guarantee the differences will be shocking.
I only preferred the Neumann on the kick, the rest was won by UAD. Maybe that is because what our ears are calibrated and used to. Too bad the vocal was not recorded dry, I would have loved to hear it without the auto-tune.
If you listen to the final production on Spotify, Tidal etc you'll hear there is a lot more going on in the vocal production and mix in general. We didn't want to show the wall of sound it became in the mix but rather a streamlined version of the song that the band would still fell good about. It was balancing act. If you are curious to hear with more detail and control on your end, please email us and we'll send yo the hi-res files. info@provsv.com thank you !
@@ProvidenceSoundandVision A big thanks for going through the trouble of making this one, it is the best review I have seen and heard in a very long time! You got yourself a new subscriber. 😊
Very nice video
Thank you!
The Apollo seemed like it gelled everything together nicely, like a good stew. The MT-48 sounded more crisp, and you could hear the different instruments better on the full track.
Listening on a pair of NDH 20
I enjoyed the MT-48 more. Also, probably bias and don't have professional ears yet.
Snare 2:12
Kick 2:31
Kit 2:49
Bass 3:07
Acoustic 3:32
Electric 3:52
Vocals 4:14
Keys 4:43
Band 4:59
comparing Neumann MT-48 with RME babyface pro.no one make it on the internet.
I like the full 3d sound from mt48, the apollo sounds 2d but even it does not feel as full as mt48 I prefer how the full mix sounds on the apollo, more space for each instrument but a little bit 2d
I like how the Apollo shaped the snare and acoustic guitar. Through the Neumann the snare sounded too broad but through the Apollo it sounded tighter. The acoustic guitar also sounded a little more focused in the low mids through the Apollo. But holy Jesus, everything else sounded so weak through the Apollo compared to the Neumann.
I never thought i would be saying it but the MT is basically bullying the Apollo sonically, It's a day and night difference and shocked me quite a bit to say the least.
The Neumann sounds “fuller” but the UAD sounds tighter. I feel like the UAD is more accurate,as revealed by the boominess of the kick drum in the MT48. Apollo’s Drums sound more natural to me. I feel like I could listen to the Apollo longer without fatigue. That said, the final mix sounded like music on both. Takeaway? Buy what you can afford(or your patron can afford) and what works for your workflow then make music that helps the planet.
So the difference were very hard to tell on the guitars. But the drums & vocal demonstrates a noticeable difference. I’m shocked! The low end extension on the MT-48 was pronounced. And the mid range was more pronounced to me in the UA. I’m impressed that preamps & conversion could be that varies. I own UA and already felt RME was better but I did UA for the system. Now I’m wondering if I’d ever shift towards RME or the MT48 one day! 🤓🤷🏾♂️ thank you for the vid
Both are amazing and you can make nice music with one or the other
the apollo sounds flat compared to the mt-48,especially apparent on the bass drum. it sounds more dimensional and detailed
Another compromised test. The difference is much bigger in the different parts in the performance than the hardware itself. If you did not spot it, you have to improve your skills.
I’m 36 hours from having mine I can’t wait 😭😭😭 I wanted this more than Christmas gifts as a kid
both sound great, but when it came to drums and guitars, is like night and day, neumann sounds so much richer, I wasnt expecting this big of difference at all.
drastic differences. didn‘t expect it to be so different sounding. apollo almost seems like bandpassed and sounds congested whereas neumann is much opener.
🔥🔥🔥
Woa !! Neumann defintively wins the game.
Bwa-ha-ha!!!
both sources are good enough for mixing.
RME and Avid sounds better
CLUB ORO!
UA Apollo... ROMMEL!!!
Huge difference especially on drums, you can hear it a lot on the kick and snare too. Apollo sounds a bit darker. I am listening through the apollo x6 daisy chained to a twin x.
Hey one question, When you say x6 daisy chained to a Twin how exactly have you connected these two Interfaces? From the Line IN of X6 to the Line OUT of Twin X ? Can we use a DAW using MT48? Thanks a lot!
@@Aditya_Paliwal_9 daisy chained via thurnderbolt.
What mic is she using???
Its a Mojave MA 1000. We tried handful of mics on her voice and this was our favorite.
would love to see a comparison of the avid carbon & neumann mt 48
Challenge accepted! Give us a few
awesome!
I mean... if you really want to compare the right way, you play the EXACT same audio file for both. You played different takes for each Interface. Therefore, this comparison reveals nothing. Can you please provide the audio files for us to compare it right? Maybe also reupload a version where you compare the same exact files, from the same timestamps.
We literally use the exact same performances and microphones. See 0:42 for the explanation and footage using a microphone splitter. If you want the files please email us at info@provsv.com
@@ProvidenceSoundandVision this response confirms even more the test is flawed. You used the same mic and splitter, but you played different takes. For example, on the snare, even with the first interface only all the hits sound different to each other! So or course when you switch between interfaces it will sound different because each single phrase/drum hit sounds different. So again, if you really want to show the results fairly, just upload the files for us to check or reupload the video and play the same exact drum hit/phrase for each interface. Otherwise, this video tells us absolutely nothing/
@@madsonit we did not use different takes. We used one performance, one mic, to a mic splitter, to the Apollo and the Neumann at the same time and each of those had its own computer running the same version of Pro Tools. Stop gaslighting us.
@@ProvidenceSoundandVision how is this gaslighting?You clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to say which is curious to me why, since you are also a professional musician. To make this test accurate and relevant you need to play the same exact part of timestamp. So since you did a two track recording, it would mean play the same time of recording for each interface, alternating them. As I said in my previous comment, even if you listen to just one interface, all the drum hits sound different, because no single real played drum hit can be identical. The fact no single drum hit is identical makes this test scientifically irrelevant if you are not comparing the files at the exact timestamp. I’m not sure how I can explain it more clearly than this. It’s basic science/engineering. This video, as is right now, is unrealistic and helps no one. And it’s a shame, cause you took the time and energy to record it right just so that when presenting the data, it was presented in a way that is not objective but rather subjective. Which begs the question: is this a promoted product?
@@madsonit I just went to delete the “gaslighting” part of the comment as I thought I was heavy handed. We do welcome your dialogue and input. Sorry about that. I know you are an experienced and well credited talent and you know your stuff. We just have two paths of logic and clearly we could have explained the production process better to help all to have confidence in what we presented.
The audio you hear is from the same exact place in time. We had two pro tools rigs running and hit record at the same time so that we recorded and played back the exact same snare hits, kit hits, vocal take etc. The video footage might not sync exactly. We were careful to capture and log the audio takes so that they are mirroring the same exact performances and breaths. The video is more for the look and not the sound.
So the same moment in time was recorded by both interfaces at the same time with the input gain and level to pro tools as close as we could get it. We then used the rms level match tool in post to help massage the levels as close as they could be.
I do have experience with my time at Audio Test Kitchen doing A/B comparisons of hundreds of microphones in an anechoic chamber at Harmon Labs.
We didn’t have that luxury in this video so we did the best we could with a mic splitter capturing the same performance to two pro tools systems.
We are doing two more productions like this on March 30th and April 13th. If you would like to be our guest, help on the session and give input that our process is accurate and fair we will make it worth your while. Email us through our website if your would like to attend the session in Los Angeles. All the best
That was a lot closer than I thought. I did a video with the Apollo X4 as my interface and people were telling me I need to switch to this. The neumann sounds great but I don't think its sooooo much better that I'm throwing my Apollo in the trash. I actually prefer the Apollo on the Acoustic guitar and the vocals were kind of a tie for me. Apollo seems to push the mids a bit more. The Neumann seems to have a tiny bit more clarity. I also have an Apogee Symphony Desktop and it also sounds slightly more clear, but I love the workflow and analog sound of the Apollo. The oldest unit and its still holding its own. That should say something. Whenever they drop a new one it will be next level.
You are right. These are both high quality interfaces. Countless records have been made with the Apollo including many hit songs, Grammy winners etc. If we was my money, I would not switch and would use the budget towards something like a nice microphone. This video is more for those making a new interface purchase or maybe upgrading from something more entry level. Thanks for your input and feedback.
@@ProvidenceSoundandVision Absolutely great video. As a fellow creator I know how long that must’ve taken. Really good content!
@ProvidenceSoundandVision thanks for that. I recently bought the Twin X and was sitting here wondering if I made a mistake, if I should sell and get this. But I'm going to upgrade mics instead , like you said. Great video
I really wanted to do this test myself so thank you for this video. I believe in a blind test you would not really be able to tell the difference between the two. I think that has more to do with the tolerance and quality of modern converters in general more than which one is subjectively "better". Its a great demo but I can't help but feel if the low end extension from the kick was labelled as the Apollo that opinions might skew towards the Apollo sounding smeared in the low frequencies. At the end of the day the song sounds AMAZING and that's all that really matters.
Thanks for your feedback. We will be releasing a version of this with @audiotestkitchen and when we do, you'll be able to go into a blind mode. We'll take your feedback into consideration for future comparison videos as well.
Damn! I was really rooting for the Neumann interface. They voiced it well, it's a bit scooped in the mids and the harmonic distortion is pleasing, especially on the treble. However, it's clear that the Apollo has more power, thus, tighter more focused resolution. Those mids are nice and chunky and quite forward. I would use the Neumann for traveling. I feel like my Black Lion Audio Modded Apollo Twin (1st Gen) sounds very similar to the Neumann MT-48.
God help me decipher the mystery of why Neumann records mono tracks in stereo and UAD records mono tracks in mono. WTF???
Try mono on everything and then compare, please...
We are not sure what you mean by this. We took each mono microphone into a mono mic splitter, then into a mono input on the Neuamnn and Apollo. There were two computers running the same version of Pro Tools and each path went into a mono input. If we are missing something let us know. Thanks for your feedback!
Please just check out your snare and kick drum samples for Neumann. There are stereo for Neumann and mono for UAD. With a "stereo ambience sound" for Neumann - so is the reason why people wrote Neumann is wider :) Just check out that samples. Why stereo? I don't know - perhaps you were summing direct signals with just a little overheads signal added? Or with ambience microphones? I don't know. Or there is bleeding on Neumann channels :)
Please let me know if you checked it out.
If you still have problems with that, I will be happy to help you solve them.
Otherwise this test is unfair!
Cheers!
@@ProvidenceSoundandVision
If you can't hear it, try to use goniometer. But I can't believe you can't hear it!
imgur.com/a/w5trycv
Pretty crazy to actually hear how much better the neumann sounds
Neumann, all the way! I wish it had 4 preamp/xlr’s and I would have bought one!! Just bought the SSL 12 for that reason!
Ambos sueñan muy bien. Pero creo se siente más las frecuencias graves del bajo y la batería en el Neumann. Me gustó más Neumann pero ambos son muy buenos. Gracias por este video.
Opportunity missed no Neumann mic used. Apollo sounded warmer
The Neumann sounds maybe 5 percent better overall , I think it added more pleasing harmonics to the frequency (I’m using an iPhone to listen so I could be wrong)
However, UAD sounded more dry. For some of the instruments been recorded I prefer the UAD , I wouldn’t want that High end sizzle on all recordings so with that in mind we could add in post extra harmonics to taste.
Also if you had changed UAD default preamp in unison to the 1073 or Avalon pre in theory technically we would have a closer comparison.
For me its hard choosing one over the other let’s have them both 😅.
You my friend have Gear Acquisition Syndrome. We are happy to help with that ailment, we have more remedies than you can shake a stick at.
I thought the Apollo sounded way fuller and pleasing on the acoustic guitar. Sounded harsh on the MT.
Is it $1000 better than Apollo Twin X?
No.
ua apolo more clean but for the bass u48 batter
UA sounds better.
In my opinion, the Apollo sounds better than the Neumann. Neumann has a pretty colored sound to me and has a lot of warmth(low end). The Apollo sounded more open and hi-fi while maintaining a smooth sonic character. I personally just don’t like the slightly congested sound of the neumann, but I know a lot of people will gravitate towards it because most equate warmth to the sought after “analogue sound”.
The Neumann sounds congested to your ears???
@@vadersgoldfish I’m late🤭 I actually ended up selling my Apollo after buying my Neumann interface. Hearing them in real life yielded wayyy different results from my original statement. I don’t know what I was hearing. The Apollo sounded cheap and hollow after doing my own comparison.