UA Apollo Twin w/ Logic Pro X Assistance

[Rick Shepherd]

I decided on the UA Apollo Twin. The interface is very nice! I downloaded the installer, finished installing the software. I am connected to the interface using the ADAT input from my UA-2192 converter ADAT output. I have two mics connected to my Avalon AD2022 Preamp, and output to the UA-2192.

In the UA Console, I enabled the ADAT as the input source, and I can monitor the sound through the Apollo Twin Headphone jack. So, no problem there.

The problem is, I open up Logic Pro X, choose the input and output source as the Apollo Twin, but I am unable to see any Rec signal to my enabled track. I am unable to choose an input source for the track.

The UA Apollo Twin's line input is enabled.



I've been trying for the last 2 to three hours to get this to work!


Thoughts?

[keith.rogers]

What *inputs* are you choosing, i.e., assigning to the tracks in Logic? The ADAT channels do not start at 1, but after all the interface's analog channels are accounted for. (At least, that's how my Focusrite worked.) The drop-down for input selection/assignment should show probably 10 or more input channels, if you have have configured the ADAT (your A/D device) as active/connected in the UA software. (What does the UA's Line Input have to do with this??)

[Rick Shepherd]

Thanks Keith,

I chose the right Sample rate for Logic under Project Settings, and that did the trick.

Now my problem is, I want to create two guitar tracks, one for Left Mic, One for Right mic, pan left mic to the left, right mic to the right. Maybe I need to enable software monitoring? How do I set the UA console to allow me to hear the left mic panned to left, right mic panned to right ear from the UA Apollo?

[Rick Shepherd]

Wow, I think I figured it out

[Rick Shepherd]

Wow, this is an awesome interface!

[sdelsolray]

Rick,

Can you configure your new setup to use S/MUX (96k) instead of plain ADAT (48k)? S/MUX uses two ADAT channels for each track allowing a higher sampling rate.

[Rick Shepherd]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

Rick,

Can you configure your new setup to use S/MUX (96k) instead of plain ADAT (48k)? S/MUX uses two ADAT channels for each track allowing a higher sampling rate.

I have absolutely no idea! However, it does say this in the manual:

Up to eight channels of digital inputs via:
• Eight channels ADAT optical with S/MUX for high sample rates

Is this something I should take advantage of?

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd

I have absolutely no idea! However, it does say this in the manual:

Up to eight channels of digital inputs via:
• Eight channels ADAT optical with S/MUX for high sample rates

Is this something I should take advantage of?

S/MUX lets you use the ADAT connectivity protocol at a 96k sample rate. Yes, it is likely something to take advantage of and is the only way to record at 96k Hz using ADAT.

[Rick Shepherd]

If all we do mostly is share recordings via internet, it there a benefit to recording the way you suggest, and at 96K?

I think I may have jump the gun, and been a little impulsive getting the Apollo Twin Duo, because I am unsure if I get true bypass of its AD conversion. Perhaps I should get the Apogee Element 24?

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd

If all we do mostly is share recordings via internet, it there a benefit to recording the way you suggest, and at 96K?

I think I may have jump the gun, and been a little impulsive getting the Apollo Twin Duo, because I am unsure if I get true bypass of its AD conversion. Perhaps I should get the Apogee Element 24?

This guy does a pretty good job of explaining why you'd use the higher rate. Since there are very few people who can hear anything above 20kHz, and even fewer who can hear 20kHz within the context of a mix, my feeling is I'd be making my computer work twice as hard mostly to provide a better listening experience for my dogs.

That said, it's a controversial issue and there are plenty of people on both sides. But if someone can pick out the one 96kHz mix from a field that includes nine 48kHz, I'll be convinced.

[keith.rogers]

Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd

If all we do mostly is share recordings via internet, it there a benefit to recording the way you suggest, and at 96K?

I think I may have jump the gun, and been a little impulsive getting the Apollo Twin Duo, because I am unsure if I get true bypass of its AD conversion. Perhaps I should get the Apogee Element 24?

I'm firmly in the camp that 96k (or 88.2) is more marketing than anything audible. Pro studios have to have it because "the other guy" has it. It's an arms race. Unnecessary for home recording.

The recording sounds fine you posted. The digital signal from your A/D box does not go through any D/A->A/D conversion in the interface. Since you are not using the interface's own mic pre's, you've got a very fancy adapter box there. Swapping it for another should only be done if there's a reason, i.e., there's a feature in the interface you need that's not in the one you have. (Strictly IMHO)