#UNISON HARDWARE SOFTWARE#
#UNISON HARDWARE PLUS#

I like the Highs on the bluebird vs the TLM and the Mids on the TLM vs the bird plus I can get any proximity by moving in on the TLM if I want more bottom.īut what both lack, the Neve smooths over. It was the 1073 that did what I was looking for in a microphone.Īs for my mics, I started testing combinations and found that the TLM103 and Bluebird complement each other. I haven't tried tubes since I was concerned about them being too dark with my LA610.īut when I put my mics through the Apollo's 1073 in Unison that made the difference. Seeing what a difference a tube mic has made, Id like to hear what the c314 sounds like going through a top tube pre and overall just having the options between two types of pre's.I too went on a mic hunt for what is best for my voice. With that being said, I'm looking to purchase a 6176. Like I said, to me, the plugins just seem to add gain. There's no way to emulate a true tube sound. Also, IMO the unison plugins ,to me, just add volume/gain to the mic & a slight tonal charachter. The difference to me is anything but subtle. If I'm using anything other than a tube mic, my vocals sound very harsh, dry, and grainy.

The Apollo twin is truly a great analog interface. I suppose that poster turned off 'Load Lock' and some parts of the plug/processor, though they didn't specify (I think). Therefore, the UAD Meters will show some DSP and memory usage when Apollo is connected even if UAD plug-ins are not loaded, and instance counts in this chart will be higher than available on Apollo-only systems.'Īccording to UAD's instance chart, it would not be possible to get 8 instances of the 1073 MKII 96k, but a poster in one of those threads I linked claimed they did. 'Apollo interfaces use DSP and memory resources for its internal mixer. Last 2 pgs of this thread starting at post 55>Īt the bottom of the chart are notations that the instance chart was derived at a 44.1k sample rate.Īnd that it appears to be derived from non-apollo processing (like a PCIe card). Musikmesse 2015: Universal Audio announces Apollo thunderbolt Some posts about this on the last 2 pgs of this thread> >Some can get 8 instances, but at 44.1k sampling rate (which matches UAD's instance chart) With an Apollo Quad and 1073 unison MKII>

This conversation begs the question of whether to spend extra money on hardware mic pres, or buy better mics and something like the OctoPre and rely on the UAD unison plugins for tracking live? I wonder, for example, if I used something like a Focusrite ISA 4, if I'd need all of it's bells and whistles when I could get more inputs with the Octo and just rely on the UAD plugins for the live signal? Sorry if I sound like I'm pretty green, I am! Thanks a lot!Īnyone ever figure out if you can use 8 channels of 1073 Unison with the Apollo 8P?I've been researching this for awhile and it seems to be a 'results can vary' answer.

I've been looking at some of the mid-range multi channel mic pres and wonder if my investment would be served better by getting something like the Focusrite OctoPre over something like the Audient ASP 880. I'm hoping to add more mic pre inputs to my current apollo setup so I can have at least 8 inputs, maybe 12, so I can record my band and others live, as well as some more, higher-quality mics. I have some pretty decent condenser mics, including a newly purchased sE Electonics sE 2200 aII, which I really love. I'm a small project studio and my latest interface before this one was a Presonus Firepod and it was OK, but the Apollo is in another league altogether. I just upgraded to the Apollo Duo and it blows me away how good it sounds, especially the plugins.

#UNISON HARDWARE SOFTWARE#

I'm just not in a big rush because software gets me most of the way there. This is why I plan on expanding my mix hardware. I still have to say I think a properly done big budget analog production from Nigel Godrich, Butch Vig, or whomever is still the best sound, vs ITB stuff. My ears love hardware, but, I mix with software all the time. I think some of the Waves, UAD, Native Instruments, Softube, Cytomic, etc software has a medium 'character' but it's still not 1:1 to the hardware. The Unison 610 is a good emulation, though. I don't think the unison preamp nails the 610 sound either, from memory, but it's been years since I've owned a 610. I can't offer any sound files right now, but to my ear, the hardware instantly has 'character' where software tends to sound more liquid and transparent when inserted. What would you consider a decent mix bus compressor? Any comparison files compared to software?I'm using a Behringer MDX2100 Composer and an Alesis 3630.īefore you laugh, both have been upgraded/modified, and sound really good.

Unison hardware