Issue 01 Sweet Twinsrar
Hercules Montero
Apollo Twin MkII also includes Unison technology on its front panel instrument input, giving you access to dead-on emulations of guitar and bass amps like the Fender '55 Tweed Deluxe, Marshall Plexi Super Lead 1959, and the Ampeg B-15N Bass Amplifier.
It is obvious by the curated choice of features and functionality that has been implemented by UAD into the portable form-factor of the Apollo Twin MkII, that they were designing an interface capable of satisfying the fundamental requirements that experienced engineers seek in an interface (and then some!).
In summary, the Apollo Twin MkII is a classic -- a marvel of engineering and design -- and a piece of HW that the engineering community won't forget.
Me encanta esta interfaz, la calidad de mis grabaciones mejoraron un 100%, sonido super limpio, super potente y todo es facilita la mezcla, ahora mi tiempo para mezclar se ha reducido mucho debido a que puedo grabar con efectos en tiempo real y tengo que pocos ajustes en la mezcla. Excelente.
Over a few years I have had a singularly pleasant , at times exciting experience recording my new album with a "vintage" Apollo twin interface, UAD, and the free Luna mixer. Previously used a VS 2400 or a dat, or long ago the 880 so this was a Huge step up in many ways sonically. By not going thru patch bays, mixers etc the sound gains in dimension and accuracy. The preamps and converters are first rate so when I would do stereo acoustic guitar or percussion, with the right mic, it really shined with basically no latency issues. With the included Pultec type eq I learned how to remove low frequency artifacts. Flamenco guitar with stereo mics, external preamp eq, worked better than any studio I have used as long as the room is acoustically fine - it is that level of professional sound. What was also a pleasure is sometimes before a session I would load up a few new plug ins on trial and that would often make exciting audio surprises and really helped me color the music subtly and I found the tube emulations compression, and EQ plugs in very sweet and I actually learned a lot using them but not over using. Electric guitar direct and bass was really nice actually and surprised me -how could be shaped taking advantage of Manley and Neve eq and even the Ocean Way virtual sound subtly enhancing. To me the Apollo is the most important exciting studio invention years for the home recording musician/composer because of the preamps, the extensive plug in you can try, and the quality of the converters and Luna mixer.
I was finally able to get my hands on this unit after many years of knowing about it and after using many other brands of interfaces. Let me just say this... There is a reason why every other video reviewing a new brand of interface has to compare them to this unit. Once you hear it, it sets a new standard of sound quality. Also, the "ecosystem" (Console software) around this unit is extremely well thought out as well as design, and in my opinion, elevates the quality of this interface.
Very happy with my purchase! Went from 'n RME and it sounded like my speakers opened up. My analog gear gets noisy sometimes and I recently had a client complain about a vocal session with a slight hiss on it so will switch to unison plugins from now on. Best thing is how good the playback is on this. The converters are so good!
I've used a few audio interfaces over the years many for my small bedroom studio. This one is by far the best, also access to UAD plugins has really upgraded my sound. Small box but it packs a punch! Definitely worth it, also easy to take around with you.
My Apollo randomly turns on and off and it appears to be this cheap power supply that is faulty. I have purchased products from UA since 2003 and not sure why they leave me with Legacy plugins instead of upgrading the same plugin to the latest version. The Apollo hardware is mediocre at best and mine seems to be stuck without a working Volume knob which just happened out of nowhere, I followed the proper protocol to reset the device several times with no luck. I use this on an M1Max Pro Macbook and have had issues with pops and clicks constantly and the UA software console freezing on me where I have to Force Quit. I Love the plugins but to be honest they are overpriced and I really don't need them since upgrading from my 2015 iMac to this M1Max Pro with 64GB of Ram and with the slack customer support I wouldn't buy anything else from them until they make all of our purchased plugins Free as they move away from processor based Audio interfaces. This company doesn't have a great return on your investment and when I used it on my old iMac they plugin count was not that great, I don't see this company making another 5 years without filing Chapter 11 at the rate they're going!
Well I think the piston twin is worth mourning. Efficiency is great, but it usually comes at the cost of some character. And the older twins, especially the bigger ones, had real personalities. The Aerostar: brash pursuit of speed. The Duke: class, grace and swagger. Cessna 340: reliable and practical. What airplane you flew said a lot about what your priorities were as a pilot. There was also a refreshing variety of styles and technologies, and lots of new ideas at work.
One has to wonder if the twin will resurface as alternative fuels and energy sources are explored. I could see running a twin with one gas engine running a prop and a generator powering the battery reserve for the second electric engine. These will probably be smaller twins, but I suspect as technology changes it will come and go.
The truth is that in these days there is not a single piston aircraft of current production that can achive what you can do with the twins of The Golden Years. Being a twin Piper, Cessna or Beechcraft you had room, speed and payload at a price not as expensive as today turboprops.
My dream is to buy a 1976 vintage Baron 55, a sweet flying plane. People who fly for fun will always enjoy the experience of flying piston twins even if the planes themselves are old. After all to get a multiengine rating, most pilots get the rating in a piston twin as I did in a Piper Seneca.
RSmith, you make some good points. Videoconferencing and the like have reduced the need for some face-to-face meetings. And I agree the demise of small and middle market manufacturing companies has had an impact has reduced the demand for company airplanes, many of which were light and medium twins. That said, many of those companies have been replaced by IT and healthcare companies. The business mix in America has changed (for better or worse). The January issue of our magazine features an IT company CEO who flies his 340 on business. He could not be happier with it. These twins are changing hands from people like you, for whom they no longer make sense, to people who are thrilled to pick up an airplane that would cost over $1 million today, for a fraction of that. We certainly face some challenges with leaded fuel, etc. but the experts I talk to are fairly optimistic a suitable substitute will be found. The heyday for these twins is over, but they are a long way from dead.
Advantages that I saw in owning & operating a twin Cessna 310 v my later single A36 Bonanza(& earlier Mooney Ranger) were similar to what other twin operators have reported: (1)superior rate of climb when hot &heavy,(2)better useful load(especially for shorter trips),(3)ability to tolerate incredible crosswinds(I once landed a 310 in a 45 kt xwind with minimum fuss) and (4)tolerate turbulence(I inadvertently went thru a level 3-4 Tstorm with only mild discomfort,something guarenteed to get your attention in a Bonanza),(5)better ability to climb thru light-mod icing,& (6)ability to fly reasonably well in the mid teens without turbocharging.Engine redundancy and security for night flight are usually considered secondary factors,even for well-powered twins like the 310 or Baron.In my opinion the very light twins like Seneca do not really fulfill these mission requirements because of compromises in construction & fuel/payload capacity.
The death of the twin was probably due to (1)a mixture of manufacturing complexity & costs(the Wallace plant at Cessna produced tip tank twins that were nearly the equal of Barons in quality &durability),(2)ability to successfully market a turbocharged single,ultimately allowing pressurization as seen in the P210 & Malibu, and (3)the development of an efficient turbine single.
For pilot and passenger comfort on long trips,however, these twins could not be beat.One flight will demonstrate their unique features to anyone used to flying kitplanes.
Having transitioned from a Bonanza A36 TC into an Aerostar 15 years ago and having flown many other singles over the years, I could never bring myself to go back to a single unless it was something like a TBM.
Why would you want to go slower, carry less, endure turbulence with light wing loading, give up pressurization and air conditioning and lose that solid dead straight feel that only a 6 plus thousand pound twin can give you?
In my personal opinion, the first question in these discussions of twin vs single should be: What is your mission; what are the parameters? Do you need a new plane or a used one? Is the plane purely for business use or vacations with family/friends and are you the owner/pilot?
If you consistently need to take four people plus luggage 1000nm, non-stop, pressurized, then you are in the market for a Pilatus PC-12 or a good sized twin. In fact, do the numbers on the number of annual trips and you may find business class on United is cheaper.
Piston engine failures not due to fuel exhaustion run between 13 and 15 per 100,000 hours according to the FAA/NTSB. Turboprop engine failures not due to fuel exhaustion run about one per 375,000 hours. While the delta between the two number is huge, the chances of either happening to you is about 1 in 10,000 for the pistons and zero in the turbo. Your choice.
7fc3f7cf58