Presonus Quantum 4848 vs U/A Apollo X16 | Deep Dive Analyses | Which Sounds Better?

[@asbrinkman]

Thanks for this shootout! As a user of both UAD and PreSonus, I have questioned some of the inflated costs associated with the Apollo platform and equally the overall quality of the PreSonus products. As my home studio evolved, incorporating outboard gear, I had to find a cost-effective solution. Although I own an Apollo QUAD and other UAD DSP cards, the Apollo platform was out of my budget for what I wanted to accomplish. I then discovered the QUANTUM 4848 and it has been fantastic. With StudioOne Professional combined with the QUANTUM 4848, I was able to eliminate 90% of my patchbays. With exception of my MIC pre's, all of my outboard gear is connected directly to the 4848 and digitally "patched" with PipelineXT. I actually have two QUANTUM 4848's now and they have been rock-solid for well over the past year+. Anyways...

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Cool! Thanks for watching!

[@AOEarlobe]

This, was a great test. Thanks.. What I can say, most decent converters will provide the same results. Based on the low levels output for summing. However, you will hear a (can be slight depending on the converter) difference, if levels are pushed closer to +24 dBu and or if the recordings are closer to the noise floor of the converter. Most converters use the same chipsets, the differences (usually) are in the op amps implemented pre DA stage and how the chips are aligned Parallel/Serial/Single/Duel, Error correction used and clocking (jitter). Analogue factors will also play a factor depending on input and output levels to the devices (amount of distortion created naturally by the equipment) will create a difference as explained. I use a UAD Apollo 16 a gun mettle front (latest), prior to that I used an Apogee Symphony Thunderbolt. They both sounded the same to me. However the DSP was a factor when I purchased it.. But with the Apple M1' processors out.. I regret the purchase.. As I will be investing in a M processor as soon as a viable desktop version comes out.. To summarise, If you are hybrid mixing, the cleanliness of the converters, D/A has less relevance. The tolerances in the analogue equipment is far wider and less predictable. What you need to ensure, you send signals above the noise floor of the device to reduces hiss in the quight parts of a mix.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for sharing

[@albertorolon137]

Great 👍

[@chrispenfold2445]

I bought the Quantum 4848 over 2 years ago having looked at everything that was on the market. It's hooked up to a TLA VTC 24 analogue console and works really well every day. I'm so glad I trusted my instincts and your videos have backed that up. UA is great too but they are pricing themselves out of the market.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for sharing

[@thandodot]

Thank you so much for this comparison. This video series has just saved me A LOT of money. I’ve been needing to expand my set up to get more I/O in my studio but the price of UAD’s X16 and X8P has just been discouraging. I’ll just add a satellite to my current setup, and call it a day.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Glad it was helpful!

[@BizzleBotTube]

Thanks for doing this and really digging the technical analysis! Seeing the quality go up and price go down on ad/da conversion is incredible and hopefully will put the pressure on high quality drivers and supporting software (ex RMEs & RMEs total mix). Thanks for the awesome videos

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@RobTube1963]

Wow, more of these videos please, well done both Davids, Happy New Year

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Same to you!

[@spikeafrican8797]

Excellent shootout. I think you definately proved that the obsession with this kind of sonic minutia can be a very expensive proposition! Thanks so much.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

You're welcome

[@TheMcinku]

Well what I can say is, you just saved a lot of money for a lot of people. ;)

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@bzprod]

This much is true -- these both sound great. Who else needs to just make a gear choice and move on to making music? I spend too much time obsessing over tiny differences in gear when I should be making and enjoying music. Neither of these products is going to make a junk song sound good :) For my studio, I'd be more than happy with either. From a practical standpoint, and aside from any differences in sound/plugins/DSP/price/etc, I LOVE the I/O form factor of the Quantum -- perfect for a small studio like mine. Thanks so much for taking the time to produce this and share the results!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Who else needs to move on to making music? This comes form someone who is watching this video instead of making music....LOL. Kidding of course! You are right we all make too much over this stuff and in the end how much of a difference does it really make? Not as much as we would believe....Thanks for watching

[@JamalOrrTV]

1. You guys are awesome. 2. I watched the first 2 videos but haven’t finished this one yet 3. In all the videos that I listened through an ik Multimedia iLoud single stereo speaker and now listening through Bose Quiet Comfort Pods. My results are the same. That second mix is definitely a little wider than the first. I’m talking mastering differences. Not huge differences!! 4. I saw what you saw on the scopes. But you said listen. Don’t look. Pay attention to the ambience on the snare. (Real, reverb, or combination) on mix 2. It’s definitely a lil wider and because of it, the tail is perceived to be a tad longer. Or it is just not being hidden 5. I still don’t know which is which and can’t wait to find out. 6. You are right about analog consoles and voltage changes and tolerances. However, you being on a new Origin you will have less of that than. Say on a 40 year old E or G series! Presonus makes great interfaces for the price point. UA makes great interfaces/dsp accelerator combos for a professional studio price point Thanks so much for doing this.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@michaeltablet8577]

Thank you so very much! I'm not crazy. I really couldn't hear a difference and thought it could be because I have only been mixing for a couple of years.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

Learn to trust your ears...mixing is a unique marriage of art and science, and you should be focusing on what you hear way more than what you see...

[@michaeltablet8577]

@@DavidSJ_DAP thank you so very much!

[@ReginatorNet]

Nice work on the comparison Dave! My ears and my eyes say there's no difference. Looking forward to more great videos from you and David in the New Year!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Awesome, thank you!

[@robertl.6919]

UAD will eventually have to rethink their proposition. With new M1 Pro and upcoming Intel and AMD offerings, there won't be a need for external DSP. And there are tons of good and cheaper plugins out there.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Point taken!

[@robertl.6919]

@@MixingMusicAnalog 😁 Hope UAD catches it too ? That was quite a stunt proving units at 1/6 of the price deliver the same sonic qualities. Wonder if UAD will make a test of their own...😏

[@robfulco4739]

That is an argument that has been said since UAD 1. They won't get rid of it.

[@jmoemorris4133]

I see all the comments but the analysis tells the true, NO NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE! I listened on my headphones and monitors in my studio and found no real difference that would make or break the mix proving you need to check out a product thoroughly by testing and comparing before saying it is the best cause so"n" so makes it kinda like people claiming to really hearing a difference when there clearly wasn't any. My point being when it was tested the first time and you could not really tell a difference it was a no brainer to begin investigating this lower cost unit just on its capabilities to meet the competition standards but throw in lower cost,more I/O, less rack space and either more money in your business pocket or giving your clients a better savings its a win win no brainer for the Presonus Q. Come on you die hards let go of your Gucci bags just to have the name.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

What I have come to realize in the nearly 10 years of doing KZbin videos and comparing gear, plugins, computer etc....there are always going to be a small percentage of people that no matter what the facts are or what information is provided they simply can't be convinced. Honestly, that's cool because all we can do is try to provide information and let the people do with that what they wish. 95% of the people appreciate what we are trying to do and get it and that's good enough for me. :)

[@NoirEtBlancVie]

Great work you guys!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thank you!

[@kaisersoze9488]

Well explained that small sonic difference is what makes mix 2 more open than mix 1 hopefully Dave will let us know one day which converter is which Happy New Year's everyone great video

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@DadRockAndGuitars]

Great test! This was really interesting to watch unfold. Pretty safe to say that the main reason for the cost difference, as you said, is the other features that come with the Apollo (processing, plugins, etc.). If you're just looking of I/O , Presonus is the way to go!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Great point!

[@parthmehra8630]

Thanks for this deep dive video. Goes so far as to show how big of a snob I was if I were to skip watching the whole series and reach straight at conclusions

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!!

[@BassBaseBerlin]

Totally agree and think everything is reasonable! Thank you! About the differences - these are "two recordings" and they are not "synced". So what I mean: If you "compare" two analog audio chains and record them >in the same time< with the same unit (on different channels) - you may get to the audio differences. But if you do "two recording takes" (like for re-amping) - I would exepect differences like you showed and would interprete these as you did. So fully agree. Thanks very much, best regards, Stefan

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

You may be correct but I think we are "over-thinking" this. The bottom line is "does one sound much better than the other"? The answer to that in my opinion is no. They are almost identical and in the end we could have done this test 50 different ways and there would still be people that would say the test isn't valid for one reason or the other.....LOL. It's a "no win" situation

[@keysbythenumbers]

Great job Dave,as an owner of both UAD and Presonus in my studio. I rely on DSP for tracking, but after that, Presonus takes over for all my other processing and routing needs.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

If you relay on the DSP, then the U/A stuff is the best in the business for sure!

[@coywood203]

really useful tests!!! at most, i could hear a slight amount of saturation in one mix that i wasn't hearing in the other (and by "slight" i mean almost imperceptibly slight)...i think your assessment that much of that was caused simply by running through the console and the components acting slightly differently is spot on...good stuff!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@chrispittman3510]

Well done, Dave.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks we are trying

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

Thank you...

[@BlueJavaTN]

Thanks for the analysis! Looking forward to the next video : ) Happy New Year!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Same to you!

[@nipshanger8303]

Thanks, for the shoot-out. Got sort of a combination of the two offerings in the form of a 4848 with an apollo twin MK2 and two satellites and always wondered if that was a smart move afterwards. This kinda tells me it was not as bad after all.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@Guitaural.]

Question for you - do the satellites _just_ store and process the plugins? Do you have to have the Apollo Twin unit to run the satellites? I'm old school 2-inch tape, so just getting back into recording...lol.

[@stefanhoffmann2748]

Awesome video´s and reviews. Many thanks !

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Many thanks!

[@peevonb7070]

Really cool result! That sure did a trick on me. I understand the SSL console is the setup you guys use and with that said it only makes sense to do this comparison this way. But it would be interesting to get the variable out and understand the difference if any at all. Maybe 3 different velocities card out and straight back in. As I was a person who was convinced I did hear a difference I’m cured now. There is no way my ears are that analytic. But lets push the test till there is a difference and conclude not only that they are very much the same but also what is the potential difference. Well done guys! Very interesting stuff. Hope these series get you tons of new subs.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

It's going to have to fall to someone else to take this any further...our setup is pretty much locked from the converters to the board and back again, so there's no way to remove the randomness the board creates from the test...

[@davidluscombe3260]

Great video👌👌 One question, what is the Reaper skin you are using?

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I'll lat Dave answer that one :)

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

That's the LCS Luna theme...

[@zonarecordingstudio]

When i am tracking drums or a band ,i love the simplicity and sound of the iz radar,it is a bid old school ,but it is rock solid.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@LBenjamin322]

Great videos guys. I, like a few other commenters, have fallen into the trap of gear specs. This is a great example of why you don’t always need top shelf brand names. I also think it’s a great example of having to many options and overthinking everything. If anyone is guilty of that, it’s me. In the end it always comes down to the age old rule, garbage in… garbage out.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@Final2.0]

Thanks for the excellent deep dive. I'm thinking of switching to a Quantum 4848. I already have UA Apollo gear. I don't have a stand alone mic pre however. I would like to continue using an Apollo for this, and for their plugins of course. I'm on windows which doesn't have the possibility to use two interfaces (I think Mac does). Do you think it would work to hook the output of the Apollo to an input of the Quantum? I would assume this means double conversion (once in the Apollo and then again in the Quantum) and some added latency. Do you see this as a working solution to record vocals etc? Thanks again.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I am not sure if hooking a Quantum up to an Apollo would work well. Technically, it should but I have not tried that myself. Maybe someone else here has that experience?

[@johnwave2827]

Super!!! Would love to see a comparasin between different samplerates.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Let someone else do that video....LOL

[@markmarenick]

Thank you for sharing such a thorough test!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Glad it was helpful!

[@gweeds334]

An interesting thing I heard from the guys at Black Lion Audio was that the word clocks and power supplies have a lot to do with sound quality as well. Some word clocks are more accurate than others and the amount of "jitter" can result in phasing issues of certain frequencies and narrowing of stereo image, etc... Its probably so minute that it would be really difficult to tell but its something to think about. The quantum has information on its word clock and jitter but I wasnt able to find anything specific on the apollo.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Great info, thank you

[@john4157]

Very cool video. Excellent explanation 👌. I would go with the PreSonus converters. It's not worth the extra money. The only reason to keep the uad interface is to use the plugins that you invested in. Bur you can sell the uad interfaces and buy the uad satellites. Great video

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Correct! I do have al ot of UA plugins (almost everyone they make) and I still use them on my ITB rig with a UAD 2 satellite so they wont go to waste

[@MixedByDotRob]

Hey! Great video! It would be cool, if you could do another round with making 2 passes/mixes of the Apollo converters and 2 passes/mixes of the Presonus. And then nulling the 4 mixes against each other. So the learning would be: if the nulling is around -60 in every case, then this would be the proof that the variation is "just" the analogue desk. Have a great start in 2022!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Cool idea! maybe down the road we will do something like that

[@TomCawoski]

I love the analysis done in this video to the two versions and you would think that if there is such very minimal things an analyzer detected, you'd have to have incredibly good hearing to hear the difference. It's possible that I've missed it but I'm curious A) What sample rate and Bit depth were used with the original recording (summing) and then for the analysis and B) are the two WAV files available for download so that I can listen to them in my DAW without the processing that KZbin does to audio - Yes, they do process audio and they do loudness normalization as well and you don't need super humans hearing to hear the difference. Thanks...

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I dont remember the bit depth off hand. It was probably 24bit 48K. The files are not available.

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

The files in my session were 24/48K and 512 samples...

[@syap8888]

After comparing converters, may be you should do a "recording" test converter from Analog to digital and see if there is a different.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Maybe down the road, will see

[@darkeldarblade916]

It reminds more and more we all need to focus on the mix sound and not based off of what equipment/plugins we have. I am starting to think that all new equipment within the last few years are mostly the same and sometime we buy equipment just to say we have "API, SSL, Manley, UAD, or what ever". This has been an issue with my mixes with a computer. I wish I had room for an old school analog console and tape machine. This forces you to listen and not over analyze the mix visually.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Very good points

[@DemetriceGant]

I'm just gonna say, this was really fun to watcg

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Hey, Thanks!!

[@Mrdalejo2]

I currently have Apollo x8, Apollo X, Satellite 3 OCTO, more than 60 UAD plugins and honestly I sometimes think if I should go to another system. Work with Luna and ProTools. I have no complaints but I always like to think in how to have better sound going in and out in my studio. I mix the way in via my Midas M32R.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

The system you have is not the reason your not 100% happy with the sound coming out of your studio. That setup is great and is not what you should be looking at.

[@zonarecordingstudio]

Had the apollo x16 for about a week,sent it back.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Got it!

[@robertkerr8601]

Saw the video with results, not surprised, Pre Sonus make great stuff. I heard no difference. The price difference leans more to features and build quality, but even at that - Pre Sonus bulid is just fine, it's above satisfactory, and sure the appolos are likely built more sturdy than sturdy, and really, all you need is sturdy. For an upgrade, however, and this is just myself, I love Antelope, they are great for routing features and I/O features. They have a 32 i/o and a 64 i/o Galaxy system. They are amazing. In the UK the 32 i/o is about 4k and the 64 i/o is over 7k. That being said, with Antelope gear you are getting not just the analogue i/o you get Madi, Dante, and Pro Tools, all of which you can use at the same time, these systems are HUGE. And more than that, they have awesome plugins on the interfaces and 32 i/o has 4 stereo mix outputs for performers monitors and the 64 i/o has 8 stereo mixes for cues etc. I would say for features, the Antelopes are great if you need the extra goodies. Built like tanks as well. However, I think Dave is making a great decision, if I/O is all you need, and going by the tests you did, then yeeesh! Pre Sonus is a no brainer. I have the Antelope Galaxy 64, it's 7k, but I use ALOT of its features, and therefore, I get the monies worth. If all I want IS I/O I wouldn't think tiwce about the Pre Sonus unit. On the Antelope I use the i/o for basic input and output and also for various patching, and I use the Dante outputs for musician monitoring (virtually latency free!). It's awesome! But I have used Pre Sonus in the past, the live mix desks mainly, and my DAW of choice issssssssss STUDIO ONE! I just love it! So Dave, we are Studio One buddies!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks Robert. Yes, I originally looked at the Antelope units but like you said, I dont need all the extra features and for $7,000 just for the I/O conversion, it's too much money unless there is really some large audible sound difference and maybe there is but I don't have one to test and I am not going to buy one....LOL.

[@audiomez]

Actually your in "your own head" characterization you offered is more valid than you might think. Cortical post analysis which follows brain stem "binaural fusion" detects phase subcharacteristics that contribute such capabilities as auditory localization, directionality, distance of transient sound sources (all which are aural trait capabilities) and were vital to our ancestors predating even the origins of spoken language. We have innate abilities based upon temporal audition with mostly subconsciously precise calculations based upon phase. One tragic example thats followed us into moderns times can be found in the number of children (w/unilateral hearing losses) hit by cars when crossing the streets. So you see. So much of what you touched upon..hearing via sight etc. Soooo there WAS a difference to me from listening the first time. The first sample appeared weighted in the low mids. The presence in track 1 appeared less defined. More of a Jumble. Opinion. Nice work.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Ok, thanks for your thoughts

[@zonarecordingstudio]

It was a decent convertor,paid 3500.00 ,i noticed now they are including more plug-ins thus the price increase.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I did not know that

[@apoclypse]

It doesn’t cost UAD anything to include some plugins but they certainty want to charge more for the privilege. UAD is overpriced imo and this shoes that converter quality isn’t any better than a mid tier interface like the Quantum. The Quantum has latency so low that you can track with your own plugins.

[@DMarlow83]

Still sticking to my initial thoughts from previous comments. Interestingly, he also found the Quantum and UAD to null down to roughly -60dB as well, much like my testing with the Dangerous AD+. Nulls however can only tell us so much without a neutral source A/B can only tell you how they differ from one another, not from the "original." Just my 2 cents; high end conversion is far more important when doing hybrid mixing due to how many times material is running in and out of AD/DA (their character is additive after all!). For your average studio who is printing in and mixing ITB, money is probably better spent on room acoustics and monitoring improvements. At some point it does become a chicken or the egg argument... Should you spend $3000 on monitors with a $500 interface? Personally I'd say it's not ideal, but neither is a $3000 set of converters with $500 monitors. Driver and hardware reliability are massive factors as well for any working professional. Let's see if my initial answer from the first video is correct.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@albertorolon137]

Great point

[@royallmuzikproductionz]

Nice channel man. Do you guys know where I can get a 32channel analog mixer with meter bridge and vu 8bus? I’m looking everywhere. If there’s an American site to get great gear please reply. Cheers

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Sweetwater.com imp.i114863.net/c/2224454/792013/11319

[@jamesdixon3186]

Hello David, I really enjoyed your review and appreiciate all the hard work your doing. I am currently setting up my studio. Consisting of a sound proof live room and a seperate control room. Admittedly I will have to listen to both samples with a set of headphones. I could see the recorded signals themselves appeared tighter on the purple signal than the green sample. As of this post 5/17/2022 after checking with Swetwater it seems that the presonus 4848 has been discontinued for some unknown reason maybe due to availability of components I am not sure. If your simply looking for a converter this is a no brainer due to the price and the channel count. But you will have to either locate remaining stock or purchase what you need on the used market. Now that being said the Apollo's do need an updated DSP as many have mentioned with the advent of the Apple M1 technology coming out. 🤔 Now I am sure you have some $ invested into the plugins from Universal Audio. It may be a good idea to get an x8p which will allow you to utilize any your purchased favorite plugins. As you mention the Apollo is more than just a converter. I have the apollo x8p and will be expanding it using an 8 channel preamp via ADAT optical port on the Apollo giving me a 16 channel solution that will work fir now with what I will be doing in my studio. Now for the Apollo DSPs. I am sure Universal Audio is working on a new design as everyone does. But correct me if I am wrong but it was my understanding that the factory that manufactures the DSPs for the Apollo burned down not too long ago. This is why Apollo had to raise their prices for their products. This will be intersting to watch and see what they come out with next. Also an important feature of the Apollo is the suround sound capabilit. I hope we will see Dolby Atmos capability in the future. Oh my! I will need more speakers...Lol take care everyone. -Jimmy James

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks James for you well thought out comment. I agree with most of what you said. The recorded signals are absolutely identical, meaning that is was the same audio ran through the console 2 separate times about 20 minutes apart, so any slight difference you may see in the wave form is a result of the SSL itself running the audio through twice. I think Dave mentioned this in the video. Running audio thorough analog gear twice in a row can and will cause some slight changes, thats what analog does to audio. So again, as we said in this series several times, These two particular units are so incredibly close in sound that for my particular use case, paying 5 times the amount of money simply did not make sense.

[@Flaviormorassi]

I have 4848 for a while and I prefer it 10000 times than any other universal interface. You can invest in some extra gear with this money. Also, I can hear no difference between the tracks.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I agree with you!

[@WeFullTime]

Keep in mind Guys. UAD and Presonus do not make the convertors in their interfaces. They choose from a list of available convertors from the manufacture of choice. I.e. "AKM" , Texas Instrument, Analog devices etc...Its like when people build custom PC's but instead its for an audio interface. the same company probably makes the convertors in both units. Now if we start to add transformers between the signal path, things change. Now a Burl Audio B2 Bomber ADC 2-channel AD Converter vs the X16 or 4848 is a Test I would like to hear. I jumped off the convertor train years ago.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Good points. Thanks for sharing!

[@darkestpointofficial]

I want to invest into some outboard gear would it be better to get a converter instead or a patch bay?

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

It totally depends on your overall goals and what you currently have in your setup

[@simonfma7273]

It might be interesting to do the same test but ITB. That would take out the anomalies of the analog console and may give a different result. Time permitting of course ... Thanks for your great videos!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Let someone else do that video....LOL

[@simonfma7273]

@@MixingMusicAnalog lol ...

[@cscovill7369]

I couldn't find the results for which is which. can someone please tell me? I watched all the video after and still couldn't get an announcement with the results. I'm fairly surprised no one is making a comment about what they hear. Mix 1 sounded more brittle to me and lacked a stereo image compared to Mix 2. Significant difference.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

You clearly did not watch this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/fKGomoGbZ8Shfdk

[@avnisalihu9470]

good morning I saw your video on presonus I liked it so I bought, but I can't connect with my mac retina 2020 with thunderbolt 3, which I adapted with the thunderbolt of the presonus 4848 I tried several thunderbolt cables but it works couldn't you help me? what thunderbolt cable did you use

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

you need a thunderbolt 2 to thunderbolt 3 adapter

[@velonaut303]

fantastic job

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thank you very much!

[@rudyyong4600]

4848 This product should continue to be updated to the Thunderbolt 3 interface. It is a hot product in the case of the global popularity of ATMOS!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Maybe coming soon!

[@JeanmarkRodriguez]

This is great! Thank you so much for this video! My mind and soul are at piece knowing that my PreSonus Quantum competes with the big boys. Please if possible send one of your Quantum units for modifications with Black Lion Audio! Would love to see how that turns out!!!! Might end up moding mine of there is a noticeable difference. Again thank you so much for these videos!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I am going to contact Black Lion Audio and see if we can work something out. Maybe if enough of our supports forward them this series of videos, they maybe be inclines to want to work with us.

[@ajschot]

To be honost, the only way to test this is, output -> input so dsub25 cable from output to the input do this on both and then compare. So nothing in between it.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Then you go do that test and let us know when the video is ready for all of us to go watch :)

[@MartinVanDerSande]

I think you might have been unfriended at UAD! Haha but seriously, fabulous honest test with interesting results.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

LOL....UAD doesn't even know I exist! I have tried many times over the years to work with them in some capacity and they won't give me the time of day! That really doesn't matter because I still love their plugins and products and still support them. This video series certainly was not to "bash" U/A in any way. It was just a learning experience and in my particular case, is going to save me a bunch of money that I can re-invest into my mixing rig!

[@pyratellamarecordingstudio1062]

At this level converters don’t make a big difference, if any. Once you get into lynx, prism, and especially burl it makes a difference. Uad is the most overrated converters ever, and this test again proves what I’ve been saying. Good test and analysis.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@pdmcrew80]

"Once you get into lynx, prism, and especially burl it makes a difference" - Why?

[@agesonjohanesburg2915]

I’m mixing in the box and need the best converter but do I really need it? I want to buy a lynx aurora nn32 but other people are telling me just to get a stage box or a quantum presonus 4848. I record live mostly and put a microphone on everything. I have high end pre-amps. Bae neve ua etc.

[@austinmoore8350]

As far as I know the UA has A built in Processor which take a lot of stress off your computer and DAW, My protools has been shutting down a lot lately because of the use of so many tracks and plugins, I was looking into purchasing the Presonus 26x26, but after finding out that you have to use a external UAD Processor in order to run UAD plugins I started leaning more towards the UAD, I attend school online and UAD plugins was highly recommended to have if affordable, after the cost of the Presonus, and the Satellite processor from UAD, and possible Plugin purchases which comes free with the purchase of the UAD Apollo 6x Heritage, there was really no price difference, in fact there would be more space saved by just purchasing the UAD Apollo 6x by itself with the free plugins and the built in processor that uses itself and not your computer, if you don't want the AUD plugins then the Presonus Interface would work fine for you!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

God points! Thanks for watching!

[@LosFicosMusic]

You can just get a octo satterlite just to run the UADS…

[@itistotallykyle]

This really confirmed my suspicion.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Great!

[@scottspaulding7965]

What are the specs.? 4848 DAC 120 db x16 133db I belive. What does this mean in the teal world. There is a difreance but a 3k difreance? I want to go to 32 sum set up but another x16 is not in the budget. Will try the 4848 and see for I can return it

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Good deal!!

[@zonarecordingstudio]

To bad they discontinued it,great value.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

They are not discontinuing the 4848. They are actually coming out with a new version soon

[@zonarecordingstudio]

@@MixingMusicAnalog What are they Changing?

[@zonarecordingstudio]

Iam looking into a Avid Mtrx to use with my extisting radar convertors via dante

[@anthemmakersmusic]

So the difference is thunderbolt 2 vs 3 on your null test?

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I would not say that

[@JulianFernandez]

So which one is which? I commented on the first vid.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

coming soon

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

I kind of feel that the outcome of my analysis renders the question moot...identifying which track was run through which converter (which, BTW, I am still blissfully ignorant of) isn't going to change the fact that they are identical and have no appreciable effect on the audio passing through them...

[@JulianFernandez]

@@DavidSJ_DAP So how can I prefer one over the other? Many people did too. I use my ears, and one of them sounds "better" (yes, I know) than the other. I couldnt care less about pricing. I hope I like the cheaper the best... I wasnt the case in some other test like this one I did in the past. cheers.

[@marcpinion]

Fantastic

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks

[@QUAKEPOWERZ]

🎶🎚️✨Mix 2 for the win✨🎚️🎶 👂

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching

[@christianphoenix174]

Great 👍 video thanks

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

No problem 👍

[@MakingURT]

Track B was noticeably cleaner and more punchy. My guess is track B is UA.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Ok, great!

[@Shoji86]

So sad they discontinued the 4848 hopefully they come out with something equally as good!

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

They might. At least I have been told that :)

[@frankiewood]

I wonder why it was discontinued.

[@SoundStudio412]

So why not just "print" a stereo mix through the converters bypassing the SSL? Would that not give you the appropriate two files for a null test? Then we'd hear just the difference in the converters, no?

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I am not re-wiring my studio to bypass the console. I like you guys but not that much....LOL.

[@SoundStudio412]

@@MixingMusicAnalog You can't route a stereo pair out of your interface, to the patch bay, then back into the interface?

[@SoundStudio412]

@@MixingMusicAnalog I figured it'd be 2 patch cables and 2 prints. I didn't realize consoles would vary that much print to print like David alluded to. If that's really the case, and ya'll are really trying to just compare the conversion - it would make sense to me to bypass the SSL?

[@twolightcrew]

@@MixingMusicAnalog you don’t have them on a patch bay? Even taking the stereo mix out of the daw and straight back in would be valuable. The premise here was the difference was due to analog components (which I highly question). To my ears there was a definite clarity difference between the two and I could pick out when the mixes changed (my wife was watching and I motioned when it changed with my eyes closed). In my experience behind large format consoles (mostly 9000j, api legacy, and 4000g+), they didn’t drift that much sonically unless there were maintenance issues. How were the systems clocked? If you want to really present the test, remove the variables (console, clock, etc) so that you are only testing converters with no excuses.

[@MichaelDaviesMusic]

You did well grass hopper...

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@ultrasoundconcept]

Amazing. ...

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@finchisfunny]

Bravo.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@enginkaplan2317]

I think the bass guitarist performed the best. If anything I would have pushed the percussions to move the song a little more during the initial recording... (a bit more attitude) otherwise really great! Oh wait!!...

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

it was not a full "mix" just raw audio, as I said at least 3 time sin the video....LOL

[@enginkaplan2317]

@@MixingMusicAnalog Ohh that's obvious!! and I remember you mentioning it int he beginning. I was strictly referring to production & arrangement. (well that supposed to be the emphasis I tried to show as a joke but not really..) anyways .thank you!

[@wearashirt]

12:43 I just have to caveat on that. The plugin merely tries to translate the audio visually, but cannot be justified to represent aural perception. It's just like the iRobot movie - we can't rely on tech to adjudicate on behalf of human sense. Only a controlled trial with multiple prequalified subjects can give this a fair conclusion - if we're trying to go there anyway. THAT SAID, I still cannot justify the price difference of UA with regards to sound quality.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching

[@PurpleMusicProductions]

The purple one sounded better more crisp high-end, air and focused low end vs the green sounded flatter and more dull. On my ears I hated each time you switched to the green version. I'm glad you did this test because I was curious as well. From my experience presonus has crappy quality and as have purchased two of their interfaces over the years and I would never do that again. My only experience with UAD is that I have one of their analog pre amps and have been extremely happy. I personally would not buy anything presonus because of quality however your mileage may vary so take it for what it's worth. Keep up the great work I love this channel.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@snippletrap]

To settle the question you should make several passes of each converter and measure how much variance there is within a single device. Also include the ITB bounce as a reference. Measure differences with FFT. This means analyzing the files with custom code and getting precise numbers instead of using plugins.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

You can do that video and we will all come watch...:)

[@wily_rites]

I call BS, ears are way more subtle than eyes, you can not see flicker at 1/25 of a second, where you can hear a 7 ms phase shift between two sources, that's 7/1000 of a second. The difference between the tracks are in the 2000 htz upwards, the directional stuff, you can see this as a slight difference between the tracks whenever something bright is sounding. This is demonstrated by the phase flip with the null test, we can see a large difference in the very hight end of the spectrum, the high end is where all the positional audio is found, the 'air'. The treble carries far less energy than the bass and the shelf at the right of the spectrum, seen in the null test, is proportionally massive. Look at the hight end bouncing away in the null test, compared to the slope off of the high end in either one of the earlier graphs seen.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

In the end....forget what you can or cant see. What can you actually hear? That's all that matter to me and U have never once had a client tell me they did not like the sound of my converters...LOL

[@wily_rites]

Oh I'm sure, at this point I really ought to add that folk tend not to like the clarity in audio that I hanker for, the Apollo, to my ears, sounds as though it has something similar to a very light tape emulation, tightening up or compressing the very top end. To my ears and mind, the presonus is very slightly clearer, the snare and or its reverb (room) and other high frequency sounds seems to me to have a tiny bit more definition, perhaps dynamic, in the presonus mix, the Apollo seems to rein this in very slightly. As mentioned, not at all dissimilar to tape compression.@@MixingMusicAnalog

[@marcduchesne906]

Nothing will replace analog.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Well, I would not go that far but I hear your point

[@JimboJones99]

You're really purchasing the UA to use their plugins and delve into their ecosystem. Converter side of things are much of a muchness

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Correct, and I said that in the first video at least twice....LOL

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

Obviously...but at the same time the rapid advancement in computer processing power is making the need for outboard DSP processing unnecessary, and plugin development has equaled and in some cases surpassed theirs, and that is something that UA is going to have to face in the very near future...time will tell if they are able to adjust to the new reality confronting them...

[@twitchbook-1]

I think the it's the range of bandwidth of the converter is design to work for that perticular instance, for the vast majority of high end converter use for that type of applications (ak4413,ak4493,ak5574,ak5576,ak5572)consist in a nominal level of 400khz with linearity between 40khz and 100khz for avoid the frequency noice than was introduce for the actual hardware

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@michaelrice6620]

So then there is a slight difference in sound between the 2…

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

if that's what you got out of the video then /I guess there is but I cant hear it

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

There is a VERY slight difference between the tracks that cannot be attributed to the converters...the variations between the 2 tracks is most like attributable to the variable tolerances of the analog console...

[@michaelrice6620]

@@DavidSJ_DAP yeah i know but when people like myself said there was a slight difference in sound between the 2 we were right. Because even though the guy in this video tried to show that they were the same it clearly showed that they were slightly different, not to say 1 is better than the other but there is a slight difference in sound even just looking at the files you can tell there is a very slight difference in how they look, when he analyzed both there was a very slight difference in what looked like harmonic differences or even slight differences between the preamp. Then when he did the null teat even though he says it doesnt really determine anything it does because when you flip the phase some of the content disappears showing that those are exactly the same and then there some content that doesnt and thats the difference between the 2. I mean is it worth the price difference i dont think so and i do really like the test it was a eye opener for sure but there is a slight difference in sound for sure.

[@gordongurley3982]

The null test confirms what I heard I the first video: there are differences in the low end. And I’ll say it again, neither is better than the other, just different. Stereo image seems different to me as well. Not sure you looked at that closely enough.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

yep at -60DB.....not sure who can actually hear that but if you can, thats great

[@DavidSJ_DAP]

The null test proved exactly the opposite...the low end of both mixes is virtually identical...the fact that the only thing you hear in the null is upper mids and highs shows that THOSE are the areas that are dissimilar...

[@CreateArtRecords]

First thx for your Work.. But why you insert the Console when you wanna compare 2 Gears? This test makes no sense to me. Sorry. But thx anyway.:)

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

oh, well. It makes sense to most others. Thanks for watching!

[@gregkonji]

I actually think the null test shows a difference. It's not just -60db at a single frequency but about -60db across the entire audio spectrum. Our ears are hearing the entire area under that curve and not just one point. Try adding -60db of white noise to your mix and listen to it. It won't be night and day different, but it will be different. Try adding a 5% more reverb to your mix and use this same testing methodology. Would such testing methods detect such a small change in reverb visually on an fft which most people could hear? Another potential issue I see is using a one second averaged FFT. Most of the differences between these mixes are probably happening in the transients or very short duration events. So let's say as a thought experiment if one converter were to have a slightly slower slew rate than the other. Say we have a repeated fast attack bass note played once a second, the one converter slews up slightly slower than the other in the initial rise of the bass note. This sharp attack is only a small fraction of the entire bass note so the slower converter is only off during this rise time. The decay of the bass is quite a bit slower so both converters match exactly during the sustain of the bass note. The averaged FFT over one second would look nearly the same between the two since the sustain drowns out the initial attack portion when averaged over the entire second. If you could instead zoom in and run the fft on just the sharp rise time of the bass note, you'd see quite a difference between the two converters in this thought experiment.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

I dont disagree with your thinking and you make some good points. However, once again, after everything you just said, is that worth and extra $7K in cost for the same amount of I/O? that's what this series was really all about. Yes, if you want to get into the weeds on each spec and conclude that the Apollo is a better unit with better components, maybe you are right but lets be honest, for the HUGE cost difference that Apollo should be better made, sound better in every way and its just not

[@gregkonji]

@@MixingMusicAnalog For sure. Definitely not worth the difference in cost. I actually picked the Quantum 4848 in the blind test. The fact that there are mixed opinions is promising. One would think a $7k difference would win 90% of the time but it's not. I'd rather take that $7k and put it into a high end mic.

[@anthemmakersmusic]

The slower one is the thunderbolt 2.

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Ok, thanks

[@jmizzbeatsj-jigga7888]

Alot of higher-end going to have to lower there price the truth coming out

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Thanks for watching!

[@jmizzbeatsj-jigga7888]

@@MixingMusicAnalog ya welcome

[@entoine87]

how about a test where you do in fact do a real mix? in this test as in the previous, the tracks are played and mixed as is with just volume.. as I commented in the previous video (the one you reacted) ,when you mix you really are zooming in the sound the differences will maybe really be obvious at the end… this type of test where you in fact do almost nothing seems almost pointless, it is as playing two video files with no color grading and saying « the h264 is as good as the prores… they look the same… and they almost null.. »

[@MixingMusicAnalog]

Let someone else do that test. If you feel it was pointless then that's fine. Maybe there is another YT channel doing it

[@entoine87]

@@MixingMusicAnalog exact same response as on the original video… Yes I find it a little pointless to compare converters you use for mixing not in context.. not going deep in the sound.. and with a pretty busy track in top of that… for me that’s not the type of situation where you will ear subtleties… If you want to keep it simple, a more revealing test for me would be sending very low signal.. then recording it with the two converters, then boosting it digitally .. there would probably more be a clear winner. It’s like what we observe with lots of things in sound… Some things sounds similar until you begin to add processing (eq etc…) to it, then one fall apart and the other one you can achieve good results. I used the jpeg vs raw metaphore.. if you compare uncompressed and jpeg export after grading a photo, they will probably look the same, but if you compare the result of grading a RAW and grading a jpeg picture.. this would be night and day… Here the sounds going out of the converters are the picture material.. don’t grade it and it will probably look the same, grade it and you will more see what it has in the guts.. and what you are missing in one or the other..