Apogee mobile interface

[Jeff Wexler]

This is probably the ultimate digital interface (I don't know what it costs) and now that it is DC power it is something we could actually use.

At the 123rd AES Convention in New York City, Apogee Electronics Corporation unveiled Ensemble Mobile ($TBA), a battery operated version of the multichannel digital audio interface designed specifically for use with Apple Mac computers. Ensemble is the only multichannel audio interface with control functions built directly into Apple’s Logic Pro, Soundtrack Pro and GarageBand software. It is also compatible with any Mac OS X Core Audio software application.

Ensemble Mobile features 36 channels of simultaneous audio, including eight channels of Apogee’s 24-bit/192kHz AD/DA conversion; four digitally controlled 75dB mic preamps; two fully balanced inserts on mic pre channels; four hi-Z instrument inputs; eight channels of ADAT I/O; two channels of S/PDIF coaxial and optical I/O; and FireWire 400 connectivity to and from the computer. Ensemble Mobile also includes exclusive Apogee features such as SoftLimit, UV22HR dithering from 24 bits to 16 bits, and dual-stage Intelliclock.

The unit also has two individual, controllable and assignable high-level headphone outputs. Power to Ensemble Mobile is provided by an industry-standard XLR-4 connector that offers the option of plugging in using the included external AC-to-DC power adaptor with a standard IEC input. Ensemble Mobile works with any 11- to 16-volt DC power source. The power requirement is 20W maximum or 1.7 amps at 12V, promising an average of four hours of run-time from a 7AH battery.

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/ensemble.php

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Sergio Sanmiguel]

$1949.00

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/search.php?s=Ensemble

A bit pricey but way better preamps than the MOTU traveler. Just what I've been waiting for!

[Noah Timan]

This is probably the ultimate digital interface (I don't know what it costs) and now that it is DC power it is something we could actually use.

I've been using the Rosetta 800 for a couple of years now on my cart (Forrest did a DC mod for it and I believe it was fairly painless -- just a regular switching power supply) and I have been very, very happy with it.  This new box looks even better as it has a lot more bells and whistles, preamps, extra I/O opportunities etc, and can be used outside a rack. 

nvt

[Guest klingklang]

Hm. I see only 4 analogue line-ins on the picture or the rear pannel. No AES ins, only 1 SPDIF i/o one adat I/o.

that makes. 4 mic-ins (only controllable with the software), 4 line-ins (plus the 4 inserts of the mic-ins maybe).

not sure if this is usable on set. especially the mic-ins when you have to open a program to set the gain...

The motu has almost the idetical rear panel with the same amount of inputs both digital and analogue but with an extra AES i/o. And you can actually trim your gains from the front panel.

And it´s bus-powered. The Apogee needs aditional power.

I also don´t get where the 36 inputs come from. You have 8 analogue ins (4 of those can be mic ins), 8 adat, 2 spdif. That makes 10 if I´m correct.

[Sergio Sanmiguel]

I also don´t get where the 36 inputs come from. You have 8 analogue ins (4 of those can be mic ins), 8 adat, 2 spdif. That makes 10 if I´m correct.

You are probably right but they never mention 36 inputs, they say 36 channels, that is 18 in & 18 out...

not sure if this is usable on set. especially the mic-ins when you have to open a program to set the gain...

The motu has almost the identical rear panel with the same amount of inputs both digital and analogue but with an extra AES i/o. And you can actually trim your gains from the front panel.

And it´s bus-powered. The Apogee needs additional power.

I dont know about you but I prefer to use a dedicated mixer as a front end rather to attempt "mixing" on the front panel of the MOTU Traveler & also you probably want to have a central DC power source for all your gear in your sound cart, that means you only meed to run a power cable to your MOTU/Ensamble... you know, I wouldn't trust power requirements of the interface on my Laptop's battery

Hm. I see only 4 analogue line-ins on the picture or the rear panel. No AES ins, only 1 SPDIF i/o one adat I/o.

Not having AES i/o is probably not that bad for me considering that my digital mixer is only 8 bus ADAT lightpipe, but if your digital mixer does have an AES i/o then just stick to your MOTU, I guess.

[Guest klingklang]

I dont know about you but I prefer to use a dedicated mixer as a front end rather to attempt "mixing" on the front panel of the MOTU Travelery

I mentioned this because you said "much better pre-amps. Just what I´ve waited for" a few posting earlier.

I was assuming you were going to use the mic-pres when you say something like this. That´s why I wrote that it might be nopt that great because they are controlled my the computer.

Then you responded that this point is not an issue because you are not going to use the mix-pres anyway.

So this leaves me a bit puzzled.

So I was wondering when someone wants to use the mic-pres on the Apogee on location how he´s going to level them in a practical way compared to the traveler. that´s all.

never mind.

The original poster used terms like "probably the ultimate digital interface" before posting an unmarked quote from the product-flyer that also mentioned "36 channels of audio".

I just thought I´d add some practical thoughts to the product flyer.

[Sergio Sanmiguel]

Assumptions won't take you a long ways...  I Still think an Apogee Interface sounds way better than a MOTU

[Guest klingklang]

Assumptions won't take you a long ways...   I Still think an Apogee Interface sounds way better than a MOTU

I agree. I didn´t know you were talking about the converters when you said "pre-amps".

[Sergio Sanmiguel]

The original poster used terms like "probably the ultimate digital interface" before posting an unmarked quote from the product-flyer that also mentioned "36 channels of audio".

I just thought I´d add some practical thoughts to the product flyer.

Yep,  the Apogee website states "36 channels of simultaneous audio"  is definitely misleading

So this leaves me a bit puzzled.

So I was wondering when someone wants to use the mic-pres on the Apogee on location how he´s going to level them in a practical way compared to the traveler. that´s all.

You do the same as when you feed a 4 track HD Camera, calibrate the inputs with a reference tone.

[Guest klingklang]

You do the same as when you feed a 4 track HD Camera, calibrate the inputs with a reference tone.

I´m totally aware of that.

What I meant was that the traveler has on the plus side of things that a user that wants to use the mic-ins can actually adjust them spontaneously by turning a knob unlike the Apogee where you need to start an application on your computer.

This I wrote in reply to your initial statement that the mic-pres on the Apogee are far better than the ones on the Traveler and that you have been waiting for better pre-amps on such a device wich turned out later in this conversation wasn´t even a relevant feature for you.

Anyway, before it becomes totally confusing. Lets just settle on the following:

-The Apogee is more expensive than the Traveler.

-We assume it might have better mic-pres.

but no one has compared the two units yet.

-Those of us who do want to use the mic-ins might find the Traveler more satisfying because it´s more difficult to adjust the gain on the Apogee.

-On the input-side the Traveler has more options since it offers as many inputs as the Apogee plus an additional AES I/O wich the Apogee does not have.

-The Apogee can be powered by 12V DC, the Traveler can be bus-powered.

Wich IMHO leaves this in essence:

The Apogee might sound better (assumption), is way more expensive but has as many inputs as a Traveler, dare I say less. But it can be powered by 12V DC.

[Philip Perkins]

I'd be interested in a blind comparison of just the ADACs Traveler vs this new Apogee, since I mostly use a mixer and line inputs to the interface.  Saying something like a micpre is "better" is only one step away from saying a mic is "better": that is a fairly subjective area.

Philip Perkins

[Sergio Sanmiguel]

If comparing specs of converters/pre-amps/word clock of a MOTU vs. an Apogee interface no matter what model you pick, would you be adventurous enough to assume that an Apogee is probably a tad better than a MOTU?

[Philip Perkins]

If comparing specs of converters/pre-amps/word clock of a MOTU vs. an Apogee interface no matter what model you pick, would you be adventurous enough to assume that an Apogee is probably a tad better than a MOTU?

I would not.  I like comparisons that eliminate observer bias, ignore published specs provided by the manufacturers themselves and take place under the sorts of conditions I might encounter in real life.  I'm sure the Apogee is very good, we'll have to see how it shakes out in the sorts of situations we encounter.  I look forward to anyone's live-fire-usage report on it.

Philip Perkins

[Sergio Sanmiguel]

You know what Philip ...I must agree!

:-P

[Noah Timan]

I look forward to anyone's live-fire-usage report on it.

I've been using the Rosetta 800 for a couple of years on set, as stated.  As to the questions about mic pres and such, I leave that to my mixer -- even if the new box allows for pres and some sort of "virtual mixing", I still prefer Penny and Giles and rotary eq, etc, so I don't see using the built-in pres even if the new box had enough of them to satisfy me (it doesn't).  I send line in analog from my mixer to the Apogee, which converts and spits AES out to my recorders from there.  Done and done.

The beauty of the Apogee is the exceptional converters and the very solid digital clock.  To my ear, the ADCs do sound "better" than the built-in ones in my 824 (though that'd be hard to effectively describe in words), and I've received numerous compliments from telecine on various shows I've worked on that the ultra-stable clock (which I also have influencing the TC clock on my recorders) creates more "dead on sync" (in the words of a recent telecine op) than I was ever able to achieve with built-in clocks on any of my various Fostex or Sound Devices recorders.

One drawback, at least with the Rosetta 800, is no option for 48.048.  I didn't look close enough at the Ensemble, but my guess is that it also does not support 48.048. 

nvt

[Philip Perkins]

Bummer about no 48.048. 

How would the better sync/clock of the Rosetta manifest itself to a telecine op?  Are you doing takes that are hours long?

Philip Perkins

[Noah Timan]

Bummer about no 48.048. 

How would the better sync/clock of the Rosetta manifest itself to a telecine op?  Are you doing takes that are hours long?

Yes, every take is between two and three hours long.  At the end of our 48 hour workday, we are pretty tuckered out, but the movie's going to be great (if you have a couple of years to kill to watch it).

<vbg>

No, of course not -- 400' of film still runs out after ten minutes.  I can't speak definitively on the telecine issue -- I can only note that I never once over the years received a compliment about sync accuracy when I used the internal clocks of my PD4 and 744T, so when I got two such separate compliments after using the Rosetta I guessed that its essential function as the master clock must be preventing some drift.  Of course, it could simply just be a coincidence.  Make of it what you will.

[davidm]

While it's great that Apogee have put a 4pin XLR on the Ensemble, apart from their excellent converters, there's not much else to make the box superior to anything else on the market.  Apogee claim that the Ensemble is "the first all digitally controlled, professional audio interface, designed specifically for the Macintosh".  I have a pair of Metric Halo 2882's and they are definitely Mac only and have been around for over 5 years. Also the MOTU Traveler has simultaneous AES and SPDIF in and out giving it 4 channels of digital I/O whereas most of the other interfaces are AES or SPDIF, or in the case of the Apogee, SPDIF only.

The interface that I'm considering for next year is the Sonic Studio 304, which is effectively a Metric Halo 2882 but is line level only and has 8 channels of AES I/O in place of the ADAT I/O. I want the the 8 channels of AES to connect to a second recorder. 

On the subject of 48.048, I use a recorder - currently a 744T or an Ambient Lockit to guarantee a highly accurate time-base to clock my interfaces. While it's quite possible that say the Rosetta 800 has an accurate clock by film and broadcast standards, most products aimed primarily at the music market will claim a stable clock in terms of low jitter and digital purity, rather than an accurate low drift time-base.

David Madigan

[Noah Timan]

apart from their excellent converters, there's not much else to make the box superior to anything else on the market.

Isn't the converters the raison d'etre of such a device?

  Also the MOTU Traveler has simultaneous AES and SPDIF in and out giving it 4 channels of digital I/O whereas most of the other interfaces are AES or SPDIF, or in the case of the Apogee, SPDIF only.

The Rosetta is 8 ch. AES I/O -- are you sure the Ensemble doesn't duplicate that feature?

The interface that I'm considering for next year is the Sonic Studio 304, which is effectively a Metric Halo 2882 but is line level only and has 8 channels of AES I/O in place of the ADAT I/O. I want the the 8 channels of AES to connect to a second recorder. 

This sounds, like, well, the Rosetta (although it has both AES and ADAT).

a stable clock in terms of low jitter and digital purity, rather than an accurate low drift time-base.

I would think one would be responsible for the other...

[guntis]

on the subject of 48048, i use the apogee Big Ben as my master clock, mainly because i'm starting to stack up the digital devices. This works like a dream and has the facility to slave the rosetta to 48048.