Apogee Ensamble

Hello I would like to know I bought an Ensamble Apogee and now have a big question concerning the direct monitoring, if I want to use like a traditional magnetophone I can´t so I need to listen always the microphone though the Maestro software… There are any solution for it? I can´t beliebe…

If direct monitoring is not supported then reduce the buffer size to reduce the lag in audio.

People of Steinberg, I am very confuse.
I am user of Nuendo, Cubase in PC with Motu and always I could set the direct monitoring withouth problems.
If I am recording a voice for example and I need to make a punch in like magnetophone style with PC I could.
Now I had the great Idea to change the machine for one Mac and I lost this wonderful characteristic, I am force to use the interface monitoring. To see… I changed at the same time for an Esamble Apogee interface and I thought that the problem was of Apogee but I discovered because I need to fix it buying another Motu again, I thought Ok if Apoge e is the problem I return to Motu because with it I could In PC make try this function but Boala… with MOTU is exactly the same I need to listen withouth latency but via the Cue mix of Motu. I can´t believe… Now I am force to buy an Yamaha interface to fix it? There are someone that can explain this problem? Thank you very much.

As Split indicates, you have adjust the I/O buffer setting in the Device Set Up panel.

Speaking from experience, Mac and the Ensemble are excellent choices!!! Wait until Apogee releases a Lion compatible version of Maestro before upgrading to OSX 10.7

Is not posible to adjust latency to less than 256 and it is like 10 seconds.
I don´t know any singer that like to sing with this latency
and there are not any musician that want this to record comfortable.

In PC direct monitoring could be connected via the software.
It was necessary any Maestro or Cue mix or nothing.
Only to record Midi.

I don´t understand Why is not full compatible in Mac is ridiculous… Reallly

Of Course In Performer with Motu
In Logic with Apogee…

They want not that the people try with Cubase or Nuendo?
It is not democratic…

Have you selected the correct driver for the Apogee in Cubase?

Of course the last version in Internet!!
The fact is that have not any CD when you buy the interface.
You need to download the driver in the webpage.

Thank you

I don’t think a Yamaha interface will make any difference.

Can you be specific about:
-the number of tracks that play back while recording?

  • the type of tracks playing back: audio with plug-ins, audio with bounced effects, or VSTi with processor plug-ins etc, or both?

Have you considered bouncing the mix to 2 track to minimize latency when recording critical vocal and instrument tracks?

I can tell you that in other respects, the Ensemble works very well with Cubase 6 and the quality of it converters is obviously better than what’s available in a MOTU interface, even one that has the Black Lion modification which I still use with 10.7.

Ok I have for example.
4 channels.
24 bits 441khz
Two guitars, one bass and the voice.
No plug ins only recording tracks.
So nothing…

The latency without Maestro no matter how much small is,
is not comfortable to record the voice for example over the playback.

To see the problem is not with Esamble.
Apogee is great and the sound is wonderful BUT

The driver and the function Direct monitoring don´t work
In PC with MOTU or RME work.

I recorded for years with PC more than 1 hundred channels with Motu.
I made punch in with a drum without any problem.

So with MAC it is not possible now… Simply and complex.

Nobody can talk about it
I wrote to support of Apogee, Steinberg and MOTU too.
Nobody answered for now…

I bought a MOTU too again and the problem is the same.

The problem is with the drivers for MAC…

4 Channels? No plug-ins? You should be able to reduce the I/O buffer to 128 or even 64. ???

How do you have Maestro set up? To Hardware? Or None?

I tried and the most small was 256 without clikcs.

I got more small in MOTU with 128 without clicks but with Ensamble… No!

I made the connection via Maestro like the manual told me. Is very easy to understand.
But I want not use this way is very uncomfortable and always I need to listen at the same time the recorde vocie and the new over it or select another channel to manage the monitoring of the recorded voice and mute the new meanwhile until the punch in.
Really it is not nice…

I prefer the normal connection like a magnetophone that in PC was possible.


You didn’t mention what model of Mac, version of OSX, amount of RAM etc you’re using.

On my 2007 Mac Pro with 5 GB RAM and a 32 track Cubase project with some corrective eq and compression on most tracks, I can set the Ensemble buffer to 128 in the Devices Panel, and with Maestro’s “To Hardware” set to my main outputs, I don’t have any audio crackles and no detectable delay when recording one part at a time as track count increases.

An I/O buffer of 128 seems to be a sweet spot that is unnoticeable to most people. I would encourage you to continue to use Maestro’s low latency mix option as you’ll most likely adapt to it. Obviously, most folks use who computer based music production systems have adapted. No matter what platform (Mac or PC) or what DAW you use, there will be a need for work arounds.

Best of luck with your music productions,


My new… Mac pro 2.8 ghz 8 g Ram 1 T Hard disk
So the discussion is not concerning the buffer to listen the latency no!
The discussion is why don´t work the direct monitoring because it is not sweet is perfect zero latency.
Why I need to listen in asweet way and no in the direct way
and Why I could listen perfectly in PC Tell me?

The mac is small … no
The interface is not so great…no
Cubase is can´t make it… in PC yes

On mac we have discrimanation? What means?

I don´t understand

Sure in some projects the latency with 128 or 256 or depending of the player and bla bla bla
but why some function don´t work?

The answer that all the makers should tell is NOT FULL COMPATIBLE is so simple no?

Really I am angry.

I have a lot of years of experience and in digital recording.
13 years… is not so few no?

So I knew many brands and I made my own customs PCS and I am electronic Engineer, I know perfectly each process. Sorry but I think that the brands are not so clear to tell what work and what no.
I ask… please in this moment… don´t tell lies only the truth! Is so simple no?

No is not simple.

It looks like direct monitoring is not supported… No

That the sound cards driver at fault… No

Either use low latency ITB monitoring or sell the thing… No

I received this mail today…

Dear Mr. Gato,
Wether Direct Monitoring functionality is available or not is dependent on the audio interface and the driver or it’s software components.

Best regards,
Steinberg Support

I am so disappointed… every brand tell the same
All the problems are out… nobody have a solution.

What happend? The guys of PC talk by phone and The guys of Mac no?
The same brands except apogge of course…

It should be writtten in the manual no?

Come on!!!

Now the solution … I should sell all again…and bye PC… Why???


Hello P,

On the Mac under OSX there is no universal function that is normally called “Direct Monitoring”. Your other thread about Direct Monitoring said essentially the same thing. Direct Monitoring is an ASIO function and ASIO is not implemented in OSX. The roots are supposedly in the OS but Apple has not given the handles to use it.

RME a number of years ago published a short statement about Direct Monitoring under CoreAudio, essentially stating that while it’s possible to implement a version of Direct Monitoring DAW makers won’t do it and interface makers won’t do it, each one concerned about developing an item which another could avoid or Apple could break. As an example Motu, using DP and their own interfaces, implement a version similar to Direct Monitoring, but it’s only with their own software and hardware.

So to sum up - Direct Monitoring under CoreAudio does not exist. If you MUST have Direct Monitoring use a PC.

One more thing - if your project is simple and you have a powerful Mac you should be able to get your buffer size down quite low. If not there’s another issue.


Hugh thank for your answer
Simply I can´t accept.

Nobody can do something different.
Nobody ask this claim.
Is is a real S…t
I will continue asking and someone need to talk and change and
I think that Steinberg, Apogee, Motu and all the brands shoud talk in each manual that are not full compatible.
Perhaps I can make a specific page on facebook to tell all this.

I will do


It’s Apple you should be talking to.