Behringer UCA202

[mcp6453[_2_]]

Behringer makes a contraption for $30 that provides a USB sound card perfect for
use with a notebook computer, particularly since it has RCA jacks instead of
1/8" stereo jacks. Does anyone know if the noise performance of this unit is any
better than the motherboard audio cards built into typical notebooks? For a
particular application I'm working on, noise is more important than fidelity
(assuming reasonable fidelity.)

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

mcp6453 wrote:

> Behringer makes a contraption for $30 that provides a USB sound card
> perfect for use with a notebook computer, particularly since it has
> RCA jacks instead of 1/8" stereo jacks. Does anyone know if the noise
> performance of this unit is any better than the motherboard audio
> cards built into typical notebooks? For a particular application I'm
> working on, noise is more important than fidelity (assuming
> reasonable fidelity.)

ask the question you want to ask, is this about recording on the notebook or
playback from it?

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message


> Behringer makes a contraption for $30 that provides a USB
> sound card perfect for use with a notebook computer,
> particularly since it has RCA jacks instead of 1/8"
> stereo jacks.

I own one, and have used it for gigs. It's my 2nd string backup. First
string backup is a Microtrack. Primary for this kind of gig is a regular
CD-Recorder/mic preamp setup.

> Does anyone know if the noise performance
> of this unit is any better than the motherboard audio
> cards built into typical notebooks?

Depends which laptop, and which noise.

My laptop lacks proper line level inputs. The only audio input is for a mono
electret mic.

> For a particular application I'm working on, noise is more important than
> fidelity (assuming reasonable fidelity.)

There are a lot of problems with laptops and ground loops. If the noise goes
away when you go on battery power, the UCA 202 or something like it probably
won't help.

More details, please?

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/27/2010 10:47 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
> Behringer makes a contraption for $30 that provides a USB sound card perfect for
> use with a notebook computer, particularly since it has RCA jacks instead of
> 1/8" stereo jacks.

Is that such a big deal? In a contest to see which is
worst, the 1/8" stereo jack would probably get my vote, but
RCAs aren't so great either. It's a definite -10 dBV device.
There's no input level control so you need to keep the level
going into pretty wimply if you're used to using modern
mixers or mic preamps.

> Does anyone know if the noise performance of this unit is any
> better than the motherboard audio cards built into typical notebooks?

What noise performance and what's a typical notebook? I
have one and mostly use it with my "bench" laptop for
running the RightMark analyzer program when I want to make
measurements that my hardware test equipment doesn't make
very well. I trust it for that. I've also used it for
recording and it works fine.

> For a
> particular application I'm working on, noise is more important than fidelity

What's your application? Should you even be considering
something like this at all? Is this a $1,000 application
that you're trying to save $970 on?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 11/28/2010 7:42 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
>
>
> My laptop lacks proper line level inputs. The only audio input is for a mono
> electret mic.

This particular laptop also lacks proper line level inputs. We're feeding the
input with mix-minus from a Behringer mixer. Even with mic boost turned off,
it's really easy to overdrive the input. My Griffin iMic works well in this
application, but it is in use, and I would prefer RCA ins and outs.

>> For a particular application I'm working on, noise is more important than
>> fidelity (assuming reasonable fidelity.)
>
> There are a lot of problems with laptops and ground loops. If the noise goes
> away when you go on battery power, the UCA 202 or something like it probably
> won't help.

Interesting. I discovered that we did, in fact, have a ground loop with the
laptop (I isolated both in and out with transformers - problem solved) even
though we did not have a ground loop with a desktop sitting beside it. We did
not test it on battery. What I don't understand is how there can be a ground
loop on a laptop that uses a wall wart. It seems that the DC to the laptop
should be isolated from the mains. I thought the ground loop might be through
the Ethernet cable. (We didn't test wirelessly, either.)

It sounds like you don't have any particular criticisms for the Behringer
UCA202. Isolation doesn't matter as I will continue to use the isolation
transformers since mains, Ethernet, and audio don't always play together nicely.

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message

> On 11/28/2010 7:42 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> My laptop lacks proper line level inputs. The only audio
>> input is for a mono electret mic.

> This particular laptop also lacks proper line level
> inputs. We're feeding the input with mix-minus from a
> Behringer mixer.

Most Behringer mixers have RCA ins and outs, and they are the appropriate
connecting point for the UCA 202. This has worked for me.

> Even with mic boost turned off, it's
> really easy to overdrive the input. My Griffin iMic works
> well in this application, but it is in use, and I would
> prefer RCA ins and outs.

IME the Griffin iMic is fine as an output device, but IME my iMic is noisy
and has frequency response issues for recording. You don't want to look at
the Audio Rightmark for mine in loopback mode. The problem with mine is ia
design issue an inherent - they used a very cheap low power IC as a mic
preamp, and attenuate line level signals to mic levels. But, what do you
expect for $30? Answer: the UCA 202 is the far better choice at that price
point.

There have been several different versions of the iMic and the one you have
may be better than the one I tested a number of years back.

>>> For a particular application I'm working on, noise is
>>> more important than fidelity (assuming reasonable
>>> fidelity.)
>>
>> There are a lot of problems with laptops and ground
>> loops. If the noise goes away when you go on battery
>> power, the UCA 202 or something like it probably won't
>> help.

> Interesting. I discovered that we did, in fact, have a
> ground loop with the laptop (I isolated both in and out
> with transformers - problem solved) even though we did
> not have a ground loop with a desktop sitting beside it.
> We did not test it on battery. What I don't understand is
> how there can be a ground loop on a laptop that uses a
> wall wart. It seems that the DC to the laptop should be
> isolated from the mains. I thought the ground loop might
> be through the Ethernet cable. (We didn't test
> wirelessly, either.)

Ethernet over twisted pair is transformer coupled. That's what that little
rectangular black epoxy box on every ethernet card is - a quad isolation
transformer. In theory, it can't complete a ground loop. Twisted pair
ethernet is supposed to tolerate thousands of volts in common mode.

> It sounds like you don't have any particular criticisms
> for the Behringer UCA202.

Other than being a consumer-level device, it is pretty close to being CD
quality. It's not a the kind of true overkill device I prefer for
production, but it can be used to produce what are IMO commercial results.
Mostly, you just have to watch those levels, as it has no analog attenuation
of its own.

> Isolation doesn't matter as I
> will continue to use the isolation transformers since
> mains, Ethernet, and audio don't always play together
> nicely.

Ethernet over twisted pair should be moot for audio and grounding. What
effects the networking has inside the PC is different set of issues. But it
is supposed to be grounding-friendly unlike CATV or 3-wire power.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/29/2010 7:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

> Most Behringer mixers have RCA ins and outs, and they are the appropriate
> connecting point for the UCA 202. This has worked for me.

Mechanical, yes. Electrical, not so yes. I commented in a
review of a small Behringer mixer which included a UCA200
(UCA202 without the headphone output) in the box. Output
level at clipping at the mixer's RCA Tape Output jacks is
+20 dBu. Input level before clipping for the UCA200 (and
UCA202 as well - I have one of those too) is +12 dBu.

Given the propensity of users to run the mixer's meters
pretty close to the top of the scale, it's easy to clip the
UCA200 while the mix output is still clean. An 8-10 dB pad
at the RCA jacks would solve this problem, but then people
would complain that their tracks aren't hot enough.

No pleasing everyone. Perhaps this mixer should come with a
piece of black tape to put over the CLIP LED so it would
look like the top of the meter scale was +10 VU.




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 11/29/2010 7:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
>
>> On 11/28/2010 7:42 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "mcp6453" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> My laptop lacks proper line level inputs. The only audio
>>> input is for a mono electret mic.
>
>> This particular laptop also lacks proper line level
>> inputs. We're feeding the input with mix-minus from a
>> Behringer mixer.
>
> Most Behringer mixers have RCA ins and outs, and they are the appropriate
> connecting point for the UCA 202. This has worked for me.
>
>> Even with mic boost turned off, it's
>> really easy to overdrive the input. My Griffin iMic works
>> well in this application, but it is in use, and I would
>> prefer RCA ins and outs.
>
> IME the Griffin iMic is fine as an output device, but IME my iMic is noisy
> and has frequency response issues for recording. You don't want to look at
> the Audio Rightmark for mine in loopback mode. The problem with mine is ia
> design issue an inherent - they used a very cheap low power IC as a mic
> preamp, and attenuate line level signals to mic levels. But, what do you
> expect for $30? Answer: the UCA 202 is the far better choice at that price
> point.
>
> There have been several different versions of the iMic and the one you have
> may be better than the one I tested a number of years back.
>
>>>> For a particular application I'm working on, noise is
>>>> more important than fidelity (assuming reasonable
>>>> fidelity.)
>>>
>>> There are a lot of problems with laptops and ground
>>> loops. If the noise goes away when you go on battery
>>> power, the UCA 202 or something like it probably won't
>>> help.
>
>> Interesting. I discovered that we did, in fact, have a
>> ground loop with the laptop (I isolated both in and out
>> with transformers - problem solved) even though we did
>> not have a ground loop with a desktop sitting beside it.
>> We did not test it on battery. What I don't understand is
>> how there can be a ground loop on a laptop that uses a
>> wall wart. It seems that the DC to the laptop should be
>> isolated from the mains. I thought the ground loop might
>> be through the Ethernet cable. (We didn't test
>> wirelessly, either.)
>
> Ethernet over twisted pair is transformer coupled. That's what that little
> rectangular black epoxy box on every ethernet card is - a quad isolation
> transformer. In theory, it can't complete a ground loop. Twisted pair
> ethernet is supposed to tolerate thousands of volts in common mode.
>
>> It sounds like you don't have any particular criticisms
>> for the Behringer UCA202.
>
> Other than being a consumer-level device, it is pretty close to being CD
> quality. It's not a the kind of true overkill device I prefer for
> production, but it can be used to produce what are IMO commercial results.
> Mostly, you just have to watch those levels, as it has no analog attenuation
> of its own.
>
>> Isolation doesn't matter as I
>> will continue to use the isolation transformers since
>> mains, Ethernet, and audio don't always play together
>> nicely.
>
> Ethernet over twisted pair should be moot for audio and grounding. What
> effects the networking has inside the PC is different set of issues. But it
> is supposed to be grounding-friendly unlike CATV or 3-wire power.

Okay, I ordered three of them. They seem like handy little devices. Since the
UCA202 is as good or better than the iMic, we're good to go. The inputs and
outputs will be transformer coupled to the mixer.

I noticed that the UCA202 is USB 1.1, which must mean that USB 1.1 is fast
enough to get the job done. I have no feel for how much audio you can stuff
through a USB 1.1 port.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> On 11/29/2010 7:24 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Most Behringer mixers have RCA ins and outs, and they
>> are the appropriate connecting point for the UCA 202. This has worked for
>> me.
>
> Mechanical, yes. Electrical, not so yes. I commented in a
> review of a small Behringer mixer which included a UCA200
> (UCA202 without the headphone output) in the box. Output
> level at clipping at the mixer's RCA Tape Output jacks is
> +20 dBu. Input level before clipping for the UCA200 (and
> UCA202 as well - I have one of those too) is +12 dBu.

Valuable information.

The implication is that the RCA jacks are at the same professional line
level as the rest of the mixer.

> Given the propensity of users to run the mixer's meters
> pretty close to the top of the scale, it's easy to clip
> the UCA200 while the mix output is still clean.

Silly me - I tend to run mixers with 0 dB = peak levels. That is a
consequence of years of experience with digital recording and digital
mixers.

> An 8-10
> dB pad at the RCA jacks would solve this problem, but
> then people would complain that their tracks aren't hot
> enough.

I don't know offhand what the UCA 202 uses for analog levels related to FS.
I would expect something around 1 volt RMS. Spec sheet says 2 dBv or about
1.2 volts.


Your 8-10 dB pad would be relevant for people who let peaks slip past 0 dB.
There should be -10 dB switch(es) on the UCA 202, like many mics have. That
would make the box more consumer and pro friendly. Maybe they could call
that one the UCA 210. ;-)

> No pleasing everyone. Perhaps this mixer should come with
> a piece of black tape to put over the CLIP LED so it would
> look like the top of the meter scale was +10 VU.

Note that audio interfaces for the audio production market generally put FS
some place between 2 and 8 volts RMS with 6 being a common.

[Arny Krueger]

"mcp6453" > wrote in message


> Okay, I ordered three of them. They seem like handy
> little devices. Since the UCA202 is as good or better
> than the iMic, we're good to go. The inputs and outputs
> will be transformer coupled to the mixer.

The matching transformers are Radio Shack "Ground Isolators"

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2062214

I posted some tech tests I did on these little gems here a few years back.
Execuitive summary is "no fear". What I didn't say then is that I ran my
tests using a small Behringer mixer to set up the test environment. I think
the audio interface was a M-Audio AP 24192.


> I noticed that the UCA202 is USB 1.1, which must mean
> that USB 1.1 is fast enough to get the job done. I have
> no feel for how much audio you can stuff through a USB
> 1.1 port.

Full duplex 16/44 fits well into USB 1.1. The big plus is that both current
and one or two generations back of the Windows and Mac OS come with very
servicable drivers already loaded.

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/29/2010 8:28 AM, mcp6453 wrote:

> I noticed that the UCA202 is USB 1.1, which must mean that USB 1.1 is fast
> enough to get the job done. I have no feel for how much audio you can stuff
> through a USB 1.1 port.

The generally accepted number is six simultaneous 24-bit
streams at 48 kHz. A stream is one mono channel or half a
stereo channel, going in one direction (either in or out).

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mike Rivers]

On 11/30/2010 9:36 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:

> The UC 200 user manual says that FS = 2.0 volts. That's +6 dBv or about
> +8.2 dBu.

And my measurement says what I said it was. Either way, it's
well under the maximum output level of the mixer with which
it comes bundled.

> So, the UC200 is more idealized for the application for which it is sold.

I don't know that it's sold at all, at least not in the US.
But I haven't looked since I got this one along with the
mixer, and that was maybe 3 years ago.

> They could probably sell the model with switches for $50.

Then they'd have to spend $10,000 in documentation and tech
support to tell people how to set that switch correctly.

> A goodly number of products do provide -10 dBv/+4 dBu switching.

Some do, usually with the switch implemented in software.
But I haven't seen a real input sensitivity adjustment knob
since my DAT recorder.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 11/28/2010 7:42 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> There are a lot of problems with laptops and ground loops. If the noise goes
> away when you go on battery power, the UCA 202 or something like it probably
> won't help.

I got three of these a few days ago. Results of initial tests are that they do
exactly what I want. So far, so good.