Behringer UMC202HD

Well conceived and executed groovy.

I like the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 also for the stereo & mono output monitoring (as far as I can tell, the Behringer UMC202HD only has a mono).

If using direct monitoring (for zero latency), the Behringer UMC202HD signal is in mono.

Whereas the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 has a stereo/mono switch for direct monitoring.

What's possibly confusing, is 'direct monitoring' is sending signal straight out to speakers, avoiding the return path with its latency to the PC.

If someone really wants to shave off even more latency by using direct monitoring, if choosing between these 2 units, the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 does that with a choice of stereo or mono, making it even better than just being a ms faster in normal 'to PC' setups

Here's some linkages..

"Excellent for the price, be aware of the limitiations"

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/customer-revie...B00QHURUBE

"Excellent Budget USB Interface/DAC for price - also UMC202HD" (user review on Amazon)

https://www.amazon.com/-/es/gp/customer...B00EK1OTZC

"Behringer UMC202HD Review: The Ideal Budget Interface?"

https://musicproductionreviewer.com/rev...hd-review/

To give Behringer a positive point, what I do like about it is the Midas pre-amp. I've known of their consoles for a time - so would be interested to know more about that aspect of this unit. It could be nicer than the Scarlett on that point (but haven't tried either). But if zero latency direct monitoring was not important, to me, maybe the Midas pre-amp would win it for the Behringer

Thanks groovy! - wow curious - devil's always in the details. Seems both units have something unusual to consider if direct monitoring (stereo speakers & headphones) is valuable to the decision.

The sound of these 2 should be still very good - (aware some readers might not differentiate between normal uses in PC and DAW and direct monitoring mode which may only affect some).

Interesting - I can understand (but only to an extent in the digital era) that direct monitoring to earphones is still handled cheaply.

Wonder how much per unit is actually saved in manufacturing this range of devices tho - at least compared to the old actually big physical resources - channels/valves & lifetime of replacements/circuits/faders - physical and actually expensive old days stuff.

Maybe there's a costly patent still out there for 'method of sending a stereo mix in direct monitoring mode' XD

On the Focusrite front face, I saw the direct monitor button seems to toggle between mono and stereo.. linked a pic of it in case it's not on the unit you have? Cheers groovy!

Image of Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 front panel

Hey thanks groovy!

Thought I was looking at gen 2 there - explains my confusion. Thanks so much for this interesting food for thought

Modern devices can mostly be expected to have a low output impedance. IIRC my iPad (or perhaps it's my Samsung Galaxy) is specified to have a 7Ω output impedance, and I'd expect to discover that was due to a couple of 6.8Ω surface mount resistors if I could look inside. Amplification in these devices is now universally by operational amplifier Integrated Circuits (or digital Pulse Width Modulated output devices), which have virtually zero internal output impedance. Output series resistance is put in place for over-current protection in case of a short circuit, so the device will not be damaged if the headphone output is shorted out.

Since these devices run on modest voltage supplies internally, the resistance only needs to be small. More professional type gear like mixers can provide higher output voltage to headphones, so typically a higher output series resistance will both provide the desirable short circuit protection, and also attenuate the output level to the headphones, to stop the listener from accidentally blowing their ears up, or damaging headphones (or vice-versa).

It might be worth mentioning that output impedance can also influence the character of headphone sound, both from the point of view of frequency response and damping.

Headphones can be designed with either low or high impedance sources in mind, but it's not often specified which design philosophy has been followed. You may see, for example, studio monitoring 'phones specified as something like: Designed for source impedance 120Ω - 250Ω

Classic studio headphones are the most likely to have been designed to work with high output impedance devices, since historically the headphone outputs from power amplifiers and mixing desks incorporated these sort of values of series resistance. This amount of resistance will interact with the reactance (inductance and capacitance) of headphones, resulting in frequency response variations, and provide no effective damping to control unwanted diaphragm movements. So this style of 'phone will be well damped mechanically and will have been designed to have the desired frequency response when driven from the appropriate source resistance. A few people may have been underwhelmed listening to highly recommended studio monitoring headphones on a modern mobile device, where very low output impedance can over-damp the drivers and deliver a sound that might be described as lacking in energy or a bit dull. Whereas driven from a more suitable device they would come alive.

Conversely, most modern headphone designs would have been developed to work with these low impedance devices, and if plugged into an old school mixing console could end up with a lumpy frequency response and poor imaging from undamped resonances and phase anomalies (assuming the 'phones are good enough to let you hear those differences).

It also pops into my mind to mention, prompted by reference to a 2i2 interface, that my own 2i4 at about 6 months beyond warranty developed tendencies to click and pop regardless of what it was connected to. Delving inside revealed it is packed with cheap and nasty brands of electrolytic capacitors, but I don't intend to trawl through replacing them all to see if that is the cause of its malaise. I just hope Yamaha did a better job with the Steinberg UR242 I now use.

Apropos off-topic, I'm actually using a Beyerdynamic DT880 Edition (32 Ohm).

hehe, I know that effect with this cans too :-)

But the headphone out of the Steinberg ur-22 mkII must be pretty weak, when you run your "880 at full volume", interesting.

I don't run them more than 1/3 fullscale on my 2i2 gen2.

The bass sounds neutral with my setup, what I like. But I guess I know, what you mean.

Thanks, Platypus.  Indeed such seems the case volume-wise.  What I can't understand is whether I have such greater preference for the transparent openness of the DT880 pair, a disdain for the increased detail of the GR-1 (which may be partly volume-driven, even though I keep ratcheting it down), or whether the GR-1 pair have a coloration that I don't like (which may also be artifactual, influenced by the partially-open versus open nature).

thank you, groovy. I will try the headphones on another source, both of them. Perhaps the openness is my interpretation of the amount of ambient sound that gets in when I wear the byerdynamics DT880 versus the emotiva GR-1 set (the byerdynamics are notably more transparent to outside ambient sounds.

The GR1s might also need a lot of burn-in to open up their sound. A pair of Sennheisers I've used certainly did.