Super cheap AI? Any one?

OK, I made some quick tests and the interface seems to be awesome for me. Extremely low noise, excellent capture and quality. Really impressive for such a small and cheap gadget. Although mostly of info I found online about the UCA222 is positive I confess that I was with a very very low expectative about it. How I was wrong!

The only thing I have to to was to disable my onboard sound card, hook the interface at an USB port and re-route Windows 7 for the interface. Oh, I had to re-route ASIO too.

Other than that, I didn't have to change anything in my setup (even the optimum positions of the gain and output controls of my preamp remained the same).

:D

Now I got rid of the stupid P10-P2 line-in adaptor that had a swinging pin and that forced me to keep taping it until find a position that didn't made a 'buzz' in the recording.

:cursing:

As a bonus, the latency issue that caused pops and dropouts while I was listening to my favorite tunes is much better now. Actually I already had took care of it by disabling some of the aero visual effects but the issue still was there. Well, it didn't go completely and the LatencyMon software still complains if I have too much network activity but it is too much less sensitive than before. As a double-bonus, now I have record monitoring. And as a triple-bonus I earned an extra headphone output with an independent volume control.

All in all I am very happy with my acquisition. This weekend I should make some real recording with my wife and so I will have my final veredict. But as per I have seen so far I believe that it won't disappoint me.

:)
 
So glad you are sorted Yan.
I don't want to be an "I told you so" but the much more than adequate performance of the 222 should not really come as a surprise?

There are plenty of "proper" interfaces around at the £100 level, the UR22 to name but one. Then there is Bobby's little M-A find at even less, about £75 here.
These interfaces have masses of facilities over the 222. In and out pots, XLR mic amps, spook juice. They also come with a usually very decent software bundle.

The little Bellringer is just a fagpacket sized plastic box (the others are metal) with essentially just RCA ins and outs, small wonder then that it sells for a quarter or third of the normal interfaces.

The REAL wonder is that Behringer did not ***k it all up! So often in the past their race to be cheap has made their kit unworkable, or at least not for long.

Dave.
 
Dave, yeah, you really told me! LoL!

:D

However it seemed to good to be true and that's why I was a bit suspicious. Behringer is a misterious company in my opinion what makes it hard to be scored. They have products that are really bad and that others that are awesome (for the price). Including this AI, I have three more stuff from them: the Mic100 preamp, HA400 headphone amp and a C-3 microphone. I really love the preamp and the amp, but I hate the C-3. In the past I had a rack compressor MDX4600 (or very similar) that I ended selling before to use it then I don't have an opinion about it. Anyway, although I don't have a big experience with the brand curiously seems to me that they go better with the cheap.

For the sake of the extreme newbies that may be following this thread and before they run to place and order and buy an UCA222 I think that is very important to mention that both the UCA222 as well its antecessor UCA202 originally were developed to act as a LINE digitizer (and that's why it has RCA inputs instead P10 or XLR) aiming the users after a way to digitize vinyl and tape records.

So it does mean that it will NOT work as an audio interface for the home recorder unless he/she already owns a pre-amp, so in this case I think that it is better to stick with the computer sound card because the mic input (that doesn't exist in the UCA222) or jump directly to a more 'complete' AI. In my specific case, though, it was a perfect match because I already had a preamp so I kind of 'constructed' a complete AI out of two different gadgets.

:)
 
Last edited:
"For the sake of the extreme newbies that may be following this thread and before they run to place and order and buy an UCA222 I think that is very important to mention that both the UCA222 as well its antecessor UCA202 originally were developed to act as a LINE digitizer (and that's why it has RCA inputs instead P10 or XLR) aiming the users after a way to digitize vinyl and tape records."

Now just a cotton pickin' there ^ Yan! Just because the 222 does not have mic inputs does NOT disqualify it from being called an audio interface in my book.

The IS no legal definition of an AI so far as I know? But think on...
Is a Mico pre amp an AI? No because whilst it does an excellent job of A to D it has no D to A.
A D to A (S/PDIF) converter is also not an interface because again it only goes "one way".

I say the wee Berry qualifies because it does both (and throws in the "bonus" of a headphone amp and digital out as well! MANY! "proper" AIs don't give you any digital at all!) .

If a person was fooled into think they can get the facilities of a KA6 or an 8i6 for 25quid then they should have asked here first!

There are no fools in the newb section (well, maybe moir sometimes!) but anyone that has SUCH a lack of knowledge that they would buy a 222 "blind" and be disappointed IS surely a fool?

Anyway, 'avin me tea...

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
Just because the 222 does not have mic inputs does NOT disqualify it from being called an audio interface in my book.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't remember to have disqualified the UCA222 as an AI anywhere. All I did was to mention that due to the fact that it doesn't have an internal preamp it will not be apropriated to low signal recording (guitars and microphones). It is just a reminder that won't hurt anyone...

:)

ecc83 said:
There are no fools in the newb section (well, maybe moir sometimes!) but anyone that has SUCH a lack of knowledge that they would buy a 222 "blind" and be disappointed IS surely a fool?
Click to expand...

I don't think that to fall in such pits is a sign of foolish. Sometimes we just don't pay attention to small details that make all the difference. Actually I think that it is very common to happen. Since I already was victim of such mistakes several times I never would tell someone a fool for be catch by the same trap!

:)
 
YanKleber said:
Well, I don't remember to have disqualified the UCA222 as an AI anywhere. All I did was to mention that due to the fact that it doesn't have an internal preamp it will not be apropriated to low signal recording (guitars and microphones). It is just a reminder that won't hurt anyone...

:)



I don't think that to fall in such pits is a sign of foolish. Sometimes we just don't pay attention to small details that make all the difference. Actually I think that it is very common to happen. Since I already was victim of such mistakes several times I never would tell someone a fool for be catch by the same trap!

:)
Click to expand...

Ok Yan,
Shall we agree then to differ on our respective interpretations of what was said about what?

On small technical point! The 202/222 IS capable of the direct recording of electric guitar. Running directly into the 10k input impedance is not of course optimal (but not as bad as I thought!) and there is "enough" level even with a wimpy Squier Tele. The addition of almost any pedal would improve things no doubt.

Dave.
 
I had hoped to avoid this but attached is a the Tele into the 202, into Samplitude.

(Do not listen to this Greg, it could cause you to go into retention)


Dave.
 

Attachments

  • uca 202 and televip01.mp3
    988.9 KB · Views: 5
I don't know about retention, but maybe CBF...(Catastrophic Butt Failure). Pretty weak signal. Be hard to work with.
 
BroKen_H said:
I don't know about retention, but maybe CBF...(Catastrophic Butt Failure). Pretty weak signal. Be hard to work with.
Click to expand...

Howzat? Slapped another ~18dB on it.

As I said before, almost any pedal would improve matters. Most EQ pedal for instance give you about 10dB of lift.

Dave.
 

Attachments

  • uca 202 and televip01boosted.mp3
    988.9 KB · Views: 7
ecc83 said:
The addition of almost any pedal would improve things no doubt.
Click to expand...
I never understood how it is possible (seems like black magic for me) but this is really a nice trick. In my case, unfortunately I don't have ANY pedal (I know that it is hard to believe since I am a guitarist) but I recorded this information on my mind for life!

ecc83 said:
I had hoped to avoid this but attached is a the Tele into the 202, into Samplitude.
Click to expand...
Yah, surprisingly decent signal, specially if you are using weak stock pickups! Do you know if the same trick would work with a microphone such a SM57 or similar?
 
YanKleber said:
I never understood how it is possible (seems like black magic for me) but this is really a nice trick. In my case, unfortunately I don't have ANY pedal (I know that it is hard to believe since I am a guitarist) but I recorded this information on my mind for life!


Yah, surprisingly decent signal, specially if you are using weak stock pickups! Do you know if the same trick would work with a microphone such a SM57 or similar?
Click to expand...

Pedal first. Don't know about B magic, lot of B S talked about pedals and guitar kit in general!
In the first instance a "proper" pedal (not one of those "true bypass oddities!) will present almost no load to the guitar pups which have, ball park estimate, an output impedance (Z) of about 8-15k Ohms even flat out. Thus the normal line input Z of a soundcard or the 222 of about 10k will immediately cause a signal loss of some 6dB or more. In other words over half the signal voltage is lost. The pedal buffers this and gives you the full fat guitar signal.

In addition to a wideband signal loss, because the source Z of the pup is heavily inductive there will also be some HF loss (actually, for reasons we need not go into, a low Z compensates forHF loss, a bit). This all adds up to a wimpish, muddy tone.

Next: Could you run an SM57 into a 222? With a bit of help, yes! If you used a passive DI box "backwards" (or buy a proper mic traff!) you would boost the mic signal by about 10times (20dB). Still not a lot but I bet the combination would get you a usable signal from a guitar cab if Greg L was behind it! (studio guys regularly run mics into line inputs from V loud sources such as inside kick drums) .

So, if you have just a little electronical nounce and a perchant for experimentation you can do interesting, fun things.......An'THAT's MAGIC!

Dave.
 
FYI, I have just dug out my Levell audio generator and my trusty Fluke 83 DMM and hooked all up to the 202.
Using the excellent meters in Samplitude SE8 I find an input of 0.312Vrms at 1kHz produces a reading of -10dBFS in Sam.
By implication then, an input of one volt rms will hit 0dBFS but do not do that ffs because it will clip. Neg 6 is the absolute max you should go for.

So, back of env', an SM57 at 100dB SPL puts out about 3.6mV. Up that x 10 with a traff and we have 36mV or -30ish on the DAW meters. I see about an 80dB noise floor so that still leaves a reasonable 50dB noise gap. Better I would aver than most guitar/amp combinations?

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top