Budget USB interface also for general use? (headphone output power)

There have been studies done between cheap cables and expensive ones. And only in the best possible listening environments and conditions can the best-trained ears tell a difference.
Buying $39 Monster cables is buying into their marketing BS. Sure, 'lifetime guarantee', if you can get Guitar Center to honor it. And there are other less-expensive brands that also offer the same guarantee.
As already said, higher prices for more robustness - more strands (thicker) better shielding, etc. For a typical studio run, wher eyour AI to speakers is under 6 feet, and once in place never moved again, don't kid yourself that $100 worth of cables will give you better sound than $20 of cables.

But to the OP's last point, yes, it makes sense to have the balanced cables there, so that when you do need balanced in the future, you've got them in place already.
 
ecc83 said:
For headphones cable thickness is also barely a consideration. 0.2mm sq, more than adequate.

Dave.
Click to expand...

First of all I was NOT talking about headphone cables at any point. I was talking about the cables I'm going to run from the main (line) out to my POWERED SPEAKERS. Secondly, I was not at all referring to the thickness of the actual conductor wire, but the ENTIRE cable. Currently, the ENTIRE mini-jack cable carrying the signal from my computer to the speakers is 3 mm in diameter (I actually measured it. The cable is thinner than the plugs!). Not a lot of space for insulation there plus I could probably snap it in half with my bare hands if I wanted to. Now SURELY something like a guitar cable*, which would be let's say 7 to 8 mm thick would be BETTER in every respect: sturdier, much better shielding, etc. even if the conductor wire inside was exactly the same.

Concerning the actual conductors... I'm under the impression that the properties generally only matter one way. For instance, you wouldn't want to use a guitar cable between a power amp and a passive speaker, because something would fry. But you CAN use a speaker cable between the guitar and the amp. In other words there is a minimum thickness that you need for the signal to go through, but a maximum... not that much. I've used guitar cables to connect various line outs to line ins and it has always worked (is that "incorrect" somehow? :/ ). I've also tried using some really thin, I suppose "line level" cables to connect keyboards or something (can't remember exactly, but the reason was that all other cables were already in use) to a mixer and they did not work, no signal at all went through.


* Please do notice the "something like"
 
spitzer said:
First of all I was NOT talking about headphone cables at any point. I was talking about the cables I'm going to run from the main (line) out to my POWERED SPEAKERS. Secondly, I was not at all referring to the thickness of the actual conductor wire, but the ENTIRE cable. Currently, the ENTIRE mini-jack cable carrying the signal from my computer to the speakers is 3 mm in diameter (I actually measured it. The cable is thinner than the plugs!). Not a lot of space for insulation there plus I could probably snap it in half with my bare hands if I wanted to. Now SURELY something like a guitar cable*, which would be let's say 7 to 8 mm thick would be BETTER in every respect: sturdier, much better shielding, etc. even if the conductor wire inside was exactly the same.

Concerning the actual conductors... I'm under the impression that the properties generally only matter one way. For instance, you wouldn't want to use a guitar cable between a power amp and a passive speaker, because something would fry. But you CAN use a speaker cable between the guitar and the amp. In other words there is a minimum thickness that you need for the signal to go through, but a maximum... not that much. I've used guitar cables to connect various line outs to line ins and it has always worked (is that "incorrect" somehow? :/ ). I've also tried using some really thin, I suppose "line level" cables to connect keyboards or something (can't remember exactly, but the reason was that all other cables were already in use) to a mixer and they did not work, no signal at all went through.


* Please do notice the "something like"
Click to expand...

Morning Spitzer. Ok so not headphone cables but I was just using those as an example to show that even 100mtrs would not give a significant loss.

"Powered speakers" ? Do I understand 'Active Speakers'? If so that 3mm cable is likely foil shielded and in fact has better RF shielding than braided or lapped screens. 100% for foil and likely not better than 80-90% for the others. NOT that it matters much in the vast majority of cases.

Insulation? Enough is plenty. The wires in your guitar amp transformer have only a few microns of insulation and yet are proof to several hundred volts.

Current carrying capacity is, as I have already stated easily well above what is needed in 99% of cases. The one case you cite spitz', gitamp head to cab is a common one. In practice, worse case might be a 100W amp into a 4 Ohm cab? That would require a continuous cable rating of 5 amps but guitar signals are NOT continuous and in practice a screened guitar lead WOULD get you through the night! 16 Ohm cabs and/or lesser amps, no problem. The cable I WOULD avoid is a very long curly jobbie. I do NOT advocate the use of signal leads for speaker power but sometimes 'The Show Must Go On!"

You did not mention 'Damping Factor' so I will. This is the property of a power amplifier to 'control' the LF cone by electro-magnetic damping and requires said amplifier to have a very low output resistance. Hi Fi solid state amps have vanishingly small OPRs. Valve guitar amps don't. Typically a 30W amp will have an OPZ of 20 -50 Ohms and thus give sod all damping to the speakers, a few Ohms of speaker wire resistance (and you would need a H of a lot of it to get even one R) will do diddly.

It makes some sense to use reasonably heavy cables for high fidelity but past about 1mm sqr I doubt any effect can be seen or heard at domestic lengths? Six amp rated 'Garden Machine' orange cable is almost universally used for passive PA speaker hookup over here.

Dave.
 
Yes, powered speakers = active speakers.

I don't want to get into an academic debate about cable properties and qualities here, I don't have anywhere near the technological knowledge or expertise for that. What I do have is some amount of personal experience ('empirical evidence') of assorted things.

So I'm not CLAIMING anything, I'm SUPPOSING that two (one per channel) seemingly proper let's say 10 dollar 6.3 to 6.3 TRS cables would be better than the one cheap-o cable that came bundled with my cheap-o speakers. I don't know. But like I mentioned before, I see little reason in purposely doing it the reverse way, aka converting the output signal from two 6.3 mm output TRS jacks immediately at the output, then running the signal through the same crappy little cable I use now. It simply seems more sensible to use the "better" cables all the way, until I HAVE to convert it to 3.5 mm (or whatever else).

I also "tested" my current setups noise briefly. The speakers are supposed to be 2x 14 W (they take 27 V DC in). They're quiet enough, but at half volume I start to hear a tiny bit of noise with my ear very close to the elements. At max volume there's noticeably more noise but you cannot really hear that either unless your ear is touching the speaker. DON'T WORRY, I WAS NOT RUNNING ANY ACTUAL SOUND THROUGH THEM!!! They're generally WAY too loud to have the volume much past 50% anyway. Now is that noise there because it's coming from the sound card, is it the speaker itself and how large of an effect does the cable have? I have no idea. But it doesn't matter since I'm going to need new cables anyway.
 
Heaven forfend! I have never suggested you DOWNGRADE the quality of your cables!

I do however have to 'sigh' when people say "I don't want to get technical...." ("academic" is no help here. We need to be PRACTICAL) This audio lark IS technical, rooted in science. The plain fact it that a screened audio cable carrying a few volts at buggerall current a few metres from a fairly low Z source to an active speaker is going to have NO discernible effect on the sound quality whether it costs $2 from Amazon or $2000 fro Russ A! Yes! Pay a decent amount for quality connectors (Neutriks are about the best) and cable that is robust enough for the job but after that it does not matter.

There is no such thing, WTGR, as "personal experience" when it comes to audio comparisons. There have been many very well funded 'double blind' A/B tests over the years of cables and power amplifiers and the conclusions have almost always been a 'null result' That is, any differences supposedly detected are those predicted by chance.

Then, a lot of 'the science' is counter-intuitive. For instance, 'Common Sense' would have you think a bigger box for a speaker would give greater power handling? Not so.

"Art" and technology/science go together. You cannot have the former without the latter.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
Heaven forfend! I have never suggested you DOWNGRADE the quality of your cables!
Click to expand...

Not exactly, no. You actually didn't give a concrete suggestion at all. However you did persist in saying "it doesn't matter" (regarding cables in general I suppose?) when in fact that's not really true like you clarified in your last post. We sort of went off on a strange tangent at some point, when subjects like the sectional area of the conductor wire came in. When I say "cable", I'm normally referring to something like an instrument cable, the whole thing including connectors, insulation and so on.

That was my concern actually. I am still under the impression that instrument cables (and similarly built TRS cables) are MUCH better shielded from interference than certain other types of cables, and I've suspected the reason for that is the THICK insulation. A typical guitar cable probably uses those 0.20 mm conductors you've been talking about for the signal, but from the outside, the cable measures at least the diameter of the 6.3 mm plug.

ecc83 said:
I do however have to 'sigh' when people say "I don't want to get technical...."
Click to expand...

I did not say anything quite to the effect of that. I said I don't want to get into a debate on that particular topic, since I know close to nothing about that stuff and you clearly know quite a lot.

I don't mean to offend, but you seem to misread posts and hastily respond/react to things that are not actually there.

Regardless, your seemingly well informed comments are appreciated. Thank you.
I agree with your last statement, I might even say it goes both ways. "Science" requires some of the very same intuition as "art".
 
"Regardless, your seemingly well informed comments are appreciated. Thank you.
I agree with your last statement, I might even say it goes both ways. "Science" requires some of the very same intuition as "art". "

I will agree with that. The insulation on a cable merely stops the inner core shorting to the outer shield and for audio purposes it really does not matter what it is composed* of or how thick it is. Rubber, PVC, GF, PTFE and almost any other plastic will be fine and since the voltages are going to be well under 100, 1/10th mm of any of those will be more than adequate. Thicker insulation will of course give greater mechanical protection but it won't enhance the audio quality one jot.

The shield gives electrostatic and RF protection (not LF magnetic, only a balanced system can do that) and ideally the shield should cover 100% but in practice, especially at line levels, less is not often a problem.

Unless the mods stop me friend I shall ALWAYS jump in when people talk unsubstantiated bllx about audio matters (as far as I understand them. As a I have said, I shall hold up hand if proved wrong) . Forums and the infernalnet in general are full of dubious claims and statements posing as 'facts'. I try to keep HR as clear as possible of these within my limited capacity and knowledge.

*For RF, video and digital transmission it does matter. Google "characteristic impedance".

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
Unless the mods stop me friend I shall ALWAYS jump in when people talk unsubstantiated bllx about audio matters (as far as I understand them. As a I have said, I shall hold up hand if proved wrong) . Forums and the infernalnet in general are full of dubious claims and statements posing as 'facts'. I try to keep HR as clear as possible of these within my limited capacity and knowledge.
Dave.
Click to expand...

I have to say I don't understand that. Why would you do that on this thread? I have not presented ANY claims as facts or "facts", not that I can see. I have actually several times (in some cases even explicitly) pointed out my non-knowledge. As an example, in my previous post I used the expressions "I'm under the impression" and "I've suspected". In total, that resembles a question much more than any kind of "claim". In fact, it was a question. BTW, I know the basic construction of those cables. I've seen them, I've soldered connectors to them. Some cables are double/triple insulated/shielded depending on how you count it. One or both of the copper wires can be insulated. Both of them might be wrapped in foil. Finally, there's the outer rubber layer. All of that takes up space and, if the conductor diameter alone is that magical 0.20 mm, it might not be possible/feasible if the outer diameter of the entire cable is too small (for example 3 mm, carrying a stereo signal).

I am here to discuss, NOT debate. Especially when I have very little knowledge of the subject matter (I do know other things but I doubt you'll ever see me argue over which gauge cable is best for line signals or things of that sort).
 
spitzer said:
I have to say I don't understand that. Why would you do that on this thread? I have not presented ANY claims as facts or "facts", not that I can see. I have actually several times (in some cases even explicitly) pointed out my non-knowledge. As an example, in my previous post I used the expressions "I'm under the impression" and "I've suspected". In total, that resembles a question much more than any kind of "claim". In fact, it was a question. BTW, I know the basic construction of those cables. I've seen them, I've soldered connectors to them. Some cables are double/triple insulated/shielded depending on how you count it. One or both of the copper wires can be insulated. Both of them might be wrapped in foil. Finally, there's the outer rubber layer. All of that takes up space and, if the conductor diameter alone is that magical 0.20 mm, it might not be possible/feasible if the outer diameter of the entire cable is too small (for example 3 mm, carrying a stereo signal).

I am here to discuss, NOT debate. Especially when I have very little knowledge of the subject matter (I do know other things but I doubt you'll ever see me argue over which gauge cable is best for line signals or things of that sort).
Click to expand...

My comments are not aimed at you specifically Spitzer but to all the 'less than technical' readers here who MIGHT get some wrong impressions about cables. Heaven knows there is enough confusing crap out there! Mostly designed to part punters from their hard earned wedge!

So no, no 'argument' from me (not sure what the difference is between a 'discussion' and a debate'?) just a old valve amp fixer's attempt to keep things on the electrical straight and narrow.

I apologise if I have come across as confrontational. I know my brand of humour does not export well in some quarters! I assure you I only have your best interests at heart.

Make music: Have fun.

Dave.
 
ecc83: A 'discussion' is not a competition. There doesn't need to be a "good/right" and "bad/wrong", or a strong drive to prove anything to anyone. It can still be very meaningful.

I found that sound level meter. I set it on C-weighting and stuck the measuring mic inside one cup of my headphones, set the output of my computer to 100% and played about a minutes worth of a music track averaging at -12 and peaking at 0.

Results. Headphone from less than 1 cm away: Peak at 91.8 dB.

There's my volume problem in numbers. I subjectively feel that's JUST barely enough volume for this track. And obviously way too little for anything with a lower average or peaks. Raw tracks in a multi-track project? Hopeless.
 
mjbphotos said:
Mixing should be done @ around 85dB average, I believe.
Click to expand...

Indeed Mike and for many HR bods they will find even 85dB C too loud in a domestic setting, i.e. a nuisance to others. To put 85dB into context, if someone had the telly at that level most people would find it too loud, in fact many FSTVs would start to 'crack' at 85/90dB, going well over 10%thd.

I do not, at the moment know of a valid way to correlate monitor sound levels with headphone levels. Spitzer measured 91dBC at 10mm but I don't know how valid that is for the actual SPL in the ear canal? I shall give the matter some thought. Some form of polarity cancellation technique?

In any even t Mr S, it is plain that you need a means to insert more GAIN into the tracking HP feed (even if not more raw power) and I know of no way to do that save an external device.

Dave.
 
I actually mostly agree, having that particular track at that 100% and over 90 dB is almost too loud. However do notice that what I measured was the peak level, not average over the entire track (the meter I have cannot measure averages, at least not directly. I just used the "max hold" button to see what it peaks at). I did another measurement with the volume at 70% and got a peak of 85.7, that was roughly "loud enough" using closed headphones in this "silent" room (the background noise here is at 45-50 dB (C) and this is as quiet as it ever gets.)

I also did measure the level through my speakers with the computer output at 100% and the speakers at slightly less than 50%, I got a peak of 91.5. Measured at ~80 cm distance. The level was also subjectively the same as with the phones (at 100%).

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, this all means precisely that the MAXIMUM level my system is outputting is slightly over 90 db (C). A rough technique to get some sort of average would require measuring the actual outputted decibels at different output levels, perhaps 0, -6, -12, -24, and then doing quite a bit of math to figure out what the average level is in decibels. Maybe there's a shortcut, but I'm not an expert in these things at all.

BTW. The track I used was one of my own recordings, that had been compressed over and over again to get to a -12 average. It's something that was quickly mixed and not "mastered" other than to boost the level. No EQ, multiband compression or anything of the sort was used. I picked it partly at random and partly because it's a "middle of the road" example of what I might listen to. I also listen to music that averages much higher and music that averages much lower.

Could do a measurement using white noise, square waves or something but I don't normally listen to that sort of things. Too repetitive for my taste.

mjbphotos, ecc83: Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but the C-weighting has nothing to do with average levels, it refers to frequency weighting. Technically the measurement is an "average" of course, but over a very short time interval.
 
Last edited:
So. I got the interface (UMC204HD) today. Directly from the interface headphone out at 50% I got a peak of 95.8 dB (C) versus the earlier 91.8 dB, same track and all. So the volume problem is at least close to solved now. Adding the HA400, I might get even slightly more volume but haven't yet bothered to measure/compare that. Interestingly, the main line out to my speakers is a bit on the quiet side. Practically no noise, but not that much signal either. I wonder if it's to do with the different sort of cables.

The output sounds good. It's "clear" and bright as opposed to the "boomy" sound the Realtek (or the Asus Xonar for that matter) outputs. I don't know if the fidelity is objectively better, but I prefer the brighter sound.

Haven't had the time to record anything yet but to check that at least the jack inputs work, I plugged my piano in. The pass-through signal sounds very good.

I did have some difficulties. It seems the interface only works properly when plugged into a USB 2 port. If plugged in a USB 3 port, I got pops and clicks*. Not sure if the problem is that particular port (or set of ports) or if the device won't work with USB 3 at all. No idea about latencies and such things yet, I haven't used real-time virtual instruments (is that what they're called) before anyway. I'm interested in trying though, see if I can get the latency low enough.

Not really sure why I typed this "review" here but well, there it is.

* I've read on the world wide internet that this is a common problem also with other interfaces, for example Focusrites.
 
Hi Spitz', progress then?
The lower line output is due to there being no standard (for 'domestic' gear anyway) that links 0dBFS to X dBu out.

The USB problem is interesting. It might be worth checking that the Windows drivers are up to date for 3.0?
I have not checked it lately but I feel sure that my KA6 does not give a **** which USB port I use. Will try it later.

Re, 'weighting' average and al that swaddling'? Yes, weightings are just EQ curves (mnfctrs LOVE 'em! Makes their stuff's speccs look better!) .

"Average" and 'rms' are 'time determined measurements' and are just a handy tool to describe where a signal should sit, most of the time on the dBFS scale.

Bit of history? Test voltmeters read the Average of a waveform but are CALIBRATED to indicate rms for sine wave. Any other waveform will be under or over read.
Up to date: Modern Digital meters are often termed 'True rms' indicating that they give accurate readings on a variety of waveforms. The problem is the integrating time each meter maker chooses. I once hooked 3 brands up to an oscillator and got 3 different readings!

They are also only 'true rms' (a bit) at POWER frequencies. Past about 400Hz? NOT to be trusted!

Look forward to more rests Mr S.

Dave.
 
As I suspected, the KA6 treats USB 3.0 with the same contempt it reserves for 2.0 and every other PC and OS I have ever tried it on!

Plugged it into the 3.0 port of this HP i3 lappy. Found the KA6 instantly. Slapped Peppers', new mix on Sam Silver superb. Hits 0dBFS at times but clean and powerful sound. KA6 cans pot at 1 o'clock.

Next listened to 30mins of a science progg' MP3 from Radio 4. Again, very clean, signal averaged around -15dBFS with peaks to -6. Pot at about 2 o'clock and that was on the loud side even for this deaf old ***ker!

If there was ever a 'Swiss Army Knife' of an AI the NI KA6 is it!

Sorry! AKG K92s across bonce!

Dave.
 
Could not get it to work on any USB3 port. It is a USB2 device... I suspect the reason it malfunctions on the one particular port right next to where my external HD (which is an actual USB3 device) is connected because there they are connected to the same "channel" (or whatever the correct term is) and the synchronization goes wrong because of the huge speed difference between USB2 and 3. That's just a wild guess though, I'll flat out admit the I/O subsystems in these new computers are too complex for me to bother figuring out how they work exactly. The info in the BIOS setup suggests this mobo has two USB3 controllers, the other one being for the front panel connectors. If I plug the interface into the front panel, it doesn't even get recognized by the OS. Who knows. I'll keep it connected in a USB2 port for now.

I played around with the ASIO settings a bit. Seems like this system can handle at least a buffer size of 256 samples using 96 kHz, with no drop-outs or glitches. That gives me a decent 2.7 ms latency, (if it's reported correctly by the daw), in any case i'm comfortably able to play a soft synth with my midi piano. That's good at least. If I increase the sampling rate, the latency goes down even further, right?

I'll still have to think about whether I'll have to return this thing if I can't get it to work with USB3 (also I want to be absolutely sure there won't be ANY snaps, crackles or pops). Eventually I'm going to get a new computer and in all likelihood it will not have separate USB2 ports. I'm tired. I guess I'll test the audio recording later.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I did measure the volume routing the audio to the headphones through the HA400 (I set the pots for the highest possible gain where I could not hear any noise). I got it to peak at 101.6 dB(C).
 
Last edited:
I have never had an issue connecting a USB 2 interface to a USB 3 controller. Though I have found that if anything else is connected to it, shit goes haywire.

I use a separate PCIe USB 3.0 controller card specifically for only my Steinberg UR824 (s) connection. And with these particular interfaces I believe you have to install the driver and connect to the one controller you plan to use. Meaning during setup you connect to the USB port you will use specifically. Pretty sure you can't just plug in to another port and hope it works. The drivers for my particular interface does not automatically show up in Windows. It must be downloaded and installed to the port desired.
 
I think I'll try disconnecting the hard drive from that controller and see if it works then.

Looks like the USB3 on my mobo is handled through two Etron EJ168 chips. Don't know if those have a reputation of being problematic, but it says something that they're separate chips (no special drivers for them either, at least not on the mobo support site). Newer hardware has USB3 built in the main chipset, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top