Behringer UMC204 HD Audio Interface Review

[SIY]

DAC output is low in voltage (if memory serves, like 0.7V or so), but if you can accommodate that, it performs just fine.

 

[Gershy13]

I have a UMC202HD (which has the same DAC circuit AFAIK) and it's perfectly adequate in that role. I eventually replaced it with a Topping E30 and honestly could hear very little difference -- perhaps a slightly more "open" sound at the higher frequencies, but not by much. I now use it primarily as the amp for my (very easy to drive Yamaha RH-5Ma) headphones with (IMO) very good results.

Thanks! Looks like I'll get a headphone amp to pair with the 204hd then, as that's the only place it is a bit lacking. (For my TYGRs)

 

[solderdude]

So is the dac out really bad on the 204hd? If i use the rca outputs, how bad is it?

It's fine, just a little lower in output level than your run of the mill DAC.
When using an amplifier just make sure it has at least 6x gain (15dB).

 

[Random]

From both real-life use and measured spec, this interface is truly far from perfect. But I still want to share some of my thoughts about the Behringer UMC204HD, from a different perspective as a recording engineer and keyboard player. It's not a terrible product, it just needs to be properly used.

1. The full-scale distortion is a real problem, that's why I always add one more limiter on the output channel when I'm playing with virtual instruments or band programs. The limiter can keep a safe headroom from clipping or near-clipping distortion, although a limiter is still not good for the sound, but still better than the clipping problem.
2. The maximum input level is really low for sure. One time I was trying to record some guitar with dynamic mics and it easily clipped! I believe this will also happen to CD / Vinyl ripping and line-in keyboard / synthesizer recording (I actually noticed some people record guitar with the PAD turned on). But let's look at the bright side. The EIN is pretty low, this is a good start. And since the maximum input level is pretty low, that means you need less gain to drive a low sensitivity mic to reach a high input level in the digital domain. (If your interface has a 2Vrms maximum input instead of 1Vrms, that means you need double the input level to reach the 0dBFS, which means you need more gain from the mic preamp). This makes voice recording like podcast&streaming with dynamic mic pretty easy because the signal level send to the computer is hot enough. It's not the perfect solution since we still want more gain and analog signal headroom, but I think it really helps the total design and real usage when your preamp's power is limited by the USB bus.
3. The INSERT function is pretty handy for recording, it let you add outboard gear to the signal chain before it hits the A/D converter. But it's less important / useless if you don't use it to do live recording. It's better to choose other interfaces that don't have this function but have higher audio quality.
4. The output level and sound quality for both main out and headphone are not very good for sure, so I don't use this for mixing and editing (have different setup in my studio). I only use it for live usage (recording and performing) and it's good enough for that.
5. And of course, I think the UMC204HD is still the cheapest 4-channel output audio interface in this price range (brand new). The extra 2 output is very useful for live performing when you need extra output for band program / metronome / differnt instrument outputs, and the channel switch for headphone monitoring is very useful for output checking. Even you don't have enough sound quality for the most important main stereo output.

Don't buy this for Hi-Fi usage. Only choose this model when you really can take advantage of the feature set of the UMC204HD.

Another thing about the UMC202HD / 204HD / 404HD differences:
I think Behringer is using the same chipset for these 3 models (these 3 models may all have 2 ADDA converter), just combine two channel into one so it can makes the 202 have higher SNR for in / out channels and 204 have higher SNR for input. I think that's why the 404HD have the lowest spec. I only own a UMC204HD so I can't prove it, hope somebody can find the PCB picture of other 2 models.

 

[AnalogSteph]

1. The full-scale distortion is a real problem, that's why I always add one more limiter on the output channel when I'm playing with virtual instruments or band programs. The limiter can keep a safe headroom from clipping or near-clipping distortion, although a limiter is still not good for the sound, but still better than the clipping problem.

It be noted that this should only be needed if you can't get high enough output otherwise (which might well happen), as to my understanding the distortion should also go away if the output level knob is turned down. That's one time where having monitors with an overly hot input may actually come in handy... a spare mixer could also be used to add some gain. Obviously you don't want to overdo it either, just dial in the levels to a point where neither maximum output not noise are a problem.

2. The maximum input level is really low for sure. One time I was trying to record some guitar with dynamic mics and it easily clipped!

I can't believe it's that bad, you may just have set the input gain too high. The input level Amir measured at (which gave -1.752 dBFS at still-acceptable distortion) was 0.54 Vrms or about -3 dBu, which would be insanely loud on a dynamic mic - one rated -54 dBV/Pa and 300 ohms would have to be subjected to a whopping 139 dB SPL to produce -6 dBFS at minimum gain. Short of flat out screaming directly into the mic (or placing it in front of a guitar amp cranked to 11), you are unlikely to encounter such levels. Certainly not when miking up an acoustic guitar.

 

[Random]

It be noted that this should only be needed if you can't get high enough output otherwise (which might well happen), as to my understanding the distortion should also go away if the output level knob is turned down. That's one time where having monitors with an overly hot input may actually come in handy... a spare mixer could also be used to add some gain. Obviously you don't want to overdo it either, just dial in the levels to a point where neither maximum output not noise are a problem.

I can't believe it's that bad, you may just have set the input gain too high. The input level Amir measured at (which gave -1.752 dBFS at still-acceptable distortion) was 0.54 Vrms or about -3 dBu, which would be insanely loud on a dynamic mic - one rated -54 dBV/Pa and 300 ohms would have to be subjected to a whopping 139 dB SPL to produce -6 dBFS at minimum gain. Short of flat out screaming directly into the mic (or placing it in front of a guitar amp cranked to 11), you are unlikely to encounter such levels. Certainly not when miking up an acoustic guitar.

Agreed with both of your points.

But the reality is:
1. Despite the output gain, the distortion happens when the output level in DAW is reaching the maximum. So I add limiter to the DAW output master channel and crank the gain up, and ask the mix engineer to adjust the volume (more gain if needed for my channel) when I play live.
2. My point is, with the same mic and less gain, the UMC204HD can reach a much higher digital level than a normal mid-range interface with the same or even higher pre-amp gain. This is a different design strategy than normal audio interface or mixer (or customer) which chooses to have a higher input limit and more gain. It's very useful to drive a low-sensitivity dynamic mic and plenty of gain for further sound sources. Just need to lower the gain or take care of the PAD switch when recording pretty hot sources (like guitar DI, hardware synth, line signal from mixer, etc), which is not common on other interfaces especially mid or lower budget ones that don't have a very well-designed preamp.

Just want to share the true scenario when I'm using the UMC204HD. It's not great or bad, everyone just need to fully understand the pros&cons of this unit and choose to fit suitable usage.

 

[solderdude]

It's not great or bad, everyone just need to fully understand the pros&cons of this unit and choose to fit suitable usage.

That's basically it and true for almost any device.

 

[AnalogSteph]

1. Despite the output gain, the distortion happens when the output level in DAW is reaching the maximum. So I add limiter to the DAW output master channel and crank the gain up, and ask the mix engineer to adjust the volume (more gain if needed for my channel) when I play live.

Which is the correct fix, of course.

Think of digital levels and analog output levels as two distinct things. You should not be hitting 0 dBFS in the DAW to begin with, ideally even without a limiter (it should not have to catch more than the occasional rogue peak). Since digital levels are invariably limited and maximum undistorted analog output level is rather wimpy, adding more gain afterwards is the only possibility if levels aren't high enough otherwise.

Strictly speaking, you could be hitting the limits in up to 3 places: digital, analog stage before volume, and analog stage after volume control. The first two are effectively lumped together.

The good news is that nowadays interfaces with substantially higher output and input levels no longer cost that much more than the Behringer, which has simultaneously crept up in price. Right now a 204HD is $109 at Sweetwater, while an EVO 4 is $129, a Minifuse 2 is $149 and a Tascam US-2x2HR or Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 gen3 are $179-180. If you don't need more than one mic input there's also the Scarlett Solo ($120) or the UAA Volt 1 ($139). There's a ton of options up to $200.

2. My point is, with the same mic and less gain, the UMC204HD can reach a much higher digital level than a normal mid-range interface with the same or even higher pre-amp gain.

Well, yeah. The same absolute amount of preamp gain at a given mic level will give different digital levels if ADC clipping levels differ, and the Behringer tops out short of 0 dBu which is quite low. This is why @Julian Krause likes to refer to system gain, which is the inverse of input sensitivity (minimum analog input level that would result in 0 dBFS; for practical reasons, one would usually measure this at a lower level like -12 dBFS and then multiply the analog input level such that it would nominally hit 0 dBFS).

With system gain, you can compare apples to apples. For example, an Audient iD22 provides mic gain between -10 dB and +60 dB, with the lowest setting permitting a maximum input level of +22 dBu. That's an input sensitivity of +22 dBu - (60 dB - (-10 dB)) = -48 dBu, or a system gain of +48 dBFS/dBu (+50 dBFS/dBV).
Julian's system gain for the UMC202HD turned out to be +51 dBFS/dBu, absolute preamp gain itself being a tad short of 50 dB.
In effect, both are hitting a similar input sensitivity, the UMC202HD will even get a bit more digital level out of dynamic mics (podcasters / streamers rejoice), but the iD22 with its 70 dB gain range can be turned down a lot more to accommodate LDCs that are being sung / screamed into or even pro line-level audio.

 

[Random]

Which is the correct fix, of course.

Think of digital levels and analog output levels as two distinct things. You should not be hitting 0 dBFS in the DAW to begin with, ideally even without a limiter (it should not have to catch more than the occasional rogue peak). Since digital levels are invariably limited and maximum undistorted analog output level is rather wimpy, adding more gain afterwards is the only possibility if levels aren't high enough otherwise.

Strictly speaking, you could be hitting the limits in up to 3 places: digital, analog stage before volume, and analog stage after volume control. The first two are effectively lumped together.

The good news is that nowadays interfaces with substantially higher output and input levels no longer cost that much more than the Behringer, which has simultaneously crept up in price. Right now a 204HD is $109 at Sweetwater, while an EVO 4 is $129, a Minifuse 2 is $149 and a Tascam US-2x2HR or Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 gen3 are $179-180. If you don't need more than one mic input there's also the Scarlett Solo ($120) or the UAA Volt 1 ($139). There's a ton of options up to $200.

Well, yeah. The same absolute amount of preamp gain at a given mic level will give different digital levels if ADC clipping levels differ, and the Behringer tops out short of 0 dBu which is quite low. This is why @Julian Krause likes to refer to system gain, which is the inverse of input sensitivity (minimum analog input level that would result in 0 dBFS; for practical reasons, one would usually measure this at a lower level like -12 dBFS and then multiply the analog input level such that it would nominally hit 0 dBFS).

With system gain, you can compare apples to apples. For example, an Audient iD22 provides mic gain between -10 dB and +60 dB, with the lowest setting permitting a maximum input level of +22 dBu. That's an input sensitivity of +22 dBu - (60 dB - (-10 dB)) = -48 dBu, or a system gain of +48 dBFS/dBu (+50 dBFS/dBV).
Julian's system gain for the UMC202HD turned out to be +51 dBFS/dBu, absolute preamp gain itself being a tad short of 50 dB.
In effect, both are hitting a similar input sensitivity, the UMC202HD will even get a bit more digital level out of dynamic mics (podcasters / streamers rejoice), but the iD22 with its 70 dB gain range can be turned down a lot more to accommodate LDCs that are being sung / screamed into or even pro line-level audio.

I'm aware of these, and totally agree.
But still, I can get a brand new 204HD for less than 2/3 of the evo4's price (or 1/2 of the minifuse2) without any special discount in my region. I have 4 line out, input INSERT, MIDI I/O, monitor A/B channel switch, and it's totally USB powered. It's the only perfect <$100 solution as a 2nd or 3rd setup under my scenario, the only thing I sacrificed is sound quality when close to peak level.

I'm sincerely sorry that I wasted your time explaining all these technical details that I've been totally aware of. I do have better studio setup for recording and mixing. I just don't need a better sound quality for this product since I only need to avoid the clipping distortion in all circumstances when I play live. The PA system and the live space have far more distortion and coloration than my interface. I know all the drawbacks and I will change it to some real professional gears when I have the chance to do live recording for some big-name or I can play at a big concert.

 

[GBX]

Has anyone tried to mod this audio interface or similar behringer audio interface to add a on/off switch button?

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Has anyone tried to mod this audio interface or similar behringer audio interface to add a on/off switch button?

It would be easier to connect its USB cable via a passive USB hub with on-off switches for each port -- no soldering required and no warranty terms violated!

SABRENT 4-Port USB 2.0 Data Hub with Individual LED lit Power Switches

 

[Lilith]

Hi,

I have a question concerning the distortion of the UMC 204 (I'm mainly interested in the distortion of the output channels). I measured it with REW and I get THD ~0.5% which is quite mediocre.

see here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...hringer-umc-204-distortion-on-main-out.36995/

Here's another measurement which looks similar: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nterface-for-rmaa-dac-test.8182/#post-1302848

Could it be that this is caused by the fact that I'm going from the output into the input, so the distortion adds up? How is Amirs measurement done? Is the output measured separately for instance by going into a high quality analyzer? (edit: Obviously output into input of the same device)

I wonder if the unit is broken or if I should get something better. Amirs measurement looks much better, but I question that it's comparable to what I did. I also measured a Zoom R8 the same way and there I get THD ~ 0.003% with the same method. So a factor of 100 better at least.

 

[SIY]

Hi,

(I'm mainly interested in the distortion of the output channels).

The ADC part (inputs) is mediocre, though in my loopback testing, it was better than that. The issue is the voltage level of that output, which is not high. If you just want to know what the outputs are doing, you'd do better to have a separate ADC with known low distortion. Can you borrow one?

 

[Lilith]

The ADC part (inputs) is mediocre, though in my loopback testing, it was better than that. The issue is the voltage level of that output, which is not high. If you just want to know what the outputs are doing, you'd do better to have a separate ADC with known low distortion. Can you borrow one?

Thanks, so in Armirs measurement at the beginning it was not fed into the UMC 204 input? The second harmonic is at around -100 dB while I'm at around -50 dB . I could feed it in the Zoom R8, but I need two PCs for that... would be doable.

I also see a difference in THD when the Main Volume is at ~50% compared to 100%. THD increase by a factor of ~2 when I increase the volume of the output. But as it is weak anyway I can't work with half of the max. volume.

 

[SIY]

Thanks, so in Armirs measurement at the beginning it was not fed into the UMC 204 input? The second harmonic is at around -100 dB while I'm at around -50 dB . I could feed it in the Zoom R8, but I need two PCs for that... would be doable.

I also see a difference in THD when the Main Volume is at ~50% compared to 100%. THD increase by a factor of ~2 when I increase the volume of the output. But as it is weak anyway I can't work with half of the max. volume.

Take a look at the first couple graphs. Amir noticed that turning down the gain by 3dB had a dramatic effect on the distortion.

 

[Lilith]

Take a look at the first couple graphs. Amir noticed that turning down the gain by 3dB had a dramatic effect on the distortion.

I think I don't understand it. So the signal is generated with an external generator and then fed into the UMC input. I wonder how the gain of the input is then set. Just below clipping, as low as possible, etc. I tried of course changing the input gain, but I didn't improve that much. Pressing the Pad button helps a bit though. But still THD at around 0.3 or so.

 

[SIY]

I think I don't understand it. So the signal is generated with an external generator and then fed into the UMC input. I wonder how the gain of the input is then set. Just below clipping, as low as possible, etc. I tried of course changing the input gain, but I didn't improve that much. Pressing the Pad button helps a bit though. But still THD at around 0.3 or so.

It's fed in as a digital signal, i.e., via USB, not the analog inputs.

 

[BeerBear]

Hi,

I have a question concerning the distortion of the UMC 204 (I'm mainly interested in the distortion of the output channels). I measured it with REW and I get THD ~0.5% which is quite mediocre.

see here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...hringer-umc-204-distortion-on-main-out.36995/

Here's another measurement which looks similar: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nterface-for-rmaa-dac-test.8182/#post-1302848

Could it be that this is caused by the fact that I'm going from the output into the input, so the distortion adds up? How is Amirs measurement done? Is the output measured separately for instance by going into a high quality analyzer? (edit: Obviously output into input of the same device)

I wonder if the unit is broken or if I should get something better. Amirs measurement looks much better, but I question that it's comparable to what I did. I also measured a Zoom R8 the same way and there I get THD ~ 0.003% with the same method. So a factor of 100 better at least.

Maybe related to this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dio-interface-review.9856/page-6#post-1048970

 

[Lilith]

Maybe related to this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...dio-interface-review.9856/page-6#post-1048970

Yes, I knew this. I set the volume in alsamixer (Linux) to -3dB to prevent clipping, which is audible easily by playing a sine tone. I thought first that it's the volume of the Behringer, but with -3dB in the software and the volume control of the Behringer on maximum there's no audible clipping.

I just fed the UMC output (max. volume) from the main outs into the Zoom R8 and the picture is different compared to the loopback experiment. No second harmonic, instead the third harmonic. Also distortion is much lower, but of course it also depends on the input volume of the R8. So, I think one has to know what one is doing to get this correctly and one needs special equipment or a good audio interface.

 

[Ruhled]

Use the inserts on the back and not the inputs on the front. The front inputs go through their special preamps (adding a bunch of distortion.) Using the inserts will bypass those preamps. Note the gain controls on the front will no longer function so you will need to manage the input gain some other way.