A way to get the Behringer UMC202HD card

Well, that's the way it is now.

.

Well, and beautifully. Even the soldermask colour appropriately matched to the factory plate .

Aha, it may be useful for someone to know that the UMC202HD card was devoted quite a lot of space in issue 4/2025 of the monthly magazine Understanding Electronics. Modifications to this card are also described.

Has anyone come up with anything more interesting than me ????

It came out super, and in almost tiles I wrote on PW.

>>21482816 .

Not necessarily more interesting, and certainly uglier Essentially the same way (bypassing the noises), except that the author has also described a way to minimise the noises without modifications and to adapt this card for use as a measurement card. There is also a link to this thread and photos of the solution presented here.

For the full availability of the magazine you will unfortunately have to wait a while yet, for now only a pre-release for patrons is available. The issues are generally released at the end of the month. Anyway, I think it is worth reading this article if anyone is interested in learning more about the card in question,

marweg1967 wrote:

>>21482816 .
Not necessarily more interesting, and certainly uglier Essentially the same way (bypassing the skimmers) ...

There's quite a shuffle on the web in one of the forums about the noises of this interface and how to deal with them. I dropped out halfway through reading it because I wasn't able to keep track of the changes, The changes were quite intrusive, with various variations.

Link: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/behringer-umc-202hd-for-measurements.341309/

marweg1967 wrote:

>>21482816 .
Full availability of the magazine will unfortunately have to wait a while yet, for now only a pre-release for patrons is available.

And I already thought I had missed something, because I found it possible to purchase issues 1/2025 and 2/2025. Issue 3 is only mentioned on the periodical's website and no word about issue 4.

KWF wrote:

Number 3 is only mentioned on the periodical's website and no word about number 4.

There is a teaser at https://piotr-gorecki.pl/ Even a downloadable "advertorial". On the cover there is a big caption "USB audio cards as measuring instruments".

From what can be seen in the publicly available, demonstration (abbreviated) copy of the ZE 4/25, it is not out of the question that Peter, in his deliberations, was inspired by my material posted here. He only simplified (and at the same time somewhat complicated) the shortcut of the audio track. Because instead of a complete solution as I presented here, he shortened the input path of the card by adding an additional input on the cables and an input switcher. (Hardly elegant).
And my attempts with added (as in the article) diodes (1N4148), unfortunately resulted in increased distortion. So, in the end, I opted for a solution with Zenar diodes at 2.4V, because this, in my case, did not negatively affect the distortion level.

Anyway, in my card, I also made a few other minor changes that I haven't mentioned here.
Now the noise in my card comes out in measurements at -103.5 dBa, dynamic range 103.7 dBa, THD 0.003.

Apparently in the full issue, there is a link to this thread. However, Mr Peter did not consult me, about the possibility of using my material, so I hope you will not see it in the full version of the issue.

tytka wrote:

Also, in my card, I've also made a few other minor changes not mentioned here.
Now the noise in my card comes out in measurements at -103.5 dBa, dynamic range 103.7 dBa, THD 0.003.

.
Could you share what else you have changed in this interface? These results look very impressive.

tytka wrote:

However, Mr Peter did not consult me, about the possibility of using my material, so I hope you won't see it in the full issue

.
Unfortunately I have also encountered such practices and they are rather contrary to Copyright Law.

If I can find my notes of these additional changes to the card, I can present them here.
I don't really remember the details of the changes and where I put the notes. It's been a long time in which I've dealt with a lot of other things.

However, despite the corrections, it is still the UMC202HD, not the best card I currently have.
.

KWF wrote:

Halfway through reading I dropped out,

.
Halfway through? Then I guess you got to the point where my modification was mentioned there,

I rammed the first DAC in this card and on it the results were not particularly impressive. I bought a second DAC and tested it, it reached -104dB of noise and geez I was so pleased I rammed it too. I bought another one that barely approached -101dB and it stayed that way. This reinforced my conviction that you also have to hit a better piece then you will also gain a bit. I should add that my card has only the modification mentioned in the subject. Along the way I flew some parts, it cost some time and money, the hardest thing was to find good opamps, because on some supposedly great parameters card was humming at the output, originals were impossible to get, so I had to combine and managed to catch good operational amplifiers for the output.

2konrafal1993 wrote:

This reinforced my belief that you also have to hit better art then you will also gain a little.

.
All in all, there's quite a bit right in those words.
My Xonar, has supposedly worse WOs because from UTC, and my friend's Xonar has WOs from TI. And mine on the Taiwanese ones, performs noticeably better.
Honestly, I was stunned by this, because some time earlier, I was struggling at work with the improvement of a certain device of ours, in which (due to the costs) it was decided to install replacements from UTC instead of the amplifier from TI. And with these replacements, after some time of operation, problems started to occur, the amplifiers started to excite. So previous experience indicated that the Taiwanese chips were weak. And here suddenly such a surprise.

Going back to the UMC202HD, it once occurred to me to throw everything but the Xmos out of it and build it anew with a different ADC and DAC. But after thinking it over, I let the subject go, as it would have been unprofitable overall. Especially since I was already putting together a small measurement computer with Xonar at the time.

tytka wrote:

however, despite the corrections, it is still the UMC202HD, not the best card I currently have.

.

Yes, I know there are better interfaces/cards out there. I was looking at the Scarlett 2i2 before buying the UMC202HD, but the price put me off as it was out of budget for my applications. I also have a Sound Blaster X-Fi HD USB card (SB1240), but it's picky about working with newer versions of macOS (max 96kHz and 16-bit) and REW.

Before I bought the UMC202HD I scrolled through n pages on the web, linking to this thread, so my choice was an informed one.

Anyway, your modification on the relays appealed to me the most, for its simplicity as well as its finesse.

>>21487409 .
I too started my search for a measurement card with Focusrite. I had already even got over the price and was really close to buying one. But I came across a video of an unsuccessful attempt to repair a Focusrite (I think it was Rafal Bielawski), which showed that it was easy to damage and difficult to repair. So I took a chance on the Behringer, well now I'm going to rework it Because it performs poorly without it.

So did I. When I bought my first card, I dreamt of a Scarlett 2i2, but the budget wasn't there at the time, so I bought a Behringer. And ... First there was disappointment, and then the "fun" started, to get what I could out of it .
I bought the Scarlett-ka in the end anyway, because I needed to have two cards, and a good second-hand one came along.
And now that I have my mini metering computer with Xonar, I think I'll get rid of the Scarlett-ka. The Behringer is supposedly inferior to it, but through all that struggle with it, I have a certain fondness for it .