Did a $79 Behringer mastering interface just outperform the iFi DAC2?

[plissken]

Amir's sub $99 DAC testing is going to be an interesting series. It appears, disregarding price, that a $79 interface with balanced I/O, ADC, HP Amp,

outperforms the iFi DAC2:

 

[plissken]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

A) I'd like to know the resolution of the measurements / equip because they're not too far off ... certainly not bad for the behringer though

B) I'd like to see a close up measurement, just a few Hz around the carrier and with high res intervals (subHz) before declaring which one is "better"

 

Go to audiosciencereview and ask. The other thing to keep in mind is that this is the single ended output on the Behringer. The Balanced out hasn't been measured yet.  Expect 5-7 dB better performance on average. 

 

Given that both are measured at the same sampling interval you would have to ask the same for the iFi. Sauce and Geese and all of that. 

 

Given what I see I don't see the iFi walking away from the 204HD. 

[plissken]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'd like to know how important the small differences are to SQ, what the unit to unit variation is, and what's going on at 10 kHz with that little blip.

 

Unit to unit with the iFi? Or the Behringer? I.E. is the iFi immune from manufacturing variation? Both units have very good performance and the Behringer may have that slight 10Khz rise but doesn't exhibit 2nd order harmonics. 

 

I'm keen on seeing the balance outputs measured. 

 

Any way you chop it what is shown is excellent and for $80?

[plissken]

7 hours ago, mrvco said:

Does Amir own a pair of speakers or just that AP analyzer?

 

He owns a high end consumer A/V firm... He also was the VP at Microsoft that developed the WASAPI audio subsystem for Windows.

[plissken]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

unit to unit for each manf.

 

sounds like no one knows if -130 is adequate or not...

Adequate or not for what?

[plissken]

Some people look a gift horse in the mouth. Others get on the thing and ride. Good questions but I sense some push back either due to the price, the manufacturer, or both. Not metrics that affect SQ or real performance. 

 

The 204HD is what it is and if it's measuring and performing well then that is what it is. Hopefully some more measurements will be forthcoming but in the areas of noise floor and jitter performance it's right there with the best of them. It doesn't even exhibit 2nd order harmonic behavior and the 3rd harmonic is still lower than an audiophile DAC that is 443% more expensive and doesn't have nearly the options. 

 

So anyone that is asking for high performance DAC that is budget bound this is a great option for them.

 

I know it's a better interface than the Schitt Modi and $20 less with way more connectivity. 

 

 

[plissken]

YashN Reported. 

[plissken]

10 minutes ago, mrvco said:

 

That doesn't answer my question.

 

Has Amir ever posted listening impressions?  There are countless examples in audiophillia of "sounds great, measure poorly" and vice versa.  I'd love to know whether Amir's measurements do or don't correlate with what his ears tell him.  And I inadvertently met Amir last year at RMAF, surprisingly nice guy.

 

He's just posting measurements and not listening to any of the devices. It's a measurement only endeavor he is undertaking. My understanding is he has more sub $100 DACs to come. 

 

There are countless examples of measures great and sounds great and measures poorly and sound poorly.

 

If you want to make the bet that the Schitt Modi would outclass the Behringer UMC204HD subjectively, I would want in on that action. 

 

 

[plissken]

15 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Adequate so that further reductions below -130 dB will not increase SQ

 

Yep...  Look at the peak amplitude of the 2nd and 3rd order harmonics. The Behringer engineers have it better controlled.

 

I would think people would be happy that they can get $300 or even $400 worth of performance for $79.

[plissken]

I have one in for some subjective evaluation... So far I'm impressed even compared to my $499 Emotiva DC-1 and the $4000 Cary Audio DMS-500 streamer.

 

Taking away the sighted evaluation really makes the subjective process easier. I'm going to live with it a bit more but for $79 the performance is just bonkers. 

 

Unfortunately, here at least, if I make a recommendation of this $79 wonder vs some $400 and $500 kit, I'll get a crap load of push back from people that go along with $$'s equal performance instead of good engineering. Or in some cases how much the DAC weighs. I think people would be hard pressed to pick this out blind vs other well measuring and certainly more expensive DAC's. 

[plissken]

13 hours ago, Panelhead said:

  Looks like 18 bit resolution for the Behringer. But 79.00 does not buy 22 bit. 

  Does look good.

 

How can you tell from the Jitter measurement? We don't see any response beyond 22Khz.

 

[plissken]

22 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

+1  

Not sure that will happen with the majority of the Pro Industry who really doesn't think DSD is any advantage.  

 

I wonder how that opinion could be so widespread among content producers. 

[plissken]

21 minutes ago, rando said:

@plissken Following on from a comment in another thread.  Do you expect this Behringer to be the overall winner in this budget DAC test?  Otherwise it might be premature to recommend it widely given the recording functions play such a significant visual if not functional part in using it.  

 

Don't get me wrong, if it's effectively a better DAC than single function devices on the market who cares what it looks like at that price.

 

I don't expect anything. But I know a few things:

 

1. It measures well both noise floor and Jitter correction (i.e. applying it's own clock). 

2. For the provided measurements it's showing better behavior than a popular audiophile brand at 443% greater costs with no where near the feature set. Pre inputs, HP jack, Balanced I/O. 

3. The unit is solid and won't move around. 

4. I took mine apart the the build quality is decent. 

5. I know it's not a poor performing DAC. 

 

"

Otherwise it might be premature to recommend it widely given the recording functions play such a significant visual if not functional part in using it."

 

I have zero idea what you mean by the above quote. 

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, Eric Auer said:

Only USB in is a little bit of a bummer tho.

 

Eric

 

This is COMPUTER audiophile last time I checked

[plissken]

5 minutes ago, Eric Auer said:

 

Of course.

 

But naturally one wants more if possible.

 

Eric

 

You would want to visit www.wantsmoreifpossibleaudiophile.com

[plissken]

9 minutes ago, Eric Auer said:

I would, but too busy staring at the optical out jack on my computer atm.

 

Eric

 

Use your good eye...

[plissken]

39 minutes ago, rando said:

What I very well mean is if a worthier contender arises it would naturally become the device to point people investing with a lower level of interest towards.

 

Agreed. There are more DAC's to come at $99 or under. What the Behringer UMC 204HD is showing I don't see it problematic with the lack of other comparable priced DAC's yet to be benched to make a recommendation out of it since it does perform well against a known and popular audiophile DAC.

 

[plissken]

On 5/23/2017 at 1:49 PM, rando said:

What I very well mean is if a worthier contender arises it would naturally become the device to point people investing with a lower level of interest towards.

 

Sure why wouldn't I or anyone else recommend something even better. The greedy consumer wants 100% of the performance, 100% of the features all at 0% of the cost.

 

On 5/23/2017 at 1:49 PM, rando said:

mp3 out of a phone, low quality internet streams, electronic sounds abusive to speakers, gaming, netflix, anything audio associate the average person might force through it with the expectation of a cleaner signal.

 

Don't really have an idea of what you are getting at. Sure you can play crappy, hyper compressed, low bit rate streams through $100,000 DAC's if you like.

[plissken]

12 hours ago, rando said:

Ah, but the type of person who is going to buy a $79 DAC in place of a receiver will be listening to "crappy, hyper compressed, low bit rate streams."

More likely the person that used the HP out on their computer. But maybe not even then.

 

More than even odds that a person purchasing a mastering interface knows about various formats. Not sure what reality even allows you to make internal sense of your statement for you.

12 hours ago, rando said:

The vast majority of music on computers is ripped mp3's.  An answer that polishes the aforementioned turds would also do a handy number on historical performances.  Who cares if it doesn't treat high res files so kindly.

Are you trying to malign the $79 interface that seems, at initial blush, to perform well, or someone of limited funds that want as much performance/features they can get for $79? or upset that you have have purchased an Audiophile interface at 4-5X the cost that may not be as good an interface?

 

12 hours ago, rando said:

As for why I felt need to point out another device could preempt the object of this thread?  Such is the way industry works.

 

That's called a win.

12 hours ago, rando said:

 

 As soon as the first domino falls the market gets flooded.  Some are bound to function better than others.  One may even be fantastic value for money until the masses get wise to it.   

 

So the value of it goes down the more units shipped? Come again?

 

[plissken]

10 hours ago, TubeLover said:

Measurements only, without any audible evaluation are meaningless to me, and should be to others. 

 

JC

 

You are missing the point: The measurements simply put the product into the "Should try it out".

 

The measurements that I saw of the Schitt Modi would allow me to exclude that product.

[plissken]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

I'm repeating myself, but it won't get any shot.  Fair or otherwise.  Regardless of any sound difference, it would have to be a tremendous huge improvement for recording people to forego easy editing, processing and creating that is possible with PCM and minimum to non-existent with DSD.  There work would be easier to return fully to analog tape than it would be to work in DSD if they insisted on keeping it DSD from start to finish.

 

Good point. So good it will be dutifully ignored.

[plissken]

On the bit depth resolution. Remember the S.E. outputs were measured. The Balanced out will deliver another 6dB of lower noise floor, subsequently higher Amplitude Response,  and put this device at ~20 bits.

[plissken]

6 minutes ago, rando said:

I'm less than amazed anymore when someone quotes the same message twice, concurrently, weeks apart to double down on the negativity they can spread.  What didn't deserve a first response from me certainly shouldn't have elicited a second thought on the matter.  Have a better Summer.

 

There's never such a thing as too much when pointing out faulty logic. Never mind the fact that the post I quoted is less than 15 hours old and not 'weeks ago'.

 

You have recollection of events that doesn't even exist. This serves to remind me that I'm not always dealing with the rational person.

[plissken]

33 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I like this comment because it works great for everyone. 

 

Whether you are 100% measurement based or 100% subjective or somewhere in the middle, you must understand that not all measurements really matter. One must listen to decide if a certain measurement matters to him. 

 

 

100% correct. You have to get ears on this stuff. I'm just happy there are truly well performing (objectively), factually affordable :), that you can easily try out.

 

Gear like this makes it easier than ever to experience a high resolution setup.

 

If all the outputs are active there is additional benefit of the ability to drive L/R subs with it.

 

I could easily see this unit or the 404HD, the Yamaha P2500S, driving $9400 worth of speakers outperforming $5000 in DAC/AMP and $5000 in speakers.

[plissken]

14 minutes ago, esldude said:

Actually unless you intentionally rig the test with some sub-par for the price speakers, I see no other result than the $9400 speakers with the cheap front end outperforming the alternate using $5000 speakers.

 

Yep ;-) I've been, unfortunately, not surprised by seeing $1000 in speakers being driven by $3000 in amp/dac/source hardware. It's a head scratcher every time.