Behringer UMC1820 vs Presonus Quantum 2626

[TeeJay2112]

I recently got a Quantum 2626 to try after reading the review in SOS. My current interface is a Behringer UMC1820, and I expected the Quantum to be MUCH superior.......
Thunderbolt + DMA should theoretically beat USB hands down in terms of CPU hit, along with the blistering low latency performance experienced by the reviewer......
WELL.......
I ran a large-ish project that I can run at 32 sample buffer with the 1820, and the Quantum couldn't handle it.... click and pop city!! (for overdubbing....I'd obviously use a much higher buffer size when mixing.....)
Assuming there must be a problem with my setup, , I got onto Presonus support, sent them a system report along with shots of Logics CPU meter and audio pref window
Unfortunately no problem was found......

So, the Quantum is going back, and the Berry is staying in the rack for the foreseeable future.
I admit the latency figures were better on the Quantum, but not by as much as one might have thought......2.3ms vs 4.1 @ 44.1kHz and a 64 sample buffer and as I said above 32 worked fine with the Berry, but not the Quantum.....

Anybody else here experienced problems with the 2626??
And anyone else using an 1820 happily as I am??

I await your input.....

Mac mini 2018 32gig RAM, Monterey 12.6 and Logic 10.7.4

[sonics]

I admit the latency figures were better on the Quantum, but not by as much as one might have thought......2.3ms vs 4.1 @ 44.1kHz and a 64 sample buffer and as I said above 32 worked fine with the Berry, but not the Quantum.....

Surely the goal is low latency, not smaller buffer size?

If the 64-sample buffer for 2.3mS latency works fine on the Quantum, then it's the better interface (for latency) in my book. There are also the issues of preamp quality et. al. to consider.

[TeeJay2112]

you do have a point, but my point is mainly that I did not see the quantum (pun intentional) jump in performance that I had been expecting, given the price differential and TB connectivity......
When paying over double the price of the 1820, I think it reasonable to expect it to be better overall. No one expects a direct correlation between price/performance, Law of diminishing returns etc. but i would have expected it to be at least a little better in every way......
More concerning for me is the fact that the overall CPU hit like for like was larger on the Quantum.
I have no axe to grind here, just reporting what I found......
Oh, BTW, the preamps on the UMC1820 are much better than might be expected.
I REALLY would like to hear from any 2626 users about your experience

Regards etc.

TeeJay

[Hugh Robjohns]

I haven't used either interface, so can't offer any practical insight there, but I think you've highlighted just how good budget gear is now, and how small the audible differences often are between budget and mid-field or even high-end stuff.

It also highlights how small technical improvements generally add significantly to the cost. If you compare specs of the two units there are some clear differences.

The most obvious is the dynamic range — 106dB for the 1820 and 118dB for the Quantum. Acheiving that 12dB advantage requires a great deal of engineering effort and design, and hence cost. However, for most project studio applications 106dB is still more than adequate!

As you've also found, USB2 is more than good enough for the majority of audio applications, and while TB has some theoretical performance benefits when it comes to high data throughput, they just aren't that significant or relevant for modest audio interfaces.

[sonics]

As Hugh said, it shows just how good cheap gear can be these days.

I have used both interfaces and, whilst I particularly like the Quantum (XMAX) preamps for their clean sound, I would have no qualms about using the Behringer if it were the only interface available. But those small differences in sound quality are worth the extra money for me.

[TeeJay2112]

Hugh, one of the main reasons I wanted to try a TB interface was that as I understood it the DMA aspect meant that the CPU wasn’t involved in the transfer of audio. From this info, I inferred that the CPU hit should be smaller, so I was very surprised to see that the 1820 not only worked at a 32 sample buffer size, but showed a lower CPU usage at all buffer sizes, entirely contrary to my expectations!
Regarding the dynamic range of the pre’s, I think given my usage, the extra 12 dB would indeed be wasted …. On the other hand Sod’s law says I’m probably going to have to eat those words one day LOL
Anyway, what would be your thought regarding the whole CPU usage/DMA thing please? I can’t think of anyone whose opinion on these matters I would hold in higher regard (truth, not flattery!)
Regards etc.
Teejay

[Hugh Robjohns]

Anyway, what would be your thought regarding the whole CPU usage/DMA thing please?

It's a topic thats really outside my area of competency I'm afraid. Hopefully someone who really knows this stuff can advise.

[TeeJay2112]

Thanks

[OneWorld]

I've read a lot of good things about the Berry 1820 and thought that considering the price, I might buy one as a spare standby interface. Anything that will perform well below 126 samples with a low latency is worth considering I would think

[jjlonbass]

Anyway, what would be your thought regarding the whole CPU usage/DMA thing please?

It's a topic thats really outside my area of competency I'm afraid. Hopefully someone who really knows this stuff can advise.

USB host controllers (the part that is in the PC, Mac or whatever) have used DMA since the very earliest days of USB. The computer's CPU is involved in setting up transfers and ensuring that data is available, but that's more or less it.

John

[TeeJay2112]

Aha!
I wasn’t aware of that…..
Thank You!!!

[Arpangel]

I have an 1820, and have no desire to buy anything else, I’m using it on my 2014 Mac with no issues, it’s rock solid, I’ve also used it on my PC, same.
I’ve also got a 202HD same also.
Unless they actually break, or stop working, I see no need to change.
I’ve used Motu, RME, M-Audio, this is easily as good, sonically, if not better than some, the mic amps are too good for the money, and surprised me with their quality when I first used them.
Nothing more to say really, just stick with it.

[ore_terra]

I recently got a Quantum 2626 to try after reading the review in SOS. My current interface is a Behringer UMC1820, and I expected the Quantum to be MUCH superior.......
Thunderbolt + DMA should theoretically beat USB hands down in terms of CPU hit, along with the blistering low latency performance experienced by the reviewer......
WELL.......
I ran a large-ish project that I can run at 32 sample buffer with the 1820, and the Quantum couldn't handle it.... click and pop city!! (for overdubbing....I'd obviously use a much higher buffer size when mixing.....)
Assuming there must be a problem with my setup, , I got onto Presonus support, sent them a system report along with shots of Logics CPU meter and audio pref window
Unfortunately no problem was found......

So, the Quantum is going back, and the Berry is staying in the rack for the foreseeable future.
I admit the latency figures were better on the Quantum, but not by as much as one might have thought......2.3ms vs 4.1 @ 44.1kHz and a 64 sample buffer and as I said above 32 worked fine with the Berry, but not the Quantum.....

Anybody else here experienced problems with the 2626??
And anyone else using an 1820 happily as I am??

I await your input.....

Mac mini 2018 32gig RAM, Monterey 12.6 and Logic 10.7.4

I use a 4848 in my studio. True what you say about 32 samples: it doesnt do it right. BUT, why should you be bothered when latency is still not noticeable at 64 at the machine runs smooth? Even at 128 you can track and monitor relatively well.

I’ve also done direct out routings and back to Cubase during tracking. Specifically keyboard -> converter IN (clean track) -> converter OUT -> reamp -> converter IN (reamp track), monitoring the lattest, and the keyboard player was happy…

[TeeJay2112]

It’s the combination of the 32 sample problem, and an increased CPU usage compared to the 1820 at any sample rate that led me to stay with the 1820…..
From the research I’d done (which wasn’t easy as info on this is not particularly easy to come by), I had expected the 2626s TB connectivity to lower CPU usage, and therefore perhaps extend the time until I need to upgrade my Mac, but in practice, on my machine the reverse was true……
Regards etc
Teejay

[MeJ]

Do excuse a very late reply to a dead topic, but I only just saw it.

A couple of years ago I purchased an SSL BiG SiX to replace my Behringer 1820 to do some more serious work.

The BiG SiX IS better that the Behringer - but then it b****y well should be given the price difference. The difference however is very much less than I had thought. On some material I simply can't tell the difference, obvs. the mic amps are quieter and have more gain on the BiG SiX but that only really matters with the Shure SM7B. I brought it for the channels, compressors and easy outboard gear integration, but the D/A and A/D are nothing to sniff at. But the 1820 is surprisingly close - I have had to revert to it as the Big SiX has gone back for a warranty repair (USB port intermittent) and I can still work just fine. Incidentally I also have some smaller UMCs and a Studio 24C, which is quite usable but only at line levels. Previously I had some good FireWire gear which is essentially junked now, and that had comparable latency to the Big SiX...

I have had quite a lot of Behringer gear over the years as it represents generally excellent VFM. And much of it is just - good (with the odd exception). And all of the above, even the poor gear, far exceeds the performance of my small professional studio (1" 3M 8 track, Bias 2 track, custom console, Tannoy Golds bi-amped) in the early '80s.

And yes I do have SSL (consumer) gear, Neumann mics and monitors and other Good Stuff to compare it on.

As far as latency is concerned, after a nightmare with a custom built i7 1470K/64G/2TB nVME machine with Win 11, where neither Microsoft nor Steinberg properly supported the architecture for 18 months (!) I finally gave in and bought a refurbished Mac M1 Max Studio and that made MUCH more difference than the variation in the interfaces did. Sadly, 'cos now I'm stuck on that bandwagon!

[ajay_m]

Moving to 96Khz if your interface will support it, seems to result in lower latency. As an example my DM3 is returning under 2ms input and output latency in Reaper. I assume that the issue here is that for a given buffer size, obviously the time taken to play the buffer is halved at 96k and that the overhead of preparing smaller buffers is for some reason higher. So a buffer size of 64 at 96khz, while theoretically equivalent to a buffer size of 32 at 48khz, in terms of latency, seems to impose less strain on the OS. Why exactly, I'm not sure.
But I can certainly push the latency down further at 96KHz without dropouts than I can at 48KHz (DM3 doesn't support 44.1). This does seem counter-intuitive I admit and certainly the cpu consumption of the DAW doesn't seem to change either at the higher sampling rate, which surprises me also.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Moving to 96Khz if your interface will support it, seems to result in lower latency.

All else being equal, the A-D and D-A FIR filter* latencies are halved at double sample rates, which obviously makes a big difference to the round trip system latency.

*The anti-alias/reconstruction filters are done with hardware FIR filters with a fixed number of delay stages (2048, or whatever). So if the clock rate is doubled, the time each sample spends travelling down the delay chain is halved.

[ajay_m]

Of course,I had completely overlooked filter latency. I think I was mentally treating filtering as an analogue component, which of course it is not.
Although of course at a sampling rate of 96KHz I imagine that, if you were still looking at an audio passband going up to 20KHz then filtering requirements are significantly less stringent than at 44.1 and that you could, in theory, use a conventional analogue filter on input and output because the passband and stopbands are much further apart. At 96KHz the Nyquist frequency is 48KHz as opposed to only 22KHz at 44.1.

[Arpangel]

Do excuse a very late reply to a dead topic, but I only just saw it.

A couple of years ago I purchased an SSL BiG SiX to replace my Behringer 1820 to do some more serious work.

The BiG SiX IS better that the Behringer - but then it b****y well should be given the price difference. The difference however is very much less than I had thought. On some material I simply can't tell the difference, obvs. the mic amps are quieter and have more gain on the BiG SiX but that only really matters with the Shure SM7B. I brought it for the channels, compressors and easy outboard gear integration, but the D/A and A/D are nothing to sniff at. But the 1820 is surprisingly close - I have had to revert to it as the Big SiX has gone back for a warranty repair (USB port intermittent) and I can still work just fine. Incidentally I also have some smaller UMCs and a Studio 24C, which is quite usable but only at line levels. Previously I had some good FireWire gear which is essentially junked now, and that had comparable latency to the Big SiX...

I have had quite a lot of Behringer gear over the years as it represents generally excellent VFM. And much of it is just - good (with the odd exception). And all of the above, even the poor gear, far exceeds the performance of my small professional studio (1" 3M 8 track, Bias 2 track, custom console, Tannoy Golds bi-amped) in the early '80s.

And yes I do have SSL (consumer) gear, Neumann mics and monitors and other Good Stuff to compare it on.

As far as latency is concerned, after a nightmare with a custom built i7 1470K/64G/2TB nVME machine with Win 11, where neither Microsoft nor Steinberg properly supported the architecture for 18 months (!) I finally gave in and bought a refurbished Mac M1 Max Studio and that made MUCH more difference than the variation in the interfaces did. Sadly, 'cos now I'm stuck on that bandwagon!

I was thinking of going down that path, SSL Big Six, to replace my Allen&Heath, and my Behringer 1820, but I haven’t done it yet, the fear being I'd not notice any difference! my music is lo-fi anyway, so probably would be way OTT.
My current set-up sounds fine to me anyway, at least to my ageing ears.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Although of course at a sampling rate of 96KHz I imagine that, if you were still looking at an audio passband going up to 20KHz then filtering requirements are significantly less stringent than at 44.1 and that you could, in theory, use a conventional analogue filter on input and output because the passband and stopbands are much further apart.

It's only an octave more and still far too steep to be practical with an analogue filter. We need hundreds of dB per octave attenuation!

Above quad rates you potentially could, but not double. FIR filters are so much more cost-effective and precise — and the filter cut-off automatically tracks the sample rate which wouldn't be the case with an analogue filter.

[ef37a]

Now, I know this is the mac dept but should any "Windows person" be sucked in by the thread title as I was can I sound a note of caution?

The 1820 is obviously very good on a mac but we do not know from this thread what its driver performance is on Windows and this AFAIK is the main problem with interfaces and latency?

I readily agree that budget interfaces have improved no end in the last five or so years. I had a UMC204HD and the mic pres were very good, maybe not quite up to my M4 but then, big price difference.

Dave.

[Arpangel]

Now, I know this is the mac dept but should any "Windows person" be sucked in by the thread title as I was can I sound a note of caution?

The 1820 is obviously very good on a mac but we do not know from this thread what its driver performance is on Windows and this AFAIK is the main problem with interfaces and latency?

I readily agree that budget interfaces have improved no end in the last five or so years. I had a UMC204HD and the mic pres were very good, maybe not quite up to my M4 but then, big price difference.

Dave.

Dave, I’m running my 1820 on a Mac, but I have run it on my PC with no problems.
My PC running Win 10 has a Berry 202HD for casual listening, all fine.
Although "ultimate" latency isn’t a requirement for me, in the way I work.

[ef37a]

Now, I know this is the mac dept but should any "Windows person" be sucked in by the thread title as I was can I sound a note of caution?

The 1820 is obviously very good on a mac but we do not know from this thread what its driver performance is on Windows and this AFAIK is the main problem with interfaces and latency?

I readily agree that budget interfaces have improved no end in the last five or so years. I had a UMC204HD and the mic pres were very good, maybe not quite up to my M4 but then, big price difference.

Dave.

Dave, I’m running my 1820 on a Mac, but I have run it on my PC with no problems.
My PC running Win 10 has a Berry 202HD for casual listening, all fine.
Although "ultimate" latency isn’t a requirement for me, in the way I work.

Hi Tony, unfortunately I did not have my 204HD long enough to check the latency. I bought the interface for son and just wanted a day or two to check it out before shipping it to France.
The problem is, Behringer kit like this seems to "fall into a crack" where SoS reviews are concerned? The AI might get a quick, nearly one page 'looky-atty' but such budget kit is never going to go to a top bloke with a PC to really wring out the ASIO drivers. I trust nowhere else.

I have infested two other audio forums for many years and I do not recall anyone saying "the Behringer XXXXXX has rubbish drivers and a clicky mess on a PC"? So maybe it is fine. I had a BCA2000 many years ago and the drivers for that WERE ****! That was very early days for USB interfaces mind.

Dave.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The reason for the 'crack' is that Behringer very rarely send SOS products for review.

[ajay_m]

My understanding is that because Behringer won't send review units out to SOS (not sure if this is a general thing and they'd send stuff to rubbish mags like T3 because everything's awesome in their 'reviews') - then SOS don't generally review Behringer (or its associated companies) because they'd have to purchase the review copy.

This is understandable but somewhat frustrating because it means you end up with a magazine full of reviews for things like the Aardvark A1234 monitor controller which is made with a case of solid granite mined in Outer Silesia and hand polished by elves - oh, and it costs... eeek!. Or yet another sodding microphone made with Chinese components somewhere in Eastern Europe.

I guess the only real solution would be to have a kind of Kickstarter thing where if you really want SOS to review Behringer gear, you have to nominate what you want reviewed and chip in a few quid towards the purchase price. I really can't see that happening though. Alternatively, if you own one, there's some way to loan it to SOS for a review (maybe in exchange for a year's free subscription - just a thought, chaps!)