-70db noise floor - decent?

[Arpangel]

The Behringer simply isn't designed to be used with devices that output professional levels and the Scarlett inputs 3 and 4 will also distort well before the desk runs out of steam.

What? I'm running a Behringer 1820/ADA8200 combo, absolutely fine with the various outputs from my A&H MixWiz the Behringer has Line and Instrument level adjustment, it works best if I set all the line inputs to instrument , it gives me a much more useful gain range and works fine with pro level outputs.

[ef37a]

The Behringer simply isn't designed to be used with devices that output professional levels and the Scarlett inputs 3 and 4 will also distort well before the desk runs out of steam.

What? I'm running a Behringer 1820/ADA8200 combo, absolutely fine with the various outputs from my A&H MixWiz the Behringer has Line and Instrument level adjustment, it works best if I set all the line inputs to instrument , it gives me a much more useful gain range and works fine with pro level outputs.

I see instrument level is +18dBu max. Bit odd to have that higher than the line input level of +16dBu? There are few guitars, passive or active that put out 6 volts rms? But, so long as the noise levels are acceptable. more power to their op amps!

Dave.

[Wonks]

The maximum line input level specification I saw on the UMC1820 was +11dBu. But yes, +18dBu for the instrument inputs. And mic max level also 11dBu. Strange.

Like a lot of the given Behringer specs it doesn't make sense. You might have an added 9dB of gain in instrument mode to make up for a weaker signal, but that would lower the maximum signal value, not increase it. They may well have the two figures swapped over. Or the line input figure is simply wrong and is much higher.

The ADA820 values are different again.

But there is also a pad; -10dB on the ADA8200, values not stated for the UMC1820, so maybe at least the 1820 instrument value is with the pad engaged (which makes more sense).

I'm also dimly remembering that a lot of the stated values for the 1820 are wrong. It's come up before. Julian Krause tested it and had test values that were much more typical for an audio interface. Edit: Though I now think it was the UMC404HD that had the very weird given specs that were far worse than the UMC204HD. But I'd never fully trust a Behringer spec value.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

I will add nothing technically as it is being dealt with. -70dB noise, you'll live. I made a track in the PC emulating the 90s sound that had a -70dBFS noise floor with intent ! You hear zero noise through the track.

This made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside remembering my Studiomaster P7 24-8-2 in the early/mid 90s

Various noise specs presented on page 27/28

Noise floor -86dB

https://archive.org/details/Studiomaste ... 7/mode/2up

To the ear, in operation it was quiet, Studiomaster made a few shockers when it came to hiss/noise floor back in the late 80s so I was extremely cautious to investigate before the purchase. It had programmable MIDI mutes which I did use. The reason is once you added anything of the era to the inputs your noise floor would almost certainly be up to -60dB at a guess or even higher and I had a few culprits. I had :

SH-101 Not exactly silent
Juno-106 (noisy Chorus circuit)
Control Synthesis Deep Bass 9 (some hiss)
Digitech studio quad (V.noisy !)
Zoom 9030 (noisy)
Lexicon Alex/Reflex units. (not bad as far as I recall)
Boss DR-660 (fine)
E-Mu Morpheus (fine)

And a few other bits and bobs.

These devices alone and you were hissing fairly well even when optimized.

Hope you can get your gain structure sorted out and if not don't worry about it too much, sure you can optimize but that is the analogue world to a degree.

[Arpangel]

The maximum line input level specification I saw on the UMC1820 was +11dBu. But yes, +18dBu for the instrument inputs. And mic max level also 11dBu. Strange.

Like a lot of the given Behringer specs it doesn't make sense. You might have an added 9dB of gain in instrument mode to make up for a weaker signal, but that would lower the maximum signal value, not increase it. They may well have the two figures swapped over. Or the line input figure is simply wrong and is much higher.

The ADA820 values are different again.

But there is also a pad; -10dB on the ADA8200, values not stated for the UMC1820, so maybe at least the 1820 instrument value is with the pad engaged (which makes more sense).

I'm also dimly remembering that a lot of the stated values for the 1820 are wrong. It's come up before. Julian Krause tested it and had test values that were much more typical for an audio interface. Edit: Though I now think it was the UMC404HD that had the very weird given specs that were far worse than the UMC204HD. But I'd never fully trust a Behringer spec value.

Using my MixWiz, into my DAW via the 1820 the line inputs are too hot, I can’t get enough adjustment to line up Reaper to run at -20dB from the MixWix 0dB main outputs. There’s more range using the instrument inputs, it lets me lower the levels in Reaper, while still keeping the mixer levels around 0dB.

[SafeandSound Mastering]

Mid morning tea break/ear rest here and tracks I am mastering (80's notable artist) but very recent recordings, noise floor of -64dBFS and rising as dynamics are tastefully and transparently reduced. The production standard is very high and it is inaudible.

Of course if you are working with classical music or very dynamic jazz style you would want to rethink -70dB of hiss but very often there is much more to concern yourself about.

Like are your tracks themselves sounding absolutely spectacular ?

There is much merit in improving things, 100pct sensible thing to do, but keep it in perspective, like everything audio.

[James Perrett]

This made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside remembering my Studiomaster P7 24-8-2 in the early/mid 90s

Various noise specs presented on page 27/28

Noise floor -86dB

https://archive.org/details/Studiomaste ... 7/mode/2up

To the ear, in operation it was quiet, Studiomaster made a few shockers when it came to hiss/noise floor back in the late 80s so I was extremely cautious to investigate before the purchase.

The P7 was fairly high up in Studiomaster's range at the time. I had the more lowly Mixdown but even that had very decent noise performance which was easily up to working with the 20 bit ADAT machines that I used with it. In fact the noise performance was possibly better than the more expensive A&H Saber but that's mainly down to the sheer number of channels on the Saber feeding into each bus.

[Hugh Robjohns]

What? I'm running a Behringer 1820/ADA8200 combo, absolutely fine with the various outputs from my A&H MixWiz the Behringer has Line and Instrument level adjustment, it works best if I set all the line inputs to instrument , it gives me a much more useful gain range and works fine with pro level outputs.

Although James' post was four years old, he wasn't lying!

Pro standard equipment operates with at least 20dB of headroom above the operating level on bothg inputs and output. Assuming the 'studio' operating level of +4dBu, that means potential peak signals up to +24dBu.

In contrast, the maximum output level of both the Behringer ADA8200 and UMC 1820 is only +16dBu which means that you either have to adopt a depressed operating level of -4dBu to maintain 20dB of headroom, or you accept 8dB less headroom, neither of which can really be classed professional standard working — although still perfectly workable in most home studio cases because signals levels from everything are controlled and predictable.

On the input side, the UMC1820's maximum line input level is a ludicrously low +11dBu, while the Instrument input, rather bizarrely given the lower nominal operating level, is +18dBu which is only 6dB lower than theoretically required.

The ADA8200 line input is an exception because its line inputs can cope with up to +31dBu which is unnecessarily high... but attenuation is much cheaper to provide than gain which is why it's like that.

So yes, you will have to use the instrument input on the interface when connected to a decent desk like the MixWizard, and you will have to maintain lower peak levels because of a lack of headroom not in the mixer, but in the interface. As I said, in a controlled home studio environment that is do-able... although I recall you have often complained in the past about how easy it is to overload the inputs when the modular goes awry.

[Arpangel]

What? I'm running a Behringer 1820/ADA8200 combo, absolutely fine with the various outputs from my A&H MixWiz the Behringer has Line and Instrument level adjustment, it works best if I set all the line inputs to instrument , it gives me a much more useful gain range and works fine with pro level outputs.

Although James' post was four years old, he wasn't lying!

Pro standard equipment operates with at least 20dB of headroom above the operating level on bothg inputs and output. Assuming the 'studio' operating level of +4dBu, that means potential peak signals up to +24dBu.

In contrast, the maximum output level of both the Behringer ADA8200 and UMC 1820 is only +16dBu which means that you either have to adopt a depressed operating level of -4dBu to maintain 20dB of headroom, or you accept 8dB less headroom, neither of which can really be classed professional standard working — although still perfectly workable in most home studio cases because signals levels from everything are controlled and predictable.

On the input side, the UMC1820's maximum line input level is a ludicrously low +11dBu, while the Instrument input, rather bizarrely given the lower nominal operating level, is +18dBu which is only 6dB lower than theoretically required.

The ADA8200 line input is an exception because its line inputs can cope with up to +31dBu which is unnecessarily high... but attenuation is much cheaper to provide than gain which is why it's like that.

So yes, you will have to use the instrument input on the interface when connected to a decent desk like the MixWizard, and you will have to maintain lower peak levels because of a lack of headroom not in the mixer, but in the interface. As I said, in a controlled home studio environment that is do-able... although I recall you have often complained in the past about how easy it is to overload the inputs when the modular goes awry.

You’re right Hugh, it did overload easily, but I changed it to instrument and it’s a lot better now. I keep overall levels low on the mixer too, so as not to provoke the interface. All I know is it’s OK now!

[SafeandSound Mastering]

This made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside remembering my Studiomaster P7 24-8-2 in the early/mid 90s

Various noise specs presented on page 27/28

Noise floor -86dB

https://archive.org/details/Studiomaste ... 7/mode/2up

To the ear, in operation it was quiet, Studiomaster made a few shockers when it came to hiss/noise floor back in the late 80s so I was extremely cautious to investigate before the purchase.

The P7 was fairly high up in Studiomaster's range at the time. I had the more lowly Mixdown but even that had very decent noise performance which was easily up to working with the 20 bit ADAT machines that I used with it. In fact the noise performance was possibly better than the more expensive A&H Saber but that's mainly down to the sheer number of channels on the Saber feeding into each bus.

I loved my P7 I still miss it in some way, it went to a good home up north though for peanuts, I got the... "look at the size of that thing" syndrome and scaled down, it went to some commmunity workshop place.

My own experience was to focus on what was being plugged in more than the desk, not all desks were appreciably quiet though as you say. Notably analogue synths and not so well designed effects units.

I liked what I heard of the Saber console. You cannot come away from there being something about analogue desks and why it is so much fun trying to recreate all the quirks in the box. Ever so slightly eccentric to do so but a lot of fun. The whole thing was so cosy, like mixing through a thin layer of felt or something.

Difficult to explain, maybe digital simply has too many transients for an average ear's overall liking, maybe not that necessary.

It could be argued production / mixing styles emerged from those extra transients.

Useful for modern "slamming/ heavy" style requiring intense over the top spiky punch which is then smelted down to -5LUFS integrated. (I have no LUFS policing opinion on it, if it sounds good.) But for most music not really required.