That said reading over this made me pull it out and just give it a listen! I no longer do that so the old one sat in a draw. I mic separate from my camera and even mic into an entirely different system. I purchased primary to use with my laptop when I used to use it to record audio for my videos. My point here is the new 16XXXXXXXX sounds terrible. Maybe I'm wrong, but let's assume I'm right Also to double check this I did a search on eBay and found a second hand unit with a 09XXXX Serial and a date code of 09XX I have two units, one with a date code of 1607 and a serial of 16XXXXXXXXXXXXX, my second unit has a Serial of 13XXXXXXXXXXXX an the date code is long gone, but all the stickers are yellow and kinda faded, I figure it may be safe to assume the date codes year will match the serials first 2 numbers. Second, I'm very happy to see that you did this measurement. Spend a few more dollars and get the Topping D30 which remains my recommended DAC at these low price ranges.Īs always suggestions, comments, corrections, bad jokes, etc.
Seeing how my laptop beats it in every regard, I see no reason to recommend it.
Its measured performance ranges from "OK" to pretty bad. It uses older style 48 Khz max sampling rate DAC which probably retails for less than the change in my pocket. I did not bother testing the RCA outputs subjectively. Fidelity wise, the laptop seemed more authoritative although this may be just due to its higher output power. While I can get my laptop to become way too uncomfortable for listening with respect to level, I can listen to UCA222 almost at max setting. Just eyeballing it, its output is half as much as the headphone jack of my laptop. Using my Sony MDRV6 headphones, the UCA222 produced clean sound that never really got distorted even at max setting. My laptop is in yellow and while the output is still a bit noisy, it runs circles around the horrid performance of the Behringer UCA222.
0 kommentar(er)
