View Full Version : [ubuntu_studio] Behringer UCA202 and 222 what is real difference?

January 23rd, 2012, 06:28 AM
I'm still struggling to figure out the difference betweeen these two units,
other than the color of the case:

the 202 is silver/grey, and the 222 is red.

But even on the Behringer site, I can't see any difference in specs,
even though the 222 is priced higher by about $10-20.
Does anyone know why someone would pay $15 more for the red one?


January 23rd, 2012, 11:08 AM
Really can't see any difference... there are any number of devices (smartphones / laptops etc) that carry an additional cost based on colour alone ;)

I must be cheap - I've got the silver one :(

January 25th, 2012, 10:04 AM
Okay update here:

from a reviewer:

The main difference is apparently as follows:

1) I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how the UCA-222 differs, if at all, from the slightly cheaper UCA-202 (Behringer U Control UCA202 USB Audio Interface (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000J0IIEQ/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk)). I finally concluded that the only differences are the name (202 vs 222), the color (222 is sports car red), and the software included. The units are otherwise identical. This is useful to know, since I've read people on other forums wondering this too. Behringer seems to go to lengths not to say this in so many words. I have a theory why (just a theory) and it involves the other main difference, the software that comes with the 222. Now more on that:

2) The 202 comes with the free and open source Audacity, and with Kreatives' Kristal Audio Engine (also free)--(neither one is the best free choice out there). The 222, on the other hand, also comes with Energy XT2.5 ("Compact Behringer Edition") and another disk with "over 100 virtual instruments plus more than 50 effects plug-ins including VST host-, audio- and podcast-software for direct start-up." For me, the question became, is the 222 worth $6 more to get this software?
There are also reviews with tests and specs on NwAvGuy's blog. (http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/10/uca202-dac-take-2.html#uds-search-results)

The following info might be more important to musicians:

I wanted an external audio interface for recording music into and through my laptops, which have unacceptably noisy mic inputs.

Another thing to know is that the unit is strictly 16 bit audio. This will definitely matter to many recording enthusiasts. 24 bit devices are readily available these days, and if digital quality is of the utmost essence, you will probably not be satisfied in the end with the UCA-222 (or 202).
This is same for both units.

So this 16 bit factor isn't mentioned on the Behringer audio page for the UCA202
They do say "high resolution 48 kHz" as the sampling rate,
but actually pro quality audio requires either 96 or 192 kHz as a sampling rate,
and also 24-bit data samples.

January 26th, 2012, 04:57 AM
I'm adding this as a separate post, in case people missed the info:

However, Behringer also has a relatively inexpensive unit called the

F-CONTROL AUDIO FCA202http://www.behringer.com/assets/FCA202_P0451_Reflective_web.png

that unit (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/FCA202.aspx)has "High-resolution 24-bit/96 kHz converters for high-end audio quality"

And this is probably the one people trying to do quality recording want....

I hope that helps others. I'm glad I investigated further on this before spending cash.

UPDATE: this other unit (FCA202) also requires a Firewire connection...
I think that means you have to buy a Firewire card too (and maybe cable).
Firewire PCI cards+cable sell for about $12 on the net. Since the Behringer website doesn't specify,
I would assume only Firewire 400 is provided, so only Firewire 400 card is needed.

This would be the same as:
PreSonus Inspire 1394 (http://www.floridamusicco.com/proddetail%7Eprod%7Einspire_1394_firewire_interfac e.htm) 4x4 Digitally Controlled Firewire Interface
This also specifies Firewire 400 only:
"- 2 IEEE1394 (Firewire) ports at 400Mb/s capable of bus powering the unit."

It might be worthwhile to buy a Firewire 800 PCI card anyway, anticipating that newer units will have Firewire 800 ports...
The price difference is only maybe $15-$25 for an 800 (http://www.amazon.com/Syba-Controller-Sd-Pex30009-Pci-Express-Firewire/dp/B004GTQ45G/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1327549817&sr=1-3) vs a 400 (http://www.amazon.com/Vantec-4-Port-FireWire-Host-Card/dp/B002PX78N2/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1327548836&sr=8-10) internal card.

The 800 speed seems to require an PCI-Express bus inside your computer, so it may not be an option for some computers.
The 400 only requires a regular PCI bus slot. (but card has to match slot type).


Somebody did some typical tests of both Firewire 400 /800 and USB 2. (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/185415/firewire_vs_usb_which_is_faster.html)

The result is that typically Firewire 400 is still faster most of the time than USB2, although theoretically USB2 should be faster (at 450).
Firewire 800 is very much faster, and so is more interesting.

January 27th, 2012, 08:03 AM
I now wonder if all Firewire cards are created equal.

I have found a Firewire card for only $7 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/PCI-FireWire-IEEE-1394-3-1-Port-Card-4-6-Pin-Cable-/150629294793?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item231234a2c9) here on Ebay.

But maybe its not as good as some other brand -
does anyone know if there is any variation in performance or compatibility with Linux
in regard to Firewire cards?

January 27th, 2012, 08:04 AM
yay! That was my 50th post! :o:D

March 4th, 2012, 02:54 AM
They do say "high resolution 48 kHz" as the sampling rate,
but actually pro quality audio requires either 96 or 192 kHz as a sampling rate,
and also 24-bit data samples.

Professionalism doesn't require 24/96, but marketing does. The 'improvement' from 16/44 is actually inaudible to humans.

March 4th, 2012, 12:03 PM
yay! That was my 50th post! :o:D

RETREAT!!! while the guns are silent :popcorn:
Congrats on #50, 500 will get here sooner than one imagines.

Its really fun when reading a search engine result, thinking
'this guy is surely a knucklehead', only to discover it was me,
a short while back. I'd pay good money for a cyber timemachine :)