Difference in Quality between UR22C and UR22

Hi,

I use UR22 since many years i was able to get a good sound quality with it.

Getting a 32 bits was always my dream, until i saw that Steinberg made the UR22C.
Today i got my UR22C, i test it and i feel that there is a huge difference in term of sound quality (i don’t know if this is like placebo effect) but i definitely hear better sounds, so much higher quality

is this because it’s 32 bits ? or there is an other element in the card that allow the audio data to be transferred at high quality without any compression ?

An other big plus that the UR22C gave me, is that now i have 0 latency (not live) when recording in the DAW, i always drag the audio in the sequencer to match the instrumental, i guess this is due to the USB3.

I’m glad i purchased the UR22C

They probably included a number of other improvements, but 32-bit recording has nothing to do with improving results over 24-bit (used properly).
You can read my comment on 32-bit half-way in my too-long post here :

The UR-C series are great units!! But 32-bit recording is pure marketing fluff.

N.B. The 32-bit “integer” format of UR-C units is not to be confused with 32-bit “float” format, esp. when combined with dual ADC converters! Two completely different beasts.

Well, no. It does give you greater dynamic range (SNR in this link). No, it’s not “infinite” like 32-bit float, but it’s there. (192dB for 32-bit vs. 144dB for 24-bit) What use that might be in home recording is extremely questionable, so for most folks it should not be a decider.

In field recording, where 32-bit float is becoming popular, the need to insure a live take is not ruined by some kind of transient that blows through a fixed point limit, it’s worth looking at. (Even fixed 32-bit would help, but nobody’s going there.)

p.s. Can you hear it? No. If you could hear that level of dynamic range, it would only be for a fraction of a second until you went deaf. It’s purely a recording thing.

You apparently did not read my previous post or I wasn’t clear. The mathematical format having 32-bit (int) is able to represent 192dB of data in a sense, but since according to Roland’s own spec the Mic analog front-end has only 102db (equ. to about 17 bits), the bottom 15 bits (32 minus 17) are only random electrical/thermal noise, period. And BTW, I would prefer a few more dB, but 102 is fine for this price range.

The best ($$$) mic preamps these days can stretch to near 21b… a very very impressive feat already, but still not enough to utilize the 24b format to its full potential. So yes, definitely, 32b is marketing fluff. In fact, many earlier “24-bit” interfaces actually used 18b or 20b converters (even 14b!) and just padded the lower bits with dithering. (some might still be doing it?) And it’s a perfectly valid approach, if done right.

If my explanation is not clear enough, blame my poor English wording but please just trust me on this, I personally designed high-res ADCs for years! I know this stuff in and out into the last details, I’m not speculating.

The (few) 32b float interfaces available use two or more ADC’s having slightly different input gain settings. A very clever trick to provide more headroom, but at a somewhat higher cost $.

Do the audio interfaces (ur22c) contain an ASIO driver that allows latency-free audio recording on the computer? Thank you for your answer, I am a beginner.

Nothing is “latency-free”. The UR22C does, however, seem to support Direct Monitoring, if that is what you are referring to …

UR22C Operation Manual (steinberg.net)

And, for future reference, you probably should have started your own topic or found a similar one rather than posting in a completely unrelated one.

A “beginner” who joined five years ago? Seems a little odd …

Maybe by latency free he meant the included DSP effects?