Please explain what is the practical purpose or what is the advantage of “32 bit” in Steinberg UR-C?
I bought the UR22C interface, and my friend - the same “bedroom producer” as me - bought the ZOOM UAC-232 interface with 32 bit float for virtually the same money (195 euro). Now he can record vocals without worrying about clipping. There’re two ADCs per channel and no gain knobs at all!))
Of course, I can use a splitter, record a mic through two inputs with different gain levels - lower for a loud voice and higher for a quiet one, and then make a perfect track in Cubase, but in any case I have to drag the microphone stand to the computer to set up the gain doing trial vocalizations, then I have to mess with editing two tracks for one take… At the same time, my friend just sings or records other vocalists carefree, while his interface does everything by itself and gives out a ready-made vocal track without clipping and without too quiet level which might be too noisy after increasing the volume…
Well, it may be not highly professional for a classic recording studio, but for home producers working alone, it’s an extremely convenient and advanced technology imho. This is reminiscent of what used to be in home tape recorders called “automatic recording level adjustment”, but with more correct functioning. And even now, this technology in the Zoom UAC-232, as well as in the several times more expensive Sound Devices MixPre-6 II, is already used at full blast when recording actors for videos and movies. Why not use it in music production, too?..
So is UR22C really not capable of the same simple thing despite its “32 bit” lable?
Thank you!))
32bit is Not the same as 32bit float.
Short answer:
The UR-C “32-bit” claims are shamefully misleading.
It’s a plain 32-bit integer with a single DAC, meaning they are just padding the usual 24-bit recording data with an extra 8 bits of pure useless noise.
It brings no value whatsoever over using a 24-bit recording.
The Zoom (or SD MixPre) 32-bit float with dual-DACs is something else as you point out.
It’s more useful for field recordings (I’d say even required now) where you encounter wide unpredictable dynamics.
It’s not as critical in a more controlled environment like studio recording, but I agree it’s still quite convenient.
I use a Zoom F6 myself for recording small live ensembles and it’s 32-bit float feature is a bullet-proof time saver. You always have an optimal gain setting on all mics without worrying a second about clipping!
Long answer here:
Well, that’s sad. I was hoping that the “32 bit” in UR-C still makes some sense to the user))
Dear Y-D, do you think the preamps and converters in Zoom UAC-232 are no worse than in UR22C, which I actually bought because of the “fantastic” Yamaha preamps?))
And… Hey, dear Steinberg, then create at least a plugin (for Cubendo only!) capable of doing the same thing - sculpting a perfect signal from two different level signals to avoid a clipping! For the idea, I get a lifetime license for this plugin for free! Ok?))
Either interface is worth keeping, each with pros/cons.
The UAC-232 has exactly the same preamps as the F6 (which I currently own), and I had also the UR-44C for 3+ years.
The preamps are totally comparable.
The 32-bit float of the Zoom is a must for many field recording situations, and can sometimes be convenient in the studio too, but not a must have that should disqualify your UR22C option.
So you should not pick between those two units based on these criteria.
Check which one is a better match for you based on its I/Os, user interface, and other workflow criteria. Sound quality subtleties will not be discernable, but overall ergonomics and personal usage preferences will!
If you tell us more about what you plan to do with this interface, we might be able to comment a bit further.