Probably been asked in the 50 pages previous but search isnt showing- did @amirm test the jitter on optical and coax inputs ? I assume if he had and noted anything nasty he would have reported.
Amir measured the jitter of one of the S/PDIF inputs in the original review thread for v1 of the ADI-2 DAC: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eview-and-measurements-of-rme-adi-2-dac.2582/ (It's not entirely clear which input he used from the write-up, but Amir clarified it in this thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...f-rme-adi-2-pro-comparison-to-adi-2-dac.2682/ )
The jitter performance seems to be identical between USB and S/PDIF inputs, which isn't surprising since it uses a steerable clock (DDS) rather than directly using the clock derived from the receiver IC.
Since I am considering buying an ADI-2 and connecting to it via optical or coax, I'd be interested in that as well.
Thanks, I've actually tried this but the quality factor doesn't actually go to 0.3. Since the B/T settings aren't actually saved in each EQ profile, I'd also prefer settings that didn't rely on them in the actual profile.
I guess most folks are aware of the workaround to be able to save an effective 7 EQ settings if adding the balance filters - and that is to save the entire DAC's settings, rather than merely the PEQ's settings. Clunky but practical.Thanks, I've actually tried this but the quality factor doesn't actually go to 0.3. Since the B/T settings aren't actually saved in each EQ profile, I'd also prefer settings that didn't rely on them in the actual profile.
At first glance it's an unsatisfying solution, but it's worth considering to be sure. Thanks!I guess most folks are aware of the workaround to be able to save an effective 7 EQ settings if adding the balance filters - and that is to save the entire DAC's settings, rather than merely the PEQ's settings. Clunky but practical.
(Manual section 14.2 for the balance presets, and manual section 13 for the PEQ presets.)
There is no difference between Coax and Optical (or USB). I showcased the jitter measurements in my SteadyClock video on YouTube, using the optical input, and other than ASR also with lots of added jitter on it.
Given that the ADI-2 is already audibly transparent, apart from bragging rights, lower numbers would serve no practical purpose.Hello @MC_RME,
Im a student from germany currently saving up for a RME ADI-2 DAC FS. I was just wondering if there is a new generation V3 (AKM 4497?) in the works before i drop all savings on this. Im working hard for this at the moment and want my investion to be future proof for some time
All The best,
Michael
I am also located in Germany and I was thinking exactly as you are now. Until I decided, that I would not go for the last few dB of Sinad and that everything, the actual ADI has to offer, is future proof enough for me.Hello @MC_RME,
Im a student from germany currently saving up for a RME ADI-2 DAC FS. I was just wondering if there is a new generation V3 (AKM 4497?) in the works before i drop all savings on this. Im working hard for this at the moment and want my investion to be future proof for some time
All The best,
Michael
Yep. The only reason to wait for a new model is to get the current model cheaper during off sales.Given that the ADI-2 is already audibly transparent, apart from bragging rights, lower numbers would serve no practical purpose.