New RME ADI-2 Pro EX AD/DA audio interface

[Fletcher–Munson]

I can easily deny it. We (like anyone else) use the newly available AKM chips now, which are basically the same thing as before. The ADI-2 Pro EX choice of AD/DA (same as before) is fully intentional. We see the Pro as a kind of industry standard. It is used in may places outside of home audio. For these long time availability with basically unchanged specs (THD, frequency response, conversion delay etc..) is a top priority, for replacement as well as extension. If someone needs even higher specs we have the 2/4 or (later) new 2 DAC. The ADI-2 Pro EX has several updates and new features to keep it more up to date, but conversion stays unchanged.

So the new 2/4 EX will be improved version of the older 2/4 and the new pro EX?

 

[Pearljam5000]

I can easily deny it. We (like anyone else) use the newly available AKM chips now, which are basically the same thing as before. The ADI-2 Pro EX choice of AD/DA (same as before) is fully intentional. We see the Pro as a kind of industry standard. It is used in may places outside of home audio. For these long time availability with basically unchanged specs (THD, frequency response, conversion delay etc..) is a top priority, for replacement as well as extension. If someone needs even higher specs we have the 2/4 or (later) new 2 DAC. The ADI-2 Pro EX has several updates and new features to keep it more up to date, but conversion stays unchanged.

Yeah but I mean look at Benchmark DACs
Every time they release a new one they improve and change the specs and other stuff.
I understand your angle and I'm not criticizing, just saying

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Yeah but I mean look at Benchmark DACs
Every time they release a new one they improve and change the specs and other stuff.
I understand your angle and I'm not criticizing, just saying

I suspect one aspect is because Benchmark DACs are not being used in professional production audio environments. Benchmark DACs are designed for you; RME equipment is designed for professional audio studios.

Someone who is professionally recording, routing, mixing, and processing audio probably doesn't want different equipment models to have different audio characteristics. So as you update audio equipment -- often swapping out old for new -- consistency of audio converters within the same family model seems like the preferred outcome.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I suspect one aspect is because Benchmark DACs are not being used in professional production audio environments. Benchmark DACs are designed for you; RME equipment is designed for professional audio studios.

Someone who is professional recording, routing, mixing, and processing audio probably doesn't want different equipment models to have different audio characteristics. So as you update audio equipment -- often swapping out old for new -- consistency of audio converters within the same family model seems like the preferred outcome.

Their stuff is also used in studios

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Their stuff is also used in studios

No doubt. And RME is also used in home offices (me, for example) and home entertainment systems...

But take a look at their respective websites. And then tell me again that you don't see a fundamental difference in market focus... which in turn would lead to fundamental differences in engineering and product design approaches:

• Benchmark Media Systems
• RME Audio (scroll horizontally through their picture carousel featuring different products)

 

[Roland68]

Yeah but I mean look at Benchmark DACs
Every time they release a new one they improve and change the specs and other stuff.
I understand your angle and I'm not criticizing, just saying

I suspect one aspect is because Benchmark DACs are not being used in professional production audio environments. Benchmark DACs are designed for you; RME equipment is designed for professional audio studios.

Someone who is professionally recording, routing, mixing, and processing audio probably doesn't want different equipment models to have different audio characteristics. So as you update audio equipment -- often swapping out old for new -- consistency of audio converters within the same family model seems like the preferred outcome.

You seem to be mixing things up a bit; perhaps you should take a look at the new specifications first.
While the ADI-2 Pro EX uses the same converter chip, it delivers superior measurements and performance in many areas.
In any case, its measurements are equal to or better than those of 99% of the devices on the market in this category.
Consistency in music production, functionality and reliability are much more important and decisive for this model than the measurements of the 4th, 5th or even 6th decimal place, and that is exactly what RME has once again worked on and improved.

 

[fin]

If changing converters chips is undesirable in pro audio, why is improving conversion in the ADI-2/4 Pro suddenly acceptable? Isn't that also a "pro" gear? What kind of "pro music studio" asks only AK4493 so they can convert their signals in the right way ?

A professional studio may care about repeatability, latency, reliability, etc. but none of that requires keeping the same converter chips and design for a decade. There's no compatibility issues. ADDA is a black toolbox converting signals and there's multiple ways to do it right and better. Good engineering preserve the same operational behavior while benefiting from better newer technology.

I simply see the Pro EX as a product with very limited progress after ten years. That is a valid product strategy and good for their margin, but I don't think like it's an actual professional virtue.

 

[enricoclaudio]

I have seen Benchmark Audio products in many professional recording and mastering studios, including DACs, headphone amps and amps as well. In fact, a couple of Sterling Sound NY mastering rooms used to have Benchmark Audio AHB2 amps. BTW, I purchase most of my Benchmark Audio equipment from Sweetwater, which happens to be the biggest professional audio dealer in the USA and they are Benchmark Audio dealer.

 

[Fletcher–Munson]

In any case, its measurements are equal to or better than those of 99% of the devices on the market in this category.

Not sure about that, especially against the newer chinese brands, specifically talking about the Topping D900. Technically and in specs it just simply blows away the pro EX.

If changing converters chips is undesirable in pro audio, why is improving conversion in the ADI-2/4 Pro suddenly acceptable? Isn't that also a "pro" gear? What kind of "pro music studio" asks only AK4493 so they can convert their signals in the right way ?

A professional studio may care about repeatability, latency, reliability, etc. but none of that requires keeping the same converter chips and design for a decade. There's no compatibility issues. ADDA is a black toolbox converting signals and there's multiple ways to do it right and better. Good engineering preserve the same operational behavior while benefiting from better newer technology.

I simply see the Pro EX as a product with very limited progress after ten years. That is a valid product strategy and good for their margin, but I don't think like it's an actual professional virtue.

Exactly, i expected much more improvement in the new ADI-2 series, and admitting that the new EX is basically the same as the old one soundwise, is pure disappointment. I respect RME for being honest tho!

So the new 2/4 EX will be improved version of the older 2/4 and the new pro EX?

RME, i am waiting for your official statement about this important question!
Thanks

 

[enricoclaudio]

Not sure about that, especially against the newer chinese brands, specifically talking about the Topping D900. Technically and in specs it just simply blows away the pro EX.

The only problem with the Topping D900 is that it’s Topping. I had my fair share of Topping failures to even consider any of their products, even at 50% discount. Talking about equipment depreciation, It took me 6 months to sell my Topping A90D for $400 (I paid $900) even that I sold it 2 months after purchase. That was my last Topping. After that, I only purchase equipment that I know it can be serviced in the US and from a manufacturer that I know is responsible and runs the extra mile for their customers.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Exactly, i expected much more improvement in the new ADI-2 series, and admitting that the new EX is basically the same as the old one soundwise, is pure disappointment. I respect RME for being honest tho!

IMHO, I think you nailed it on the head.

You (as an audiophile) had expectations. Meanwhile, RME has been clear that you are not the target market. So your expectations were not part of their consideration... which is disappointing for sure.

Moreover, RME indeed deserves that respect since they remained consistently clear over the past years that audiophiles are not who the ADI-2 Pro is primarily designed for; even though their products have evolved to include our needs and aesthetics.

 

[Pearljam5000]

IMHO, I think you nailed it on the head.

You (as an audiophile) had expectations. Meanwhile, RME has been clear that you are not the target market. So your expectations were not part of their consideration... which is disappointing for sure.

Moreover, RME indeed deserves that respect since they remained consistently clear over the past years that audiophiles are not who the ADI-2 Pro is primarily designed for; even though their products have evolved to include our needs and aesthetics.

Even professionals working in studios want newer chips /tech in their gear
It has nothing to do with audiophiles

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Even professionals working in studios want newer chips /tech in their gear

You may be right... but any data to back that up? On the RME forum, I did not see much support for the need to move from AK4493 to AK4499 level (and a few argued against it); so curious what you see.

Also, a question occurs to me: what other equipment that is primarily manufactured for professional audio engineering has been released based on the post-fire AK4499 series? For example, what would I get instead of an RME ADI-2 Pro EX (or one of the UCX/UFX interfaces) that use the AK4499 chip family for digital audio conversion?

 

[enricoclaudio]

First, for pro audio use, dedicated DACs offer little benefit. Most pro audio users go with audio interfaces instead. Then you are not gonna find an audio interface with AK4499 chipset. It would be too expensive.

 

[Pearljam5000]

You may be right... but any data to back that up? On the RME forum, I did not see much support for the need to move from AK4493 to AK4499 level (and a few argued against it); so curious what you see.

Also, a question occurs to me: what other equipment that is primarily manufactured for professional audio engineering has been released based on the post-fire AK4499 series? For example, what would I get instead of an RME ADI-2 Pro EX (or one of the UCX/UFX interfaces) that use the AK4499 chip family for digital audio conversion?

I don't have data it's just my common sense
Everyone wants newer tech that's why you buy a PS5 and throw away your PS4
Or buy Neumann KH120 II and sell the old KH120a ones because it has newer tech, DSP and better sound
When I buy something new I expect it to have newer tech than older model.
Could I be completely wrong
Possibly
So it's just an opinion

 

[fin]

You may be right... but any data to back that up? On the RME forum, I did not see much support for the need to move from AK4493 to AK4499 level (and a few argued against it); so curious what you see.

Also, a question occurs to me: what other equipment that is primarily manufactured for professional audio engineering has been released based on the post-fire AK4499 series? For example, what would I get instead of an RME ADI-2 Pro EX (or one of the UCX/UFX interfaces) that use the AK4499 chip family for digital audio conversion?

There is zero practical need to upgrade from the AK4493, but if I remembered correctly, ASR always seeks engineering perfection and applaud extreme pursuit of transparency, which is not exactly what I see here. The AK4493(SEQ) is perfectly fine for use in any professional music studio, but presenting not upgrading as top priority as if it's kind of consideration for the consumer is definitely not the best claim I've heard from the greatest audio engineers in the world.

Another thing for perspective, DigiKey’s current 250-unit pricing puts an AK4493SEQ at about $5.8 or roughly $12 for two chips. Two AK4497S chips would cost about $57 total or around $45 more in DAC silicon, while offering substantially better specified performance and more possibilities to improve with great design. Even an extreme upgrade to two complete AK4499EX sets comes to about $108 while bigger brand can sign a much lower batch deal with providers. Sure the real engineering cost is more than the IC like there are analog stages, PCB, validation, etc. But there's years to do design, debugging and validation for that. A Fiio K17 is using AK4499EX + AK4191 set and a Topping DX5 is using dual ES9039Q2M, both are much expensive silicons. This "reference converter" charges $2499 while using some better parts is suddenly economically impractical? if you pause and think about it for a while.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

First, for pro audio use, dedicated DACs offer little benefit. Most pro audio users go with audio interfaces instead.

That is what I thought. And yet RME targets the ADI-2 line primarily towards pro audio users — not as a replacement for the various audio interfaces, but as a component within their broader audio work chain.

Google Search AI (when I searched this), assured me that professional audio engineers would want the latest and greatest chips because they want the absolute best audio quality and the lowest noise. Which supports @Pearljam5000's point... But that got me thinking: where are those products for such professional audio engineers? As a professional audio user, what should I get for my production system (instead of the ADI-2 Pro) that has AKM chips and can provide similar functionality (including multichannel 6 out / 8 in)?

I don't have data it's just my common sense
Everyone wants newer tech that's why you buy a PS5 and throw away your PS4
Or buy Neumann KH120 II and sell the old KH120a ones because it has newer tech, DSP and better sound

Ok, but you originally asserted that as fact and not opinion.

And for what it is worth, I have a TOPPING D90 with the flagship (pre-fire!) AK4499 sitting on my shelf gathering dust for 5 years. But just one month after I purchased the TOPPING D90, I replaced it with an RME ADI-2 Pro that had inferior chips which were no longer even state-of-the-art (heck, they weren't even state-of-the-art at the time ADI-2 Pro FS R BE was released).

And you are not getting me to replace my KH120A with the digital KH120 II version because I do all of my audio processing elsewhere in the chain. Absolutely no reason for me to even consider making that jump.

 

[Roland68]

Not sure about that, especially against the newer chinese brands, specifically talking about the Topping D900. Technically and in specs it just simply blows away the pro EX.



Exactly, i expected much more improvement in the new ADI-2 series, and admitting that the new EX is basically the same as the old one soundwise, is pure disappointment. I respect RME for being honest tho!



RME, i am waiting for your official statement about this important question!
Thanks

The only thing the Topping D900 and the ADI-2 Pro EX have in common is that they can both be used as DACs. The D900 lacks the other 90% of the functionality.
If the D900 is sufficient for your needs, then you are definitely not the target audience for the ADI-2 Pro EX. They belong to completely different classes of devices.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Topping’s lineup includes everything from €200 DACs to models from five years ago that actually deliver better measurements.

And you’re looking for a change in sound? Was your previous unit broken, or what? Or do you think you could actually distinguish between the sound of the D900 and the ADI-2 Pro EX in a level-matched blind test?
It sounds like you’re lacking some fundamental knowledge and experience here.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

admitting that the new EX is basically the same as the old one soundwise, is pure disappointment.

Why?

 

[Chester]

audio engineers would want the latest and greatest chips because they want the absolute best audio quality and the lowest noise.

I’m not so sure audio engineers are that concerned with obtaining the absolute best. They need good performance and robust, reliable tools above all else.