RME ADI-2 FS Version 2 DAC and Headphone Amp Review

[Sal1950]

As you observe, we all have our preferences. Just as people bend the sound with treble and bass and such, so does the preamp.

But the effects of tone controls, balance, and other such alterations can easily be defeated or removed from the signal path. Where the effects of tube components or other non-transparent items are things you'll have to live with for the life of the component. Starting with transparent gear, allows you to modifiy it to any particular taste, but then near instantly get back to hearing what the artist or engineer tried convey in with the mix.

Considering that someone mixed the recording, and considering that no listening room duplicates the concert hall or studio environment, it seems to me that "fidelity" is a squishy notion.

Nope, "fidelity" by it's own definition is never squishy. A component is either transparent or it isn't.

Dictionary
What is the simple meaning of fidelity?

Fidelity is the quality of being faithful or loyal. Dogs are famous for their fidelity. Fidelity comes from the Latin root fides, which means faith, so fidelity is the state of being faithful. Marital fidelity is faithfulness to your spouse.

IE, you can't "almost" cheat on your wife. No matter what Billy Clinton claims. LOL

 

[Labjr]

the ESS version is the v3 even though it's not official ( v1 = AKM 4490, v2 = AKM 4493).

Maybe the ESS version would've been named Version 3 if it was an actually an upgrade but it isn't. There's no difference in function, specs or appearance. Thus, Version 2(b) seems more appropriate.

 

[unpluggged]

Maybe the ESS version would've been named Version 3 if it was an actually upgrade but it isn't. There's no difference in function, specs or appearance. Thus, Version 2(b) seems more appropriate.

Agree, but the same is true (even more so) for the differences between the so-called "version 2" and "version 1" There is no difference between any of them, hence there are no such "versions" in reality. Different converter chips are within the spec, as are other differences in BoM. Hence the product name and the SKU are the same for all product revisions. There is only one "version" of the ADI-2 DAC FS, despite the different PCB revisions with different components (they recently switched to a new generation of the FPGA chip, so which "version" would that be? And this is a much more significant change, since it requires separate firmware binaries).

So any talk about various "ADI-2 DAC v1" ,"v2", "v3", "v2(b)", "v666(az)" and so on is pointless. You just grab the one that's available and enjoy.

 

[Labjr]

Agree, but the same is true (even more so) for the differences between the so-called "version 2" and "version 1" There is no difference between any of them, hence there are no such "versions" in reality. Different converter chips are within the spec, as are other differences in BoM. Hence the product name and the SKU are the same for all product revisions. There is only one "version" of the ADI-2 DAC FS, despite the different PCB revisions with different components (they recently switched to a new generation of the FPGA chip, so which "version" would that be? And this is a much more significant change, since it requires separate firmware binaries).

So any talk about various "ADI-2 DAC v1" ,"v2", "v3", "v2(b)", "v666(az)" and so on is pointless. You just grab the one that's available and enjoy.

v2.5(b)(2.00204.24)** Audiophiles also want to know the the weight differences to the nearest 100th of a milligram.

 

[jkim]

[Subject] How to best connect RME to both a headphone amp and active speakers?

I've been a happy user of RME ADI-2 DAC FS for a few months.

It has everything I wanted. Its headphone amp can drive most of my headphones, including HD 800 S, without trouble. But I find that I occasionally use near-max volume for Hifiman HE-560 v4 (EQ'ed with some dB preamp cut) when listening to high DNR recordings like classical music.

So, I ordered the Topping L70 to have greater headroom for inefficient headphones. Now the question is, with multiple connection methods being possible, what is the best way to connect both the L70 and my Genelec 2.5 (8020D + 7040A) active speaker system?

Method 1. The best I can think of that can preserve all the functionalities (including the loudness control) of the RME is to use XLR splitter cables to feed the same balanced RME output into both the headphone amp and speaker system. The volume is controlled by the RME, and the headphone amp's volume is set to max.

Method 2. Similar to Method 1, but instead of using XLR splitter cables, use the L70's preamp out to feed into the speaker system. In this case, signals to the speakers go through the L70, which should be fine but unnecessary.

Method 3. Utilize both balanced and unbalanced outputs on the RME to feed the headphone amp (balanced) and speaker system (unbalanced using RCA-XLR adapters). I don't think this is ideal, though.

There should be other methods as well---for example, use the RME just as a DAC with a fixed volume and use the headphone amp to control the volume of both headphones and speakers (I'd lose some functionality of the RME).

Suggestion?

 

[unpluggged]

It has everything I wanted. Its headphone amp can drive most of my headphones, including HD 800 S, without trouble. But I find that I occasionally use near-max volume for Hifiman HE-560 v4 when listening to high DNR recordings like classical music.

There is nothing wrong with it.

Method 1. The best I can think of that can preserve all the functionalities (including the loudness control) of the RME is to use XLR splitter cables to feed the same balanced RME output into both the headphone amp and speaker system. The volume is controlled by the RME, and the headphone amp's volume is set to max.

Method 2. Similar to Method 1, but instead of using XLR splitter cables, use the L70's preamp out to feed into the speaker system. In this case, signals to the speakers go through the L70, which should be fine but unnecessary.

Method 3. Utilize both balanced and unbalanced outputs on the RME to feed the headphone amp (balanced) and speaker system (unbalanced using RCA-XLR adapters). I don't think this is ideal, though.

Method 4. Feed the amp from the RME's HP out. But, as I said above, I don't think you need another amp at all. It's not too insensitive:

To compare, my HD6XX is just a bit more sensitive (requires 3.29 dB [equals to 420/288 mV ratio] more output to reach the same SPL), and even with EQ I rarely ever turn the volume higher than −30...−27 dBr.

 

[jkim]

Method 4. Feed the amp from the RME's HP out. But, as I said above, I don't think you need another amp at all. It's not too insensitive:

To compare, my HD6XX is just a bit more sensitive (requires 3.29 dB [equals to 420/288 mV ratio] more output to reach the same SPL), and even with EQ I rarely ever turn the volume higher than −30...−27 dBr.

Thanks for your reply.

Advantage of using the RME's HP out?

I also have the Hifiman HE400SE, which is just slightly more sensitive than the HE-560 v4 on paper. However, in reality, the HE-560 v4 is perceived substantially less sensitive. I don't know, it may be due to a sample variation of my HE-560 (or HE400SE). It certainly tests the RME's max volume occasionally with some classical music recordings whereas the HE400SE does not.

 

[LTig]

Advantage of using the RME's HP out?

You can keep the EQ settings for the headphone separate from those for the preamp output.

 

[unpluggged]

It certainly tests the RME's max volume occasionally with some classical music recordings whereas the HE400SE does not.

Are you using the higher gain "Hi-Power" mode? Sounds as if you have the output level fixed at +7 dBu. Which EQ settings do you use?

Advantage of using the RME's HP out?

Keeping the RME in control of the HP output (separate volume, EQ, loudness settings, switching, ramping up, etc.) Your external amp would then just provide additional gain.

 

[Chazz6]

...
Nope, "fidelity" by it's own definition is never squishy. A component is either transparent or it isn't.

I had written: Considering that someone mixed the recording, and considering that no listening room duplicates the concert hall or studio environment, it seems to me that "fidelity" is a squishy notion.

The issue is not the definition of transparent (which a component may be more or less but never 100% – right, measurement crew?).

Nor is the definition of fidelity the issue. The problem is, fidelity to what? I tried to indicate that there is no canonical sound of a performance.

 

[LTig]

I had written: Considering that someone mixed the recording, and considering that no listening room duplicates the concert hall or studio environment, it seems to me that "fidelity" is a squishy notion.

The issue is not the definition of transparent (which a component may be more or less but never 100% – right, measurement crew?).

Nor is the definition of fidelity the issue. The problem is, fidelity to what? I tried to indicate that there is no canonical sound of a performance.

Neither room influence nor the use of studio monitors with non flat frequency response in the recording/master studio will add only linear distortion (frequency response, not THD and IMD), so those flaws can usually be fixed by EQ at the consumer side (room eq for the room, tone controls as preferred - nothing wrong with this). Nonlinear distortion (THD, IMD) created by a non transparent device in the play back chain cannot be undone at a later stage.

If you like such distortion then go for it (it's perfectly fine), but be aware that not every recording might sound better. Some may sound worse without you knowing it because you cannot switch the distortion off.

 

[Chazz6]

If you like such distortion then go for it (it's perfectly fine), but be aware that not every recording might sound better. Some may sound worse without you knowing it because you cannot switch the distortion off.

Again, THD and IMD might be above or below the threshold of difference in the sound audible to the listener (me and my friends). Let's not imply that any value above 0.01% is disaster.
And from time to time when I might want to check, I can remove the preamp from the signal chain by unplugging a cable and plugging it in after the preamp.

 

[LTig]

Again, THD and IMD might be above or below the threshold of difference in the sound audible to the listener (me and my friends). Let's not imply that any value above 0.01% is disaster.

I didn't say anything like this; if you like it you like it, nothing wrong with this.

And from time to time when I might want to check, I can remove the preamp from the signal chain by unplugging a cable and plugging it in after the preamp.

Or get a switch.

 

[40th Anniversary]

Every now and then I see a cheaper alternative that might do the job, but in my opinion that’s still an excellent option, with many useful features, convenient and reliable. As someone who often overthink it and feel like I need to justify this kind of expense, I actually should have bought it earlier. Maybe I would go for the pro version with digital outputs.

I have a pro unit: I use the analog inputs. I also use the digital output to a second ADI-2 to power 2 pairs of speakers with fully balanced audio.

 

[sonitus mirus]

I have a pro unit: I use the analog inputs. I also use the digital output to a second ADI-2 to power 2 pairs of speakers with fully balanced audio.

As much as this intrigues me, since I, too, have a second ADI-2, I don't think it will fit the way I currently utilize my RME DAC. I can't really stack it unless I make changes to my current desktop monitor position.

 

[jkim]

You can keep the EQ settings for the headphone separate from those for the preamp output.

Right, that is the first thing that came to mind as well, which is convenient.

Are you using the higher gain "Hi-Power" mode? Sounds as if you have the output level fixed at +7 dBu. Which EQ settings do you use?

Of course, it has been set to "Hi-Power." I am not using the RME EQ but the EQ APO on my PC as I need more filters.

The convenient automatic switching b/w pre and HP outs is certainly nice. And the additional layer of the RME's HP circuit will be audibly transparent, although from a measurement/technical standpoint I won't be comfortable.

After all, upon listening to all kinds of music, I realized that I had focused too much on soft parts of some recordings that have very high dynamic range. Those soft parts should NOT be played loudly, since long exposure to other parts will damage my ears! So, my conclusion is that the RME's HP out is way more powerful than enough for the HE-560 v4.

So, I think I'm going to use the L70 in my home setup---the RME is in my office now. I have an old ES9023-based DAC to pair with. Or just may end up returning it..

Thanks for your help~!

 

[unpluggged]

Of course, it has been set to "Hi-Power." I am not using the RME EQ but the EQ APO on my PC

What is the pre-amp gain in this case? This could be the reason. Or, better, let us look at the complete EQ parameter set.

as I need more filters.

There is oratory1990's preset specifically made for the ADI-2:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

It does not specifically refer to HE560 v4, but comparing the measured responses here and over there, they look the same. So you might give it a shot. And oratory1990's EQ uses only 3 (three) filters Calculated preamp gain is −7.1 dB, which should still leave enough headroom.

And the additional layer of the RME's HP circuit will be audibly transparent, although from a measurement/technical standpoint I won't be comfortable.

The specifications are provided in the documentation. The HP output's performance into higher-impedance loads is transparent not only audibly, but also technically and is not any worse than most line outputs out there, especially with relatively low-impedance inputs like those of the L70, so this should not be of any concern.

After all, upon listening to all kinds of music, I realized that I had focused too much on soft parts of some recordings that have very high dynamic range.

Yes, this could explain the lack of headroom you perceived initially, but it can also be said that the headroom in this case is pretty much used as it should: for the louder parts of the recording.

So, I think I'm going to use the L70 in my home setup---the RME is in my office now. I have an old ES9023-based DAC to pair with. Or just may end up returning it..

Thanks for your help~!

Great to hear you sorted this out Thank you for feedback and enjoy your gear!

 

[40th Anniversary]

As much as this intrigues me, since I, too, have a second ADI-2, I don't think it will fit the way I currently utilize my RME DAC. I can't really stack it unless I make changes to my current desktop monitor position.

View attachment 417348

I don't stack them...I have a nice little wood shelf with pre-drilled holes in the side for ventilation. The Pro runs hot, so I let ti breathe with some space around it. Best of luck.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

I wonder if there will be a Version 3?

Keep in mind the ADI-2 DAC FS is not a model number, but a descriptor of the units capabilities. It is a 2-channel analog / digital interface DAC (only) with SteadyClock FS.

It would be weird to see an ADI-3 DAC released (front, left, center?), but it it was, that wouldn't be the third version but rather a unit for 3 input / 3 output channels.

However, as others have noted, there have been multiple version iterations of the DAC unit (ADI-2, ADI-2 DAC, ADI-2 DAC FS). Down the road, perhaps there will be another ADI-2 version with changes to the input / output options or core functionality. Unfortunately, RME doesn't usually telegraph future roadmaps very far in advance.

 

[unpluggged]

Keep in mind the ADI-2 DAC FS is not a model number, but a descriptor of the units capabilities. It is a 2-channel analog / digital interface DAC (only) with SteadyClock FS.

It would be weird to see an ADI-3 DAC released (front, left, center?), but it it was, that wouldn't be the third version but rather a unit for 3 input / 3 output channels.

RME ADI-1 was a 2-channel AD/DA converter, so it does not exactly fit into this nomenclature.

However, as others have noted, there have been multiple version iterations of the DAC unit (ADI-2, ADI-2 DAC, ADI-2 DAC FS)

There was never an ADI-2 DAC, only the ADI-2 DAC FS. And the ADI-2 (and the ADI-2 FS) are distinct standalone basic AD/DA converters, not an iteration of the DSP-based ADI-2 DAC FS line.

Down the road, perhaps there will be another ADI-2 version with changes to the input / output options or core functionality

Umm, what are the ADI-2 Pro (AE), ADI-2 Pro FS, ADI-2 Pro FS R (BE), ADI-2/4 Pro SE then, if not "ADI-2 versions with different I/O options or core functionality"?