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

[isamu99]

RME's PEQ is equally as performant as EQApo's PEQ.

EQApo's PEQ is more flexible though, with unlimited bands and no restrictions on PEQ parameters.

Not sure who would choose GEQ over PEQ. The former is much less flexible.

Plus with tools like autoeq.app, REW, and oratory's database which automate PEQ configuration, I struggle to see a good reason to go back to GEQ.

Great comment and thanks for the reply. Just for clarification's sake, isn't the EQ within Peace/EAPO a graphical EQ? Or is it a PEQ? I'm confused. I thought if it has up-and-down sliders, it's a graphical EQ, which is what I'm looking at when opening the Peace frontend. How do I turn it into a parametric EQ with knobs and such?

 

[staticV3]

isn't the EQ within Peace/EAPO a graphical EQ? Or is it a PEQ?

EQApo is a toolkit which includes many types of EQ.

There's GEQ, PEQ, FIR filtering, as well as support for VST3 plugins.

I thought if it has up-and-down sliders, it's a graphical EQ, which is what I'm looking at when opening the Peace frontend.

The Peace frontend is a Parametric EQ. You can tell by the ability to configure filter type and Q factor for each band.

 

[isamu99]

EQApo is a toolkit which includes many types of EQ.

There's GEQ, PEQ, FIR filtering, as well as support for VST3 plugins.


The Peace frontend is a Parametric EQ. You can tell by the ability to configure filter type and Q factor for each band.

Ahh thanks for the clarification.I get it now.

 

[isamu99]

EQApo is a toolkit which includes many types of EQ.

There's GEQ, PEQ, FIR filtering, as well as support for VST3 plugins.


The Peace frontend is a Parametric EQ. You can tell by the ability to configure filter type and Q factor for each band.

I just want to point something out for clarification's sake. Equalizer APO only supports VST2 and not VST3 unfortunately. And even the VST2 plug-in support can be a little flaky.

 

[masterhw]

If you’re able to, using the hardware RME EQ and bypassing the OS (exclusive mode) would probably be the best option. Not sure if whatever player you’re using allows using sound devices in exclusive mode, not all do.

 

[isamu99]

If you’re able to, using the hardware RME EQ and bypassing the OS (exclusive mode) would probably be the best option. Not sure if whatever player you’re using allows using sound devices in exclusive mode, not all do.

I'm using foobar2K and yes, you're right. It does have exclusive mode which is usually what I'd be using.

However, the only reason I've decided to stick to EAPO is not for the equalizer funnily enough....but for the effects feature which allows various options to expand the stereo image, which in turn can deliver pretty interesting results.

But I may consider going back to exclusive mode and finding an equivalent dsp plugin for foobar that does the same thing.

 

[jkim]

I'm using foobar2K and yes, you're right. It does have exclusive mode which is usually what I'd be using.

However, the only reason I've decided to stick to EAPO is not for the equalizer funnily enough....but for the effects feature which allows various options to expand the stereo image, which in turn can deliver pretty interesting results.

But I may consider going back to exclusive mode and finding an equivalent dsp plugin for foobar that does the same thing.

In case any DSP effect in EQ APO works best for you, don't be hung-up on exclusive mode. EQ APO through Windows sound entails no quality degradation (e.g., quantization noise).

 

[isamu99]

In case any DSP effect in EQ APO works best for you, don't be hung-up on exclusive mode. EQ APO through Windows sound entails no quality degradation (e.g., quantization noise).

Okay, fair enough, but in your personal opinion would you say EQ APO is on par with RME's own PEQ in terms of raw sound quality?

 

[jkim]

Okay, fair enough, but in your personal opinion would you say EQ APO is on par with RME's own PEQ in terms of raw sound quality?

I tested EQ APO's response. Based on 64-bit double precision math, it does not add any quantization noise. All of its filters are accurate, too. I also tested Windows up-sampling/resampling and found it works just as intended (i.e., no quantization noise nor ultrasonic artifacts). Therefore, there's no reason to stick with the exclusive mode or bit-perfect playback. Doesn't make a difference.

 

[isamu99]

I tested EQ APO's response. Based on 64-bit double precision math, it does not add any quantization noise. All of its filters are accurate, too. I also tested Windows up-sampling/resampling and found it works just as intended (i.e., no quantization noise nor ultrasonic artifacts). Therefore, there's no reason to stick with the exclusive mode or bit-perfect playback. Doesn't make a difference.

That's great to hear! Thanks for conducting those tests and letting us know the results.

 

[nagster]

KLARK TEKNIK DN360 GRAPHIC EQUALISER
This GEQ is analog processing. What about DSP GEQ?

*Please ignore the distortion at the high frequency end of the graph, as this is a measurement artifact.

 

[delta76]

I am this close to buying this one. Some reasons not to?

 

[rcstevensonaz]

I am this close to buying this one. Some reasons not to?

Reason #1: You don't need the features provided by RME ADI-2 FS V2 DAC (e.g., autoref, loudness) and want to spend a lot less money by purchasing a DAC that is sonically indistinguishable.

Reason #2: Not only do you want the feature capabilities provided by this RME DAC, but you are also going to wish you had the capabilities of the RME ADI-2 Pro FSR or ADI-2 Pro 2/4 audio converter. In which case, you should just get the Pro right off the bat.

Also note: both can be true!!! I applied Reason #2 and purchased an RME ADI-2 Pro FSR a few years ago. And since then, I have also applied Reason #1 when adding several TOPPING D10B's as front-end DACs into my analog stereo mixer (which then connects by analog to my ADI-2 Pro).

 

[delta76]

Reason #1: You don't need the features provided by RME ADI-2 FS V2 DAC (e.g., autoref, loudness) and want to spend a lot less money by purchasing a DAC that is sonically indistinguishable.

Reason #2: Not only do you want the feature capabilities provided by this RME DAC, but you are also going to wish you had the capabilities of the RME ADI-2 Pro FSR or ADI-2 Pro 2/4 audio converter. In which case, you should just get the Pro right off the bat.

Also note: both can be true!!! I applied Reason #2 and purchased an RME ADI-2 Pro FSR a few years ago. And since then, I have also applied Reason #1 when adding several TOPPING D10B's as front-end DACs into my analog stereo mixer (which then connects by analog to my ADI-2 Pro).

I am a simple man so a good dac + headphone amp is all i need, maybe I want a good VU meter. Feature and performance wise nothing my cheap C200 can't do. But I yearn for reliability, something that lasts, something just works

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

Reason #1: You don't need the features provided by RME ADI-2 FS V2 DAC (e.g., autoref, loudness) and want to spend a lot less money by purchasing a DAC that is sonically indistinguishable.

Reason #2: Not only do you want the feature capabilities provided by this RME DAC, but you are also going to wish you had the capabilities of the RME ADI-2 Pro FSR or ADI-2 Pro 2/4 audio converter. In which case, you should just get the Pro right off the bat.

Also note: both can be true!!! I applied Reason #2 and purchased an RME ADI-2 Pro FSR a few years ago. And since then, I have also applied Reason #1 when adding several TOPPING D10B's as front-end DACs into my analog stereo mixer (which then connects by analog to my ADI-2 Pro).

You make a good point; I had purchased the ADI-2 DAC FS for the higher output voltage to make up for headroom loss caused by my DIRAC Live use, but once I got it, I somewhat regretted not getting the full ADI-2 Pro FS because the Pro FS has yet another higher level voltage output option and it would have come in handy since I was still maxing out volume on some tracks even with maximum output voltage on the DAC FS.

 

[masterhw]

I’m waiting on a product that unifies their audio interfaces with the ADI-2 features. I know the ADI-2 Pro has line ins on the back, but I don’t believe these are the same as the typical mic/instr in on the front of interfaces. Would love to replace my Motu M2 with an RME containing the ADI-2 DSP.

 

[snickers]

Anybody found a "nicer" remote for the RME? After around 1 year of use I'm still fully satisfied with this small box. It's nearly impossible to find something with all the EQ/DSP functions, so for me it's the perfect preamp for a stereo system in an apartment.

Only the cheap feeling plastic remote feels a bit like out of place.

 

[LTig]

I know the ADI-2 Pro has line ins on the back, but I don’t believe these are the same as the typical mic/instr in on the front of interfaces.

Correct - they have no typical high gain settings for microphones.

Still I was able to use it in the highest gain level (+ 4dBu reference level) to digitize a vinyl record for fun. I connected the low output MC pickup (Van den Hul MC One Special) directly to its analog input and used Audacity to blow up the signal and make a crude RIAA correction. I could well hear noise in pauses and in quiet passages but hardly at normal loudness levels. Astounding!

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Still I was able to use it in the highest gain level (+ 4dBu reference level) to digitize a vinyl record for fun. I connected the low output MC pickup (Van den Hul MC One Special) directly to its analog input and used Audacity to blow up the signal and make a crude RIAA correction. I could well hear noise in pauses and in quiet passages but hardly at normal loudness levels. Astounding!

That seems to have worked for you. Or you could use an ADI-2 Pro 2/4 SE that includes phono preamp with RIAA. (Though personally, I'll be getting a Waxwing for my vinyl digitization).

 

[LTig]

That seems to have worked for you. Or you could use an ADI-2 Pro 2/4 SE that includes phono preamp with RIAA.

It was just for fun.

(Though personally, I'll be getting a Waxwing for my vinyl digitization).

Neither this nor the 2/4 SE support low output MC pickups, AFAIK. I'm happy with my CA Duo and not willing to spend more money for vinyl playback.