RandomEar
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
- Messages
- 984
- Likes
- 2,499
He did a sweep over the frequency range (at I think 0 dB), but not over the available attenuation range. The hump is only visible below -15 dB or so.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
RME ADI-2 FS Version 2 DAC and Headphone Amp Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
IIRC The chart needs to be vs level to show the hump. He also mentions himself that he cannot measure for the hump with his equipment.
I did not measure IMD Vs Level because (first gen) E1DA Cosmos at the time had ESS Hump of their own.
I then used the ADI-2/4 PRO SE (unreleased by the time of this review) for such tests.
Hmm...Well it's not a big hump, but compared to AKM it's obviously much worse considering it's not really understood if it can actually be heard (or even attribute to listening 'fatigue' even if not audible per se.). Really makes you double guess your decisions considering I could still return the unit. Unexpected result from RME quality to be sure.
Last edited:
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,884
- Likes
- 7,548
I got both versions and subjectively, both are non-fatiguing. I wouldn't return the unit because of this.
Disclaimer: I'm 59, so treble challenged.
Disclaimer: I'm 59, so treble challenged.
Perhaps you’re right. It is however a ding in ADI-2-DACs otherwise stellar performance. Knowing a new model is coming out this year is the other big variable in this decision. I did get my unit new for 700€ though which is likely a lot cheaper than what the new model will be and it’s unlikely the new unit would have audible performance increases as we have already surpassed the limit to those ages ago. Maybe it’ll have some features I’d want but it’s pointless guesswork at this point.
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,884
- Likes
- 7,548
There will be probably no problem selling it even after the new version comes out, thanks to the rather unique feature set.
Good things come to those who can wait.
Good things come to those who can wait.
Any chance you could measure this from headphone and IEM out as well? If your time allows. In any case big thanks for taking your time to have measured this as no one else had up to this point. It also seems like sample rate could have effect on this based on the review linked a bit ago.
Perhaps and there’s really no other alternatives unless you go with a Chinese brand which often struggle with QC and have bad long term support as they spit out new models every few months.
I do also have one legitimate issue with the ADI-2-DAC. Using the driver restricts you to one sample rate which prevents automatic SR switching and in UAC mode without the drivers you only have 32bit bit depth selectable which prevents spatial audio from working as well as causes issues with some software. If the device supported 24bit operation in UAC mode as well this wouldn’t be an issue. To my knowledge MC stated this would require extensive development work on the FPGA and it’s unlikely to change at this point of the life cycle of this device. Of course there’s workarounds for any specific software issues but still it’s a bit of an oversight.
Last edited:
If you own an ADI-2 DAC, I recommend you don't get rid of it, whether it's version B or C. There is no substitute device. (Unless you upgrade to the Pro version.)
I can sometimes distinguish the difference in filters, but I have never been able to distinguish the difference between version B and version C.
I have never heard of anyone else being able to distinguish the difference either.
Even now, in 2026, when someone I know asks me for advice on buying a DAC, the first thing I recommend is the ADI-2 DAC.
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,884
- Likes
- 7,548
I haven't noticed this so far (and I think I have the latest driver/firmware). I'll check it and report back (have to switch to Windows first, am writing this on my dual boot HTPC)...
This is my dilemma as well. If I want a device know there’s really no substitutes as mentioned in my previous post. It’s also reassuring to hear that you and other people haven’t heard a difference compared to the previous version. I also doubt the new model will be a real tangible upgrade to the current model (in terms of audible differences or really useful features, not just measurements) so I’ll probably end up keeping this unit nevertheless as, like you said, there’s nothing else like it. Personally I use BT+EQ+CF and Loudness basically all the good features the ADI-2-DAC offers.
With the driver you have 16 and 24bit bit depth in windows (no 32bit for some reason, 32bit operation is available only via UAC mode) but only one selectable sample rate which you select through the driver itself. The driver exposes one and only one sample rate at any time to Windows which is why the sample rate switching won’t work. You have to manually switch the sample rate if you want to change it. Applications cannot choose sample rate unless they use ASIO.
respice finem
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 3,884
- Likes
- 7,548
Ah OK, so I won't be able to even check, because I don't have any 32-bit files. Up to 24-192 everything is fine though, I can mix it with all resolutions below in a foobar2000 playlist (ASIO MADIface driver) without any switching problems.
My Windows is (11 Pro) build 26200.7171
RandomEar
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2022
- Messages
- 984
- Likes
- 2,499
I think it's important to look at the ratios here: The ESS version is between 0 and 8 dB worse (worst channel) from generator levels of -15 dB to -33 dB. But that is also where the IMD is still far down the scale at -80 dB or below. It would be much worse if it happened at generator levels of -55 or -65 dB, because the "headroom" there is much lower.
I think you misunderstood, you don't need any 32bit files. I'm talking when ASIO is not in use (WDM, WASAPI) which Windows itself governs. With the driver (like you have), Windows itself, and thus any app using Windows APIs (such as basically all games, Tidal etc.), will only be able to select either 16 and 24bit and in one driver selected sample rate, which in your case would be 192kHz. You'll see this if you go to your Windows Sound Device settings and see the available bit depths and sample rates. In your case ALL sound not using ASIO is upsampled to 192kHz by Windows because no other sample rate is exposed as available to Windows by the RME driver.
I haven't tested if 32bit is available via ASIO, as I don't have 32bit files either, but it's not exposed to Windows at least with the driver installed. RME has already stated they will not change how the driver work, but the device (FPGA change needed as per RME statement) exposing 24bit bit depth via UAC would be in my small list of hopeful changes. Doubtful they'll do this but one can hope. To be clear exposing only 32bit is not an issue in terms of audio quality (like what upsampling may cause), but it does cause software incompatibility issues.
More than likely RME is also aware of this and think it's a non-issue entirely seeing that they evaded this question when the dac chip was changed (from what I have read this thread and RME forums, MC strikes me as a no-nonsense kinda guy compared to perhaps some other known brand representatives who sometimes exaggerate improvements and such quite a bit).
There's a lot of, some may call, 'neurotic' measuring in audiophile circles (opposite to often delusional subjectivists) that may not have any bearing in what you can actually hear. Then on the other hand it is not entirely known if hump may be responsible in some people hearing the 'ESS glare', though probably (or almost certainly) not.
Last edited:
I have both ADI-2 DAC FS "B" and "C" I don't notice a difference between them.
However. it's really rare for me to use volumes louder than -35. That -35 level reaches 85dB+ with my setup. The only time I used -30dB was with BMR Towers that are extremely inefficient. Even then, I'm not noticing an audible difference. Perhaps its difficult to hear that ESS bump?
However. it's really rare for me to use volumes louder than -35. That -35 level reaches 85dB+ with my setup. The only time I used -30dB was with BMR Towers that are extremely inefficient. Even then, I'm not noticing an audible difference. Perhaps its difficult to hear that ESS bump?
That depends entirely on your headphones (or other output device). Using HD560s I use -30 to -35 (auto ref. Low power) and on IEM output using IE600 to get the same volume it’s about -15 to -20. And to be fair it’s not really ESS specific either as the hump can be found on newer AKM chips as well (at least 4499) and other manufacturers. It was just first noticed by happenstance on an ESS dac. From my research (meaning scouring threads here and on diyAudio) no one has been able to confirm the hump has any audible impact and in some cases the hump is even masked below the noise floor.
Last edited:
Regarding the loudness feature what kind of dB for bass and treble would be a good starting point? I have my 560s EQd and low volume ref set to about -20dB of what I usually listen to. I think the defaults are +7dB on both.
What’s the consensus on filters? There’s not a lot of audible differences between these but I have used slow to slightly lower the 560s treble. Brickwall looks good on the paper.
What’s the consensus on filters? There’s not a lot of audible differences between these but I have used slow to slightly lower the 560s treble. Brickwall looks good on the paper.
Similar threads
- Poll
