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

[Miska]

Have you ever heard of the disclaimer "technical specifications subject to change without prior notice" that comes with EVERY electronic product?
RME changed the chip to a 99% compatible and slightly better one, so what? And after the fire, used yet another one and went through all the trouble to keep the product 100% the same. It's NOT of our business to know the inner details, as those are irrelevant.

ESS and AKM behave very differently, so it would be good to indicate it in the model number.

Typically, those who insist to know these details are also the most clueless about what these details actually mean... only real design engineers need to apply here, and that's why manufacturers don't ship the detailed schematic and bill of materials (besides the IP concerns) ;-)

Ah good old days, when TV's came with full schematics. Philips had the habit for long time for their electronics to bundle schematics.

 

[Veri]

ESS and AKM behave very differently, so it would be good to indicate it in the model number.

Behave very differently when being studied academically? Because I'd be very curious what you would mean in terms of general use of the RME ADI-2. I would assume there is no way one would be disturbed (or even notice) that in any functionality.. and not plotting its filter responses or ultrasonics, which is where I presume you mean the differences are.

 

[xaviescacs]

ESS and AKM behave very differently, so it would be good to indicate it in the model number.

The one with the "c" has the ESS

Furthermore, the ESS version allows for... ok... something I don't really understand...

 

[Miska]

Behave very differently when being studied academically? Because I'd be very curious what you would mean in terms of general use of the RME ADI-2. I would assume there is no way one would be disturbed (or even notice) that in any functionality.. and not plotting its filter responses or ultrasonics, which is where I presume you mean the differences are.

Yes, of course objectively. For me, also subjectively (due to different dynamic behavior of different modulators), but that is more personal thing.

You can also measure differences in the audio band. Different filter sets too. And different functionality, such as lack of DSD Direct mode.

Of course in addition the Topping DAC mentioned earlier here has bunch of it's own implementation issues you have also slightly touched in your measurements, but those are not fault of the DAC chip. I would expect RME not have such though.

 

[Veri]

And different functionality, such as lack of DSD Direct mode.

Of course in addition the Topping DAC mentioned earlier here has bunch of it's own implementation issues you have also slightly touched in your measurements, but those are not fault of the DAC chip. I would expect RME not have such though.

Ah, didn't think of that. I suppose for the DSD fans the AKM version might be theoretically superior.. I wonder how many people enable DSD direct, though. And I would expect/hope there is no "IMD hump" or some problem in the RME 9028Q2M implementation.

 

[pkane]

Ah, didn't think of that. I suppose for the DSD fans the AKM version might be theoretically superior.. I wonder how many people enable DSD direct, though. And I would expect/hope there is no "IMD hump" or some problem in the RME 9028Q2M implementation.

I'd be curious to see detailed measurements of the two models compared, although I'm sure they are closely matched. The AKM version has been measured to death, but I've not seen much on the ESS one. I'm with @Miska on this, the new model should've received a new model name, since there are some functional differences between the two. Probably too much effort involved for RME and dealers, especially for such minor changes.

 

[Trell]

Ah, didn't think of that. I suppose for the DSD fans the AKM version might be theoretically superior.. I wonder how many people enable DSD direct, though. And I would expect/hope there is no "IMD hump" or some problem in the RME 9028Q2M implementation.

All of the CDs I’ve bought the last 15 years or so are SACD, but most of them are multichannel.

I want well recorded/mixed/mastered music and I don’t care about DSD as such. I don’t use the so-called pure or direct modes because that means not using things like EQ or other DSP that really improve the sound quality.

 

[Takanaka]

Not sure why there’s an outrage about the chip switch, RME gave a heads-up on the RME forum very shortly after finishing the altered design for the ESS chip.

On top of that the ESS is slightly superior if we are nitpicking about specs, would be nice to see an additional review for version “C” or V3, whatever you want to call it.

 

[Miska]

I want well recorded/mixed/mastered music and I don’t care about DSD as such. I don’t use the so-called pure or direct modes because that means not using things like EQ or other DSP that really improve the sound quality.

I'm doing headphone and room EQ for my DSD, and using DSD Direct mode with my ADI-2 Pro's. Since I'm doing all the DSP in my player. DSD64 processed through DSP to DSD256 output.

 

[Trell]

I'm doing headphone and room EQ for my DSD, and using DSD Direct mode with my ADI-2 Pro's. Since I'm doing all the DSP in my player. DSD64 processed through DSP to DSD256 output.

What devices or software are you using? The usual case is to convert DSD to PCM before applying DSP.

 

[pkane]

What devices or software are you using? The usual case is to convert DSD to PCM before applying DSP.

@Miska sells HQPlayer software which lets you resample and convert between PCM and DSD using various modulators, along with multichannel DSP.

 

[Veri]

What devices or software are you using?

HQPlayer I'm sure

 

[Trell]

@Miska sells HQPlayer software which lets you resample and convert between PCM and DSD using various modulators, along with multichannel DSP.

And all of this is done in DSD if a user wants to? Nice to hear, really, and I learned something new today about this.

 

[amper42]

Not sure why there’s an outrage about the chip switch, RME gave a heads-up on the RME forum very shortly after finishing the altered design for the ESS chip.

On top of that the ESS is slightly superior if we are nitpicking about specs, would be nice to see an additional review for version “C” or V3, whatever you want to call it.

As far as I'm concerned RME did a fantastic job explaining how the fire caused the ESS DAC replacement part to be implemented in ADI-2 DAC models. They were upfront about it and for a long time the "B" version was still in the supply chain. About the only thing RME could have done better was to place a sticker on the box indicating "B" or "C" version. As it is now, the buyer has no idea which version they are purchasing until they take it out of the box and look at the serial number on the back. That said, - RME is claiming the units are not noticeably different. It will be interesting to see how well that holds true in 3rd party measurements and listening tests. Either way, the customer knew a change was in process.

If you want to see how customer notification of replacement DAC chips from AKM to another brand can be handled poorly look at how Sound United handled Denon 3700, 4700, 6700 design changes. They kept it very quiet and didn't explain the change to their support staff until months after the change was made. Denon owners are just now verifying what they actually received when they bought that new receiver. There is a big difference between the two companies customer disclosure policy for part changes.

 

[Trell]

As far as I'm concerned RME did a fantastic job explaining how the fire caused the ESS DAC replacement part to be implemented in ADI-2 DAC models. They were upfront about it and for a long time the "B" version was still in the supply chain. About the only thing RME could have done better was to place a sticker on the box indicating "B" or "C" version. As it is now, the buyer has no idea which version they are purchasing until they take it out of the box and look at the serial number on the back. That said, - RME is claiming the units are not noticeably different. It will be interesting to see how well that holds true in 3rd party measurements and listening tests. Either way, the customer knew a change was in process.

If you want to see how customer notification of replacement DAC chips from AKM to ESS can be handled poorly look at how Sound United handled Denon 3700, 4700, 6700 design changes. They kept it very quiet and didn't explain the change to their support staff until months after the change was made. Denon owners are just now verifying what they actually received when they bought that new receiver. There is a big difference between the two companies customer disclosure policy for part changes.

RME did a great job for the ADI-2 DAC (and Pro by extension) explaining what they do and why in great detail, but that is the Hi-Fi market. The pro market don't care that much, if at all, about what ADC/DAC IC is used as long as the performance is there, and I believe that RME acts accordingly.

Currently RME is the process of changing the ADC or DAC in the flagship UFX 2 audio interface, but I don't know if they have announced the change, or how imminent it is.

Below image is from the About box of the latest ADI-2 DAC FS firmware released as a Christmas present while the next is this winter:

 

[reasons]

This is the the model I was referring to.

 

[Trell]

This is the the model I was referring to.

The pictures shows the unit with a remote control and if it is original packing it must have the AK4493 DAC IC. The availability date on Amazon match up with the release of the unit: January 2020.

 

[rockphotog]

LMFAO no. NO. The fire was MUCH later than RME changed AKM chips.

Not the AKM to AKM chip change, but the change to ESS chip, which they did in 2021. Fire was in 2020.

 

[C. Cook]

Why do you think the only reason they changed DACs can be sound? I can think of many reasons to change the chip (reliability, EOL of the previous device, cost, availability, feature set, ...). I don't know which ones are applicable here. But is shows that "sound" does not have to be involved in any way.

Where did I say that they changed because of sound?

 

[C. Cook]

Not the AKM to AKM chip change, but the change to ESS chip, which they did in 2021. Fire was in 2020.

Yes, sorry that' what I was referring to. Well before the fire at AKM, RME switched (upgraded, I guess) to a different AKM "velvet sound" chip model. This wasn't due to the fire, and all I've done in this thread is speculate that RME must have had a good reason to do it. Others are putting words in my mouth by saying that I think it somehow improved the sound (although, IIRC, if it wasn't Amir, someone else did test the 2nd generation ADI-2 and the distortion numbers were lower w/ the new chip).