RME Adi 2 Pro FS or 2/4 Pro SE?

[Inveterate Lurker]

I have combed through the spec sheets for both the RME Adi 2 Pro FS and 2/4 Pro SE and still can't decide which one to buy. Part of the indecision is based on not knowing what musical gear and connectivity I will use a few years from now.

My future purchase will primarily be used as a dac and headphone amp. I use Dan Clark Audio Ether closed back. In the future, I plan on buying the DCA Stealth. I am getting into synthesizers and hope to use the purchase to monitor and convert between my gear and the DAW. Some synths have a USB out but I don't trust the conversion within the synth. I would rather take a line out into the RME. The 2/4 Pro SE has a more powerful headphone amp with better SINAD but beyond that are there any connectivity options or features that make it superior? The phono stage is intriguing but would I be better off saving $500 and buy a waxwing later? I doubt I will use all the features of either the Pro FS or 2/4 Pro SE but I would rather have many unused tools than to need one tool and not have it be available.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I have combed through the spec sheets for both the RME Adi 2 Pro FS and 2/4 Pro SE and still can't decide which one to buy. Part of the indecision is based on not knowing what musical gear and connectivity I will use a few years from now.

My future purchase will primarily be used as a dac and headphone amp. I use Dan Clark Audio Ether closed back. In the future, I plan on buying the DCA Stealth. I am getting into synthesizers and hope to use the purchase to monitor and convert between my gear and the DAW. Some synths have a USB out but I don't trust the conversion within the synth. I would rather take a line out into the RME. The 2/4 Pro SE has a more powerful headphone amp with better SINAD but beyond that are there any connectivity options or features that make it superior? The phono stage is intriguing but would I be better off saving $500 and buy a waxwing later? I doubt I will use all the features of either the Pro FS or 2/4 Pro SE but I would rather have many unused tools than to need one tool and not have it be available.

Welcome to ASR

I own an ADI 2 PRO FS BE. The most useful benefit (to me) of the 2/4 is the ability to assign the 2nd output DAC to rear connections. If you want to drive (e.g.) a sub with separate PEQ from the ADI 2 PRO FS BE you have to use the front headphone jack.

 

[MrRom92]

I am having the same dillema currently. To my understanding the only additional features of the 2/4 are for directly capturing from a phono cartridges (such as implementing the appropriate gain and EQ curve via DSP) although I suspect (from the post above) there may be more to it that I’m missing.
I’d hate to buy the BE and then down the line discover there is some feature or use case for the 2/4 that I am missing out on. An additional $500 is nothing to sneeze at though.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I am having the same dillema currently. To my understanding the only additional features of the 2/4 are for directly capturing from a phono cartridges (such as implementing the appropriate gain and EQ curve via DSP) although I suspect (from the post above) there may be more to it that I’m missing.
I’d hate to buy the BE and then down the line discover there is some feature or use case for the 2/4 that I am missing out on. An additional $500 is nothing to sneeze at though.

The built-in RIAA is potentially useful. I decided that I would rather use a phono preamplifier into the ADI 2 PRO FS BE than buy the 2/4. I'm not particularly wealthy and this combination is less expensive than a 2/4.

ISTR that the 2/4 has an extra auto-gain step and the headphone amplifiers are more powerful. The ADI 2 PRO FS BE headphone amplifiers are more than powerful enough for me. The auto-gain facility is one of the primary reasons to own an RME ADI, in my opinion. It adjusts the gain to ensure the DAC is operating at maximum SNR. Also, the loudness feature is brilliant.

 

[MrRom92]

The built-in RIAA is potentially useful. I decided that I would rather use a phono preamplifier into the ADI 2 PRO FS BE than buy the 2/4. I'm not particularly wealthy and this combination is less expensive than a 2/4.

ISTR that the 2/4 has an extra auto-gain step and the headphone amplifiers are more powerful. The ADI 2 PRO FS BE headphone amplifiers are more than powerful enough for me. The auto-gain facility is one of the primary reasons to own an RME ADI, in my opinion. It adjusts the gain to ensure the DAC is operating at maximum SNR. Also, the loudness feature is brilliant.

Thank you for letting me know about this - a better headphone amp is a bonus but it is one that could sway me. I’m sure it’s MORE than fine for my needs now as I’m not driving anything too exotic but I do also have to consider my needs years, or perhaps even decades into the future.
I do like that it has a 4.4mm balanced jack as well. I was already looking into exotic adaptors for the Black Edition’s balanced output, but this simplifies things a bit.

Setting the ADC gain on my prior USB interface (focusrite) was such a pain, it’s the one thing that drove me to upgrade.
How exactly does the auto-gain (and gain in general) work on the RME units? There are only a few pre-set levels rather than widely adjustable range?

 

[MC_RME]

I am having the same dillema currently. To my understanding the only additional features of the 2/4 are for directly capturing from a phono cartridges (such as implementing the appropriate gain and EQ curve via DSP) although I suspect (from the post above) there may be more to it that I’m missing.
I’d hate to buy the BE and then down the line discover there is some feature or use case for the 2/4 that I am missing out on. An additional $500 is nothing to sneeze at though.

ADI-2/4 Prototyp (Page 5) — ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series — RME User Forum

 

[MrRom92]

ADI-2/4 Prototyp (Page 5) — ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series — RME User Forum

Thank you for that very in depth rundown! Seems there are more differences between the two than I initially understood there to be… much to consider, much to consider

 

[MrRom92]

Well, I ended up scratching together some cash and pulling the trigger on the 2/4. Why not go for the flagship if I can. Glad I was swayed in the right direction!

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Well, I ended up scratching together some cash and pulling the trigger on the 2/4. Why not go for the flagship if I can. Glad I was swayed in the right direction!

Good choice! The paper manual that comes in the box is an absolute joy compared to many. I've found it handy to have the pdf of the manual on my computer to search for settings.

 

[Reddoc]

Well, I ended up scratching together some cash and pulling the trigger on the 2/4. Why not go for the flagship if I can. Glad I was swayed in the right direction!

Congrats, I have one, it's fabulous.
The ADI-2 Remote software is an excellent (free!) addition and makes in-depth control much easier.
Enjoy!

 

[MrRom92]

Congrats, I have one, it's fabulous.
The ADI-2 Remote software is an excellent (free!) addition and makes in-depth control much easier.
Enjoy!

Unfortunately I am finding that the ADI-2 remote cannot run on my laptop! Otherwise, really liking things. Somewhat second guessing my choice to go with the 2/4 but I am enjoying its capabilities and getting everything dialed in.
I’ll likely be joining the RME forum and asking LOTS of questions.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Well, I ended up scratching together some cash and pulling the trigger on the 2/4. Why not go for the flagship if I can. Glad I was swayed in the right direction!

How's the sound in comparison with other DACs that's you've tried? Is it worth the price?

 

[MrRom92]

How's the sound in comparison with other DACs that's you've tried? Is it worth the price?

I am hesitant to make any explicit judgements based on not having spent quite enough time with it yet, and I also think value is subjective, but I am definitely liking it so far, and as an audio professional who will ostensibly be making money with this piece of equipment for years to come I would say the value proposition was right for me.

Right now I am experimenting with the different filter options on both the D/A and A/D sides to see what I think sounds best or best suits my needs.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

Unfortunately I am finding that the ADI-2 remote cannot run on my laptop!

Can you provide more detail on why it can't run on your laptop?

 

[MrRom92]

Can you provide more detail on why it can't run on your laptop?

The best I can ascertain from online searching the error code is that it requires a better graphics card to run, but I can’t imagine why a simple remote app would require a high end graphics card of any kind. Hardly seems like a high performance use case

 

[unpluggged]

but I can’t imagine why a simple remote app would require a high end graphics card of any kind

It does not. It just requires a not too ancient graphics card that properly supports Direct3D 12. Should work on most GPUs released in the last decade. For instance, it works on NVIDIA Maxwell GPUs from 2014. How old is your laptop and which GPU does it have?

 

[rcstevensonaz]

The best I can ascertain from online searching the error code is that it requires a better graphics card to run, but I can’t imagine why a simple remote app would require a high end graphics card of any kind. Hardly seems like a high performance use case

The issue is likely due to code compatibility — they only support DirectX (and perhaps other software elements) back to a certain point in time. To go further back further in time to support even older versions creates increased level of complexity and overhead. Even more so when their current software relies on capabilities that are provided through the software libraries of of the newer versions, but would would require extensive additional coding to support older versions that do not natively feature those capabilities.

Processing power and graphic speed is very unlikely to be the core issue. But, RME on their forums provide exact details about how far back their support goes, and why.

 

[MrRom92]

I guess there is the answer. I can’t tell you what type of graphics hardware it has but the laptop I am currently using this with is certainly more than a decade old. It never refused to launch anything related to any hardware I’ve thrown at it, so this is a first.
Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding but this type of application hardly seems like the type of thing that (in theory) would necessitate DirectX of any kind, it’s not like we’re trying to play Crysis here, though clearly I am sure I have some deep misconception about what DirectX is actually used for. Regardless, the situation remains the same, the ADI-2 remote cannot run on this laptop.

 

[rcstevensonaz]

I guess there is the answer. I can’t tell you what type of graphics hardware it has but the laptop I am currently using this with is certainly more than a decade old. It never refused to launch anything related to any hardware I’ve thrown at it, so this is a first.
Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding but this type of application hardly seems like the type of thing that (in theory) would necessitate DirectX of any kind, it’s not like we’re trying to play Crysis here, though clearly I am sure I have some deep misconception about what DirectX is actually used for. Regardless, the situation remains the same, the ADI-2 remote cannot run on this laptop.

Again, please look to RME for actual details. (My theory below may be completely wrong!!! [see @KSTR below])

Knowing that the RME Remote Application is using the MADI MIDI protocol to talk to the RME ADI-2 device, I did a quick Google on DirectX and MADI MIDI. Based on that (very cursory) level search, it would would not be surprising if the RME application is using DirectX calls for input/out of the MADI MIDI channel. And they likely wrote this recent software using calls that are only available in the later versions of DirectX.

Per Wikipedia: Microsoft DirectX is a collection of application programming interfaces (APIs) for handling tasks related to multimedia. That includes audio, not just video.

Keep in mind that the RME Remote Application is using MADI MIDI to interact with the RME ADI-2 over the USB connection. At the exact same time, the same Windows machine is also taking 6 separate audio channels input to route up to an audio "mixer" on the PC before sending 8 separate audio channels back to the RME ADI-2 device over that USB connection. That is some pretty intense multimedia control — at the analog level rather than at the graphics level. None of that requires a powerful laptop. But, the software application itself is likely written use the most recent and most advanced capabilities available through DirectX to deliver high quality software with reduced cost of writing and maintaining.

 

[KSTR]

The interface to the RME devices for remote control is MIDI over USB, not MADI. No special hardware ever required for that. And browsers support MIDI directly these days, even on computers from 2000 or so.

Hence it was a intentional decision by RME to use a standalone coding format and app appearance that requires more modern GPU features "just to get a nice display", and it was a bad one IHMO. Equally bad decision was to not make it true multi-platform, no Linux version.

In the end I had to rig up a new Windows laptop in order to use the app. Luckily, RME published the protocol (MIDI SysEx) which helped to cover some basic needs for Linux users via shell scripts.