RME ADI-2 Pro FS R BE vs Benchmark DAC3 HGC

[Logan Nolag]

I'm looking at replacing my current preamplifier, a McIntosh C47, with one of these 2 units mostly because the C47's DAC has one major annoying quirk; Whenever sound stops playing over USB it automatically mutes and then it takes a second or so to come back on which means you sometimes miss the beginning of a song or video. This problem has been fixed in the McIntosh C49 but it seems ridiculous to pay another $5000 - ~$2500(The price I can get easily by selling the C47) just to fix this silly problem. I can however buy an RME ADI-2 Pro FS R or a Benchmark DAC3 HGC for around the same money I can get from selling my C47 which since on paper both of these units actually outperform the C47 seems like a better plan.

Most of the comparisons I have seen online are between the ADI-2 DAC FS and the DAC3 HGC and the consensus is to go with the ADI-2 DAC since it's half the price but the ADI-2 Pro FS R BE and DAC3 HGC are almost the same price.

I need the ADI-Pro since I require analog inputs because once I get rid of my C47 I will need to use the phono preamp in my receiver for my turntable.

I am leaning towards the Benchmark since it has a 12v trigger to turn on my amp and the analog inputs are not converted to digital before being sent to the outputs. Also Benchmark's customer support seems to be second to none.

The ADI-2 Pro FS BE on the other hand seems to have many more features and is much more up to date. The Benchmark only does 24bit 192/DSD64 while the ADI-2 does 32bit 768/DSD256 for example.

The both seem to measure very comparably so it really just comes down to features and customer support.

Benchmark DAC3 HGC Pros:
- More direct analog path
- 12v trigger
- Internal PSU
- Rack mountable
- Awesome customer support
- Made in USA
- 5 year warranty

Benchmark DAC3 HGC Cons:
- Only supports 24/192 DSD64
- Requires opening the unit and moving jumpers to change settings
- Firmware updates are paid and require opening the case and installing new hardware
- No EQ/DSP/Crossfeed etc.

ADI-2 Pro FS R BE Pros:
- More up to date 32/768 DSD256
- Lots of features EQ/DSP/Crossfeed etc.
- Frequent and easy firmware updates
- Easy setting changes with screen
- Bigger community

ADI-2 Pro FS R BE Cons
- Looks like it has worse build quality (plastic knobs, cheap remote etc.)
- Worse support (I tried calling RME US and I was just sent to voicemail for example)
- Unclear warranty (Manual says 6 months?! other sources say 2 years others say 5)
- Not made in US (Made in Germany is still pretty good though)

TLDR: Anyone have experience with these 2 units and which would you rather buy?

 

[Nybto]

The Benchmark has a nice knob feel (trying to play a straight bat here!), really high quality, while being motor driven to previous setting when powered on, that sort of thing. I really liked this on the DAC2 HGC that I used to have. Setting attenuators and so on is a one off exercise so not really a factor. Internal PS is also a big pro, because of the sturdier connectors involved. My feeling generally is that the Benchmark is (more) built to last. Decoding of the control panel LEDs is a bit of a pain, but again is part of the long term reliability concept ( I am assuming they would outlive the screen of the RME). OTOH, made in Germany is not really a con, come on...

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is what I call a can't lose decision. Either is going to be very good. Sorry, I can't be of help deciding.

 

[Rja4000]

Awesome customer support
- Made in USA

About RME:
- Awesome customer support (as for me)
- Great support forum, with regular firmware updates, taking into account customers feedback
- German, indeed

I have several RME devices.
From very old ADI-8 DD to the RME ADI-2 Pro fs R
Then (2x) ADI-2 Pro fs too.

The Pro fs R has fantastic performances.
It reaches up to 116dB SINAD in loopback mode (so DAC + ADC) for measurements !
(The non-R peaks at 114dB. Also awesome)
Flexibility is second to none.
Selection of ranges, both for ADC and DAC are game changers.
And, well, you have this awesome ADC, to begin with.

 

[Colonel Bogey]

I find the RME features like EQ/crossfeed/loudness very useful. Support is great and build quality is pro gear, made in Germany. Nothing to impress, just to last and be able to to withstand pro use. My strong recommendations.

 

[ex audiophile]

Benchmark is IMHO in a league of its own. I have two AHB amps, cables and HPA4, delighted with all and their support is excellent. In a year the difference in cost won't matter a bit, and you'll have a superb component made in this country. No brainer for me.

 

[waynel]

Benchmark support is outstanding. Not that anything was ever broken , I’ve just had a lot of questions.

 

[Logan Nolag]

Benchmark is IMHO in a league of its own. I have two AHB amps, cables and HPA4, delighted with all and their support is excellent. In a year the difference in cost won't matter a bit, and you'll have a superb component made in this country. No brainer for me.

I have some of their cables. Very nice quality. The price difference isn't so much of an issue it's more the differences in features. If the Benchmark had feature parity with the RME there would be no question I would get the Benchmark in a second.

 

[Logan Nolag]

The Benchmark has a nice knob feel (trying to play a straight bat here!), really high quality, while being motor driven to previous setting when powered on, that sort of thing. I really liked this on the DAC2 HGC that I used to have. Setting attenuators and so on is a one off exercise so not really a factor. Internal PS is also a big pro, because of the sturdier connectors involved. My feeling generally is that the Benchmark is (more) built to last. Decoding of the control panel LEDs is a bit of a pain, but again is part of the long term reliability concept ( I am assuming they would outlive the screen of the RME). OTOH, made in Germany is not really a con, come on...

I only see built in Germany as a con over built in the US. Definitely not a real con and if Benchmark wasn't built in the US then RME would be the obvious choice. I just tend to prefer made in US if I can get it since I live there and it makes repairs and customer support much easier.

 

[dortreo]

I have both an RME ADI-2 and a Benchmark DAC3 L. Indeed, it’s a no lose situation. Both units are excellent, but I prefer the Benchmark overall for its usability. I find the 12V trigger feature of the Benchmark to be a clear winner for convenience, as it saves me the laborious work of pushing the on-off buttons on my amps.

The Benchmark, despite all its lights, is a LOT easier to operate than the RME, which I still haven’t figured out. The RME menu system is maddening. Having a display on the RME though is a plus overall. As for jumper adjustments, that’s generally a one time thing and easily done in about two minutes. As a side benefit, the Benchmark has a lot more flexibility re: voltage output, which allows me to bypass the input buffers on my amps, raising the S/N ratio quite nicely. The HT bypass feature of the Benchmark allows me to integrate my audio system consistently with my home theater, so there’s another added plus.

I don’t find much value to going about 192/24, as my ears and the rest of me, are no longer young, so that’s a toss-up between the two machines. Finally, I use Roon with convolution filters so there isn’t much benefit to me for EQ/crossfeed from RME, though that is a pretty nice implementation.

 

[Logan Nolag]

I have both an RME ADI-2 and a Benchmark DAC3 L. Indeed, it’s a no lose situation. Both units are excellent, but I prefer the Benchmark overall for its usability. I find the 12V trigger feature of the Benchmark to be a clear winner for convenience, as it saves me the laborious work of pushing the on-off buttons on my amps.

The Benchmark, despite all its lights, is a LOT easier to operate than the RME, which I still haven’t figured out. The RME menu system is maddening. Having a display though is a plus overall. As for jumper adjustments, that’s generally a one time thing and easily done in about two minutes. As a side benefit, the Benchmark has a lot more flexibility re: voltage output, which allows me to bypass the input buffers on my amps, raising the S/N ratio quite nicely. The HT bypass feature of the Benchmark allows me to integrate my audio system consistently with my home theater, so there’s another added plus.

I don’t find much value to going about 192/24, as my ears and the rest of me, are no longer young, so that’s a toss-up between the two machines. Finally, I use Roon with convolution filters so there isn’t much benefit to me for EQ/crossfeed from RME, though that is a pretty nice implementation.

So if you could only pick one you would choose the Benchmark?

 

[Blumlein 88]

The thing about high sample rates is where is the music for it. I know there are a handful of examples, but by and large there isn't any above 96 khz. Much less at 384, 768 etc. So there isn't much advantage to having more than 192 khz.

 

[Logan Nolag]

The thing about high sample rates is where is the music for it. I know there are a handful of examples, but by and large there isn't any above 96 khz. Much less at 384, 768 etc. So there isn't much advantage to having more than 192 khz.

Yeah. Honestly I mostly use my DAC to decode the optical out from my TV so it's usually at 48khz anyway. I just feels bad leaving options on the table. It isn't really a matter of if you need it but rather that you know you have it you ever find a file that is in the higher format.

 

[dortreo]

So if you could only pick one you would choose the Benchmark?

Yes, I'd choose the Benchmark, especially for integration with a home theater. But under different circumstances, I'd choose the RME. They're both good and do what they're supposed to do without a lot of pretense or audiophile skulduggery. Plus, both of them come with excellent manuals.

 

[dortreo]

The thing about high sample rates is where is the music for it. I know there are a handful of examples, but by and large there isn't any above 96 khz. Much less at 384, 768 etc. So there isn't much advantage to having more than 192 khz.

I upsample to 192 but can't tell any difference in sound beyond that. Anything higher than that does make my computer hotter though. So, the music must be flowing more easily from the USB port because it's heated, right?

 

[Logan Nolag]

Yes, I'd choose the Benchmark. But under different circumstances, I'd choose the RME. They're both good and do what they're supposed to do without a lot of pretense or audiophile skulduggery. Plus, both of them come with excellent manuals.

Yeah I've been reading both of them. They are both really in depth. My first instinct is to go for the Benchmark but the more I read about the RME the more i want it. The RME has so many settings to mess around with.

 

[dortreo]

Yeah I've been reading both of them. They are both really in depth. My first instinct is to go for the Benchmark but the more I read about the RME the more i want it. The RME has so many settings to mess around with.

If you can figure out the menu system. Seriously, I'm pretty adept with computers, but the menu system on that thing is like repairing a watch wearing oven mitts.

 

[Logan Nolag]

If you can figure out the menu system. Seriously, I'm pretty adept with computers, but the menu system on that thing is like repairing a watch wearing oven mitts.

lol. I'm usually pretty into stuff like that. I am a lot more comfortable digging through menus than adjusting jumpers inside multi thousand dollar equipment although I'm pretty comfortable doing that as well.

 

[March Audio]

I have both an RME ADI-2 and a Benchmark DAC3 L. Indeed, it’s a no lose situation. Both units are excellent, but I prefer the Benchmark overall for its usability. I find the 12V trigger feature of the Benchmark to be a clear winner for convenience, as it saves me the laborious work of pushing the on-off buttons on my amps.

The Benchmark, despite all its lights, is a LOT easier to operate than the RME, which I still haven’t figured out. The RME menu system is maddening. Having a display on the RME though is a plus overall. As for jumper adjustments, that’s generally a one time thing and easily done in about two minutes. As a side benefit, the Benchmark has a lot more flexibility re: voltage output, which allows me to bypass the input buffers on my amps, raising the S/N ratio quite nicely. The HT bypass feature of the Benchmark allows me to integrate my audio system consistently with my home theater, so there’s another added plus.

I don’t find much value to going about 192/24, as my ears and the rest of me, are no longer young, so that’s a toss-up between the two machines. Finally, I use Roon with convolution filters so there isn’t much benefit to me for EQ/crossfeed from RME, though that is a pretty nice implementation.

Yes I still go round in circles with the ADI menu system. Its an excellent performer however

 

[Logan Nolag]

Yes I still go round in circles with the ADI menu system. Its an excellent performer however

Almost seems like it's more like a piece of laboratory equipment than a piece of audio gear.