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

[Logan Nolag]

Hi
I just want to say I own two ADI-2 Pro fs and one ADI-2 Pro fs R and none is having that issue.
That's probably an issue with a specific batch.

I figured as much. I only found one other older reference to the issue aside from the new thread on the official forums. Seeing how popular the various ADI-2s are and how anal audiophiles can be if it was a widespread issue I suspect it would have already been mentioned. I wonder if it has something to do with Covid.

 

[KEM]

Wait, isnt this an audio forum? Whats this geography stuff?

I am looking to set my wallet on fire, this Schiit Jot isnt cutting it. RME seems worthy, but minus the DAC you folks have some amazing other ideas.

Check out the Bryston BDA-3. more $$$, but great reviews. Will accept dsd64 on hdmi inputs (4!) and the usb. I will buy one shortly.

 

[wynpalmer]

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

Perhaps that's why I find it easy and intuitive. I'm used to lab equipment menu structures, and I've never had a problem with programming the RME- except I do need to have the manual on my PC for ready access when I want to do something unusual.
However, I have had both a pro fs and now a pro fs r and I'm now a devoted RME fan.
The RME box pairs beautifully with a pair of Benchmark AHB2s and my home made phono stage.

 

[Grotti]

I own a Adi-2 Pro fs R BE for a few days now. The manual is a real highlight even though the self-praise is a bit too much for my taste.

After reading the first 20 pages or so, I decided to ignore the manual and hooked the ADI to my power amp. After all it is not self explaining in every aspect but after clicking and scrolling through the menus I think, most of the customers should be able to get it to work properly without referring to the manual.

It sounds perfect to me! A little lightweight in bass performance perhaps in comparison to the DAC in my Volumio Primo with Violectric preamplifier but this could be imaginary and in any case can be and actually is fixed by a little bass boost (2-3 dB at 45 Hertz)

This device will stay until the sun becomes a red giant ;o).

 

[wynpalmer]

I own a Adi-2 Pro fs R BE for a few days now. The manual is a real highlight even though the self-praise is a bit too much for my taste.

After reading the first 20 pages or so, I decided to ignore the manual and hooked the ADI to my power amp. After all it is not self explaining in every aspect but after clicking and scrolling through the menus I think, most of the customers should be able to get it to work properly without referring to the manual.

It sounds perfect to me! A little lightweight in bass performance perhaps in comparison to the DAC in my Volumio Primo with Violectric preamplifier but this could be imaginary and in any case can be and actually is fixed by a little bass boost (2-3 dB at 45 Hertz)

This device will stay until the sun becomes a red giant ;o).

The bass, as you would expect, measures essentially perfectly flat in the audio band as it has a -3dB point of less than 1Hz, and should sound neutral/correct. In ABX comparisons between a digitized LP and the original LP no difference could be detected so it adds no character.
Whatever the bass difference might or might not be it is not due to any imperfection in the RME box.

 

[Grotti]

The bass, as you would expect, measures essentially perfectly flat in the audio band as it has a -3dB point of less than 1Hz, and should sound neutral/correct. In ABX comparisons between a digitized LP and the original LP no difference could be detected so it adds no character.
Whatever the bass difference might or might not be it is not due to any imperfection in the RME box.

That is why I implicated, that the bass response seemed to be a bit more exaggerated with the Volumio and the Violectric. But it is pure subjectivism and I have no proofs for that. And I did not doubt the flat response of the RME at all

 

[Holmz]

Hopefully someone can help me.
How would one compare the:

RME ADI-2 Pro​

with the

RME ADI-2 Pro FS R​

?

I will be using for A2D as well as D2A.

I got a bit lost working it out…

 

[Rja4000]

Hopefully someone can help me.
How would one compare the:

RME ADI-2 Pro​

with the

RME ADI-2 Pro FS R​

?

I will be using for A2D as well as D2A.

I got a bit lost working it out…

I have the Pro fs and the Pro fs R.
What do you want to know ?

I suppose you know that the second one has a remote control.
Other than that, the difference is the DAC chip used (AK4490 vs AK4493) and, for the non fs, the internal clock accuracy.

Oh yes, the R is black only, non rackable.

Both are very solid devices, high performance, very flexible.

 

[Holmz]

I have the Pro fs and the Pro fs R.
What do you want to know ?

I suppose you know that the second one has a remote control.
Other than that, the difference is the DAC chip used (AK4490 vs AK4493) and, for the non fs, the internal clock accuracy.

Oh yes, the R is black only, non rackable.

Both are very solid devices, high performance, very flexible.

Thanks

I would like to be able to stream into the inputs and use it as teh front of an active XO, where the analogue comes from a TT.
(And also some analysis work.)

So looking at the “ADI Pro”, versus “ADI Pro FS”

Good to know about the “R: being for remote… but what is the ”FS” part doing?

 

[Rja4000]

Thanks

I would like to be able to stream into the inputs and use it as teh front of an active XO, where the analogue comes from a TT.
(And also some analysis work.)

So looking at the “ADI Pro”, versus “ADI Pro FS”

Good to know about the “R: being for remote… but what is the ”FS” part doing?

FS is about the internal clock technology.

It provides slightly better jitter than non fs.
As Amir states in his measurement comparison of DAC fs (AK4490 version) vs original non-fs Pro, nothing audible in any way.

The results are identical (including a pair of jitter sidebands) except for broadening of the shoulders of our main 12 kHz tone. This indicates there is random, low frequency jitter in RME ADI-2 Pro which does not exist in RME ADI-2 DAC. Due to strong perceptual masking, definitely not an audible problem

Review and Measurements of RME ADI-2 Pro (comparison to ADI-2 DAC)

This is comparison review and measurements of RME ADI-2 Pro against the RME ADI-2 DAC. The former has both analog to digital conversion in addition to digital to analog. I purchased that combo unit because I hope to make use of its ADC for measurements in the future. According to RME, ADI-2...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Rja4000]

use it as teh front of an active XO, where the analogue comes from a TT.

If I decrypt correctly your acronyms, you want to use it to feed an active cross-over (is that a digital one ?) with the source being a turntable ?

I guess you'll have a phono preamp between the turntable and the RME ? (You'll need one)
So what benefit do you expect from the RME in that path ? Especially if your crossover is using a DSP internally ?

 

[Holmz]

If I decrypt correctly your acronyms, you want to use it to feed an active cross-over (is that a digital one ?) with the source being a turntable ?
…

Correct

…
I guess you'll have a phono preamp between the turntable and the RME ? (You'll need one)
…

Correct… Currently I have:
TT —> Phono —> Pre —> Amp —> passive-XO speakers

…
So what benefit do you expect from the RME in that path ? Especially if your crossover is using a DSP internally ?

I want to move to:
TT —> Phono —> pre —> Active XO (RME+PCV+Octo DAC8 Pro) —> amp(s) —> speaker drivers.
So I need to get the phono signal into digits in order to do the DSP.


But basically what is new/different/added.subtracted between the old “ADI Pro” and the “FS” version?

 

[Rja4000]

I want to move to:
TT —> Phono —> pre —> Active XO —> amp(s) —> speaker drivers.
So I need to get home into digits to do some DSP.

So you want to use the RME as a crossover ?
If the speakers are 2 ways, that should be possible. You could then use the Main output and the Phones 3/4 output (unbalanced) for 2 x 2 channels.

basically what is new/different/added.subtracted between the old “ADI Pro” and the “FS” version?

As far as I know, the only difference between the RME ADI-2 Pro and the RME ADI-2 Pro fs is the "fs" internal clock.
(If you don't speak of the RME ADI-2 Pro fs R - for which I listed the differences above)

 

[Holmz]

So you want to use the RME as a crossover ?
If the speakers are 2 ways, that should be possible. You could then use the Main output and the Phones 3/4 output (unbalanced) for 2 x 2 channels.
…

I edited the post Top sho the RME doing only the ADC part.

…
As far as I know, the only difference between the RME ADI-2 Pro and the RME ADI-2 Pro fs is the "fs" internal clock.
…

Ah, OK. Thanks!

So i should look at SINAD and jitter specs.

 

[3125b]

So i should look at SINAD and jitter specs.

In reality they‘re both plenty good. The remote might make the new version worth it if you use it for home entertainment purposes.
It‘s 1620€ currently. A used older model might save you some money, but they are difficult to find used even in Germany.

Make sure to update the firmware, RME adds features regularly.

 

[tuga]

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 disagree.

I find that having high rate input is actually beneficial for Redbook (most of my music).
I upconvert to DSD with HQPlayer into NOS/direct mode RME and take advantage of its advanced filtering and noise shaping algorithms.

I am quite happy with the RME DAC but the menu structure is an absolute chaos...