• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Trying to figure out a DAC / Interface setup... (currently on RME ADI-2 DAC + Interface)

knkkskknk

Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
25
Likes
7
So. I got the RME ADI-2 DAC a year ago, and I don't want to downgrade DAC/AMP after using it cause it really opened up the sound I'm use to. (For reference, IK Multimedia AXE I/O interface sounds muffled compared to it)

So I producer music and I found that I'm often too lazy to switch interfaces in daw, so when I want to record my microphone in, or throw down a guitar part I'm like (dang. My ASIO device is RME, I don't want to go to settings and load ASIO4ALL or AXE IO and deal with it) so It breaks my workflow...

So I want to keep the HQ DAC/AMP quality of RME, but also be able to effortlessly record microphone/guitar/external instrument (TBH, maybe microphone would be enough...)

RME ADI-2-DAC has a Digital Input. Which would allow me to SLAVE it to an audio interface with Digital Output
The problems with this I see are
1: RME Windows Drivers are THE BEST. They just work, so I'd be losing the convenience of this.
2: I think Steadyclock FS would not work as it would be slaved to the interface (Don't know if I'd even notice, but I read an opinion of someone saying it sounds better plugged directly in rather than slave (placebo?) )
The pluses:
I could essentially get any interface I want with DIGITAL O and use it's inputs/outputs/features/drivers

One solution to the driver problem I heard is to buy another RME. So a BABYFACE PRO or a Babyface Pro FS or RME UCX
the BBF Pro FS solves all problems. (But it's ridiculous to me, as it's almost same quality of device, just with less powerful headphone amp & dac?...)
But I also get RME's Totalmix FX, preamps, phantom power, etcs...

The other solution I was thinking, is to get the RME ADI-2 PRO FS and use it as a audio interface.
it has AES3 so I could plugin a multi cable with multiple inputs...
But there's no dedicated Microphone AMP / Phantom Power / Level KNOB for inputs etcs...
BUT......
I'd get one of the best A/D Conversions out there, and I could buy a Phantom Power/Preamp for the microphone, and a dedicated DI box for the guitar / hardware synths (I only have one HW synth tbh...)
I even could replace my AXE IO with a DI version they make

Both solutions involve me spending about 700$ though.

I can probably get a RME ADI-2-PRO for 1500$ or so and sell mine used
then sell my AXE IO interface to paid for DI version etcs

Very confused on what to do here lol
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,755
Likes
4,673
Location
Liège, Belgium
Unless you really need the full power of the DAC's headphones amp, you'd loose little to switch to the Babyface Pro or, better IMO, UCX II.

I own the UCX II and, while it has less EQ bands and slightly lower measured performance than the ADI-2 Pro I'm also using, the sound is as good to my ears.

But, as you say, it adds Totalmix, a pair of good quality mic preamps, instrument inputs, and so on.
The main difference vs the Babyface, after form factor and number of IOs, is the DSP power: the Babyface doesn't offer the same dynamics effects.

The driver is not the same than the ADI-2, but is very stable and low latency (on Windows PC in my case).
 
Last edited:

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,286
To add to what Rja4000 wrote:

I've the UCX II and the ADI-2 DAC FS, and for me that is a very nice combo. The UCX II is connected to the DAC using optical for monitoring and works very well for my usage (on Windows 10).

The UCX II is a great audio interface, and personally I like the form factor of UCX II much better than the Babyface. It also have a nice screen along with menus for stand-alone usage.

I bought the UCX II after the DAC, but had it been available at that time I would be tempted to have bought that instead at that time. That said, I use several features of the DAC that I won't part with, like dynamic loudness and tone controls. The slow volume ramp up when changing output or powering on to protect ears/monitors/headphones is handy, even the remote at times. So I'll keep the DAC.
 
Last edited:

Lifted

Member
Joined
May 22, 2023
Messages
18
Likes
5
I would personally just get RME UCX II and have both of them (ADI-2 FS and UCX ii) play together, they will integrate into the same system nicely.
But if you are looking to save money, yeah...definitely go sell ADI-2 FS and get ADI-2 FS Pro, just remember the sound will change.

FS Pro has cleaner sound, but less musical sound compared to ADI-2 FS, and that's coming from RME agent I spoke to. Pro version is better for mixing, but if you are bumping music, regular FS takes the cake.
 
OP
K

knkkskknk

Member
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
25
Likes
7
I would personally just get RME UCX II and have both of them (ADI-2 FS and UCX ii) play together, they will integrate into the same system nicely.
But if you are looking to save money, yeah...definitely go sell ADI-2 FS and get ADI-2 FS Pro, just remember the sound will change.

FS Pro has cleaner sound, but less musical sound compared to ADI-2 FS, and that's coming from RME agent I spoke to. Pro version is better for mixing, but if you are bumping music, regular FS takes the cake.

these names get confusing, there's an old ADI-2 FS among others. IMO RME naming is very confusing lol

Do you mean that ADI-2 FS
1685771688566.png


doesn't sound as good as
ADI-2 FS PRO?

1685771717557.png



Because that's known,

I think the ADI-2 FS DAC has the same sound as the PRO but not sure....
1685771767464.png
 

sleepy.sock

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2023
Messages
33
Likes
95
Location
Edinburgh
Old thread, but thought I'd post my thoughts in case it helps someone else in the same situation. I own both the UCX II and the ADI-2 FS Pro Remote BE. I listen on headphone outputs over a HD800. I can A/B them level matched and have spent considerable time with both using the same PEQ settings (only using a 3 band EQ on the ADI-2).

Judgement with my ears: UCX II headphone output is pretty good. The ADI-2 FS Pro headphone output is truly outstanding. ADI-2 drives the HD800s much better at higher volumes -- just sounds crystal clear and tight, really impressive. Feels like the best I could want in terms of DAC/headphone performance.

If you are just tracking audio, UCX II headphone output is more than good enough. If you want to hear the best into a mix or you are just listening to music for pleasure, ADI-2 Pro is noticeably better. As Trell said, extra functionality like dynamic loudness, more EQ bands, easy bass/treble trims, and remote is worth it. I would not hesitate to get both.
 
Top Bottom