1 (edited by behn66 2019-12-18 18:14:55)

Topic: questyle CMA400i vs ADI2-DAC FS - why the flat device wins

Dear all,

I just forgot how diffucult it is to compare hifi-devices, knowing that I am not very experienced in doing the same.

So if the topic here is poorly written, kindly let me know and I am trying to improve.

Right now sitting in-front of questyle 400i and ADI-2 DAC FS and enjoying FLAC-(44.1khz) recorded stuff. Don't have higher-res stuff avail.
Both DACS either attached to a small RPI4 (kodi)  or WIN10 (foobar2000 with ASIO-drivers installed and used). Only USB-input used.

Comparing both as DAC and as phone-amp (audeze LCD-2, Hifiman Ananda and beyerdynamic T1). Beeing  honest, its very much more difficult then I expected.

The questyle CMA 400i is tonaly sounding different then the ADI-2. The focals/voice is substantially more present in the CMA400i. The highs sound a bit more present.  Sounds as the CMA400i adds more "action". Especially when switching between both, the ADI-2 sounds somewhat flat.
But while the highs sound more present in the CMA 400i, the ADI-2 wins on clearness. ADI-2 provides a very detailed sound and never "sharp".
On ADI-2 both  EQ and loudness is turned off actually. Turning on loudness on the ADI-2 (which is a genius like implemented on the ADI-2) brings both more on par, but the voice on the CMA400i is still very more in foreground. And I like the way the CMA400i is adding power and substance to voice as well.
As loudness makes a diff you realize the level I am listening is rather calm.

Btw, Took me some time to get used to the menu and all of its functions. Running latest sw version 33. Thanks for the nice manual - useful stuff.

But interesting, when listening long enough to both, the CMA400i becomes somewhat uneasy. I have the feeling its "stressing/yelling" me. I just have the devices since yesterday and realize I am mainly enjoying the ADI-2.

With the ADI-2 I could enjoy music longer and more relaxed, especially as in mine usecase the music is running all day in "background" when sitting at mine PC. The strong presence of the Voice (mids/high) as done by the CMA400i  is eating my attention. It is as the singer is saying: listen to me. stop working.
I should add that I am 50y old and the age is showings its tributes as well.

on the other side the ADI-2 sounds to me very much more natural, not as "fat" as the CMA400i. The ADI-2 sounds very "original" and by reading the docs thats its the ADI-2 strength - to reprodcue music as natural and unchanged as a device can do. And I like it so much.

So for long-time "relaxed" listening  experience and the very natural sound I really opt for the ADI-2.

And here (at least to me) comes mine contradiction which I do not really understand:

Some lines above I wrote the ADI-2 sound "flat" compared to the CMA400i. I could have written the CMA 400i sounds more "alive" with the voices nicely brought to attention.
But when listining careful with the ADI-2 everything feels like "as it should be". Voices sound clear and sharp. Nothing fat.
just perfect. Oh I love the ADI-2. What a nice piece of audio.
But how could I write when comparing both that the ADI-2 sounds flat while stating everything on ADI-2 is perfectly on its place?
is it now all perfect or is it sounding flat?
Its confusing me. I am happy for any feedback on this.

Maybe some of you guys have some warm words for me on described "contradiction"

However my decision is done. Need to get hold of the ADI-2.
Clean and natural sound. Can be enjoyed over hours. And when changing focus from "background" music to  give the amp  more watts,then  the ADI-2 excels as well. Listening with attention and obsession  is real fun with the ADI-2.

Finally I want to add a feature-request here based on the fact that its beyond my skills to easily make "useful" settings with the EQ/DSP:
I would like to see factory-provided pre-sets which tune the ADI-2 for different cases and tonal behaviour. I know its strength is the natural and exact sound.
But the device is so powerful and flexible, why shouldn't add RME some different pre-sets to give the ADI-2 either a more warm/ voice-centric favour ?

I am not using the ADI-2 for production in any way. Just using it as phone-amp and DAC and different sound-sets would not be an disadvantage. To add a different angle lets look why people buy a "staion wagon (Kombi)" car? Not because they need it every day. Even more, a majority of time the pure size of the car is very seldom beeing used. But having the flexibility to use it when required is a bonus and you see many people sitting alone in a huge car. Not even loaded with stuff..
I am seeing different sound-profiles the same way. Rarely used, but having the choice to do so is a real advantage.


thanks

christian

Re: questyle CMA400i vs ADI2-DAC FS - why the flat device wins

Take the one you like most, seems to be the ADI-2 DAC anyway wink
RME has a long history in professional studio devices, the ADI-2 DAC benefits from this long experience.
RME sound characteristic is to be transparent, to not add somethIng which alters the original sound. I think therefore your observation that it creates no stress to your ears.
Are you aware of, that RME updated the ADI-2 DAC FS model last recently with a newer AKM chip and updated remote control ? If you buy just right now newly then I would ensure to get the latest design. The newer DAC chip supports one more DA filter besides feature of delivering little higher SNR.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: questyle CMA400i vs ADI2-DAC FS - why the flat device wins

But how could I write when comparing both that the ADI-2 sounds flat while stating everything on ADI-2 is perfectly on its place?
is it now all perfect or is it sounding flat?
Its confusing me. I am happy for any feedback on this.

For Pro Audio, "flat" is a positive description. Remember the ADI-2 Pro and DAC have uses in recording studio, mastering, and audio laboratory as well as home HiFi.

But the device is so powerful and flexible, why shouldn't add RME some different pre-sets to give the ADI-2 either a more warm/ voice-centric favour ?

The results of any preset EQ will vary greatly depending on the room & speakers or headphones used, so it could make things sound much worse instead of better. EQ should be done in the listening space.

Regards,
Jeff Petersen
Synthax Inc.

Re: questyle CMA400i vs ADI2-DAC FS - why the flat device wins

Dear all,

Many thanks for your insights. Appreciate it.

Thanks

Christian