I would definitely not want any of those features of my ADI devices - I currently have ADI-2 PRO FS and if these features existed I would request firmware update with settings to turn them all off. However, I would love to have software apps that allow to set up and control the next generation of ADI devices via computers and maybe even mobile devices (similar to how TotalMix can control recording interfaces - in that case Bluetooth would be useful to allow IOS and Android to connect).

Of course - as long as they can be turned off in settings (like I can turn off bluetooth on my desktop PC becase I don't need it to be on for no reason since I will absolutely never use it). But if those features were on and I could not turn them off it would drive me insane (I would actually definitely not buy the device at all in that case).

Please allow me the question, what is a ADI-3 ?
ADI-8 is 8 channel converter.
ADI-2 is 2 channel converter.
ADI-3 is 3 channel converter ?
I have two ears, what is the third channel for ? For the nose ?
Stereo plus smell ? Or stereo plus subwoofer ?
Feature requests for a nonexisting device ?
Sorry for lots of questions. No need to answer all, I was just curious.

... and that would never be named "ADI-3". Waedi is right: it has been years since the number in RME product names (and most of the pro gears) is the number of channels... So ADI-2 DAC mark 2, why not, but ADI-3 DAC makes no sense...

And I sincerely hope that ADI-2 DAC mk 2 won't have MQA, Airplay and Bluetooth... More inputs maybe (HDMI would be great). But a pro/serious gear with MQA...

And concerning the lower noise floor, I don't understand the request. I've never heard any noise during the almost 3 years I've spent with my ADI-2 DAC... Its performance level is far beyond the performance of our ears. The ASR SINAD battle is fun, but I would prefer more useful or clever features: a bigger screen, a nicer remote, more EQ bands etc.

I do not see "we" in this thread.

Before you request "features" like MQA you probably inform yourself about it. A good start would be here:

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/ … ions-r701/

Now what do you think is RME's position on MQA? Let's put it this way: personally it's exactly because RME is a no-bullshit company why I consider to purchase their products.

Ok Guys,

We've had our fun, but let's not torment the O.P. excessively.   His proposals were made innocently enough, but perhaps a bit of Forum research might have shown him that the User Community has long expressed vehement opposition to such "enhancements" to the RME product.   (-1 for me:  Run on Sentence)

My preference is for RME to maintain it's traditionally Keen Focus upon advancing the State of the Art.  To that end,  Proprietary, Life-Limited, BS add-ons will quite likely never be a part of RMEs Formula.

May it remain So!

Best to All!

Curt

Please, I would like to request on the next ADI-3 a:

BYPASS of the digital DSP that completely destroyed the quality of the sound on the ADI-2..

I have bought the ADI-2 DAC twice,
the first version and now the latest just to check if the improvement of the new DAC made any change in the sound quality..

But unfortunately it is still a digital murder of the quality of the sound into a cold digitalized synthesized lifeless version deprived of It's original details, warmth, textures and nuances..

I love RME products that had no integrated DSP and they sounded wonderful..

I am not an engineer and I don't know for sure if it is the DSP, or something else like the limited bandwidth of the USB 2 maybe? That is making this cold, lifeless synthesized sound of very low quality, but please fix whatever it is into the next version and make a BYPASS button...
because RME still is the best for drivers quality and it is a shame to see the sound quality dropping to this point.

Maybe many cannot hear this drop in sound quality so easily because they do not have the high end system to hear it like High efficiency horn speakers, SET tube amplifiers, and so on..

But even with my Beyerdynamic headphone DT770,
I immediately noticed the cold digitalized synthetic anemic sound of the ADI2 compared to older RME units without DSP..

I know that digital DSP equalisation is the new trend,
but eventually Sound engineers will start to recognize that digital equalisation is just killing the life and the organic textures of the sound, just to simplify it into something that is cold synthetic, alien, and inadequate to real sound reproduction.

I could only think of one additional feature in a potentially new version, which would be to import configurations and eq from the pc. That would be a killer feature for me. It is really pain in the a** to do it on the unit itself.

So since this thread is somehow shambling on let me add a few suggestions: front accessible line inputs with separate gain knobs. Likewise independent volume knobs for the headphone outputs and a direct vs monitor blend knob. Totalmix integration.

In other words: make it more of an interface and the best 2 channel interface that is out there. Dedicated hardware knobs for the basic gain-levelling functions of in- and outputs. Stuff you can use blind unlike touchscreens which demand attention and lack haptic feedback (Anubis I am looking at you).

Allow me a few comments to your request:

You could think about getting an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, which has two (instead of one) D/A converter.
I would get rid of the Topping, it's really not required and IMHO doesn't add to quality.
In most cases its the better approach to reduce the number of devices in the analog domain.
ADI-2 DAC/Pro perform an excellent D/A conversion quality and the headphone amp is brilliant, so I ask myself what you want more.

Such a device would cost much more. All ADI-2 DAC specific functions would need to be provided for each of the outputs (dynamic loudness, B/T, PEQ and a lot more). Would also need a bigger FPGA and would make firmware more complex.
I have doubts, that something like this can / will ever happen.

It has been told a few times on forum and is also documented in the manual, that the performance of the DAC is limited.
I have severe doubts that 0.1 dB steps are required, as such small differences are even hard detect for trained ears.
As a consequence you would even need to turn the encoder more often which is maby not so nice for operation.
0.5 dB increments make IMHO more sense for our ears for quick B/T adjustments.

The SNR is already on such a high niveau that human ears can not hear / identify it anymore.
It would make the device only much more expensive without giving you a real benefit.
SNR alone doesn't produce a nice "3D sound stage", this is more a combination of "doing it right" in every aspect.

You should also consider, that  RME's 4-stage reference level design compensates SNR loss and keeps SNR/dynamics for a wide volume range on a higher level compared to other products, which do not have such a design.

At ref levels +19/+13/+7 dBu the device has an optimum SNR of 123dBA, at +1 dBu 120dBA.
So if you turn the volume down
- from 0 to -6      you have 123 dBA SNR/dynamic again (@reflevel +13 dBu)
- from -6 to -12   you have 123 dBA SNR/dynamic again (@reflevel +7 dBu)
- from -12 to -18 you have 120 dBA SNR/dynamic which is still very nice (@reflevel 1 dBu)

Compare this to a device which would have only one output level and assumed 128 dBA SNR, it would have a resulting SNR of:
- 128 -6 = 122 dB,    which is 1 dB less compared to ADI-2 DAC at revlevel +13 dBu
- 128 -12 = 116 dB,  which is 7 dB less compared to ADI-2 DAC at revlevel +7 dBu
- 128 -18 = 110 dB,  which is 10 dB less compared to ADI-2 DAC at revlevel +1 dBu

There is no technical requirement for USB4 for transferring such a low amount of channels.
This would make the unit only more expensive for no real reason.
RME devices like the MADIface Pro are e.g. able to transfer 68 audio channels through USB2.
USB3/TB you will see from RME only in such cases, where you need the bandwidth for a lot more channels ( UFX+, MADiface XT,...).
This is to the benefit for all customers not having to pay for things that are technically not required.
And don't forget, USB4 will be backward compatible to previous USB standards like USB3 and USB2, so there is no urge or need to implement USB4 on the device itself.

Conclusions

IMHO ADI-2 Pro and ADI-2 DAC are already very good as they are.

If you see devices from other manufacturers with more channels, please always keep in mind that they also offer significantly less features. The effort on RME side to build a device with even more output channels would be much higher and as a consequence to a much higher price that only few people would (or could) afford.

RME also seems to be interested in building affordable devices that many customers can buy.
The ADI-2 DAC FS is already the reduced version of the ADI-2 Pro FS (minus studio features that you do not need in HiFi)
to be able to offer such a device under €1000.

I wish  the next RME DAC use the ESS9028 pro chip .

@Ramses
It is obvious that if PME decides to implement a duck around 9028pro, then it will be of a different level. Because I have heard implementations with this particular 9028pro, it is far from listening to 4490.     The price of  chip 9028 pro is about 60 euros for customers , obviously  RME  will buy it much cheaper  .

And the decision of the  RME not to use the 9028pro  , I do not think it was the cost, but the much greater difficulty of adapting the 9028pro to the existing circuit that use the  4493

MC did pronounce DAC similar as duck with his german accent, but we all love RME duck, it is not a lame duck at all.

When true sound produced by a cheaper chip set which is reliable enough, plus the good circuit and many functions designed/bulit by RME, what else we need more?

I know some expensive DAC built with expensive chip for each channel, but it does not sound better and cleaner ( I listened to it ), it creates more problem on the circuit (especially when you listen it at mono).

Simple is best. Enjoy music.

Lol!! The Internet has become our tower of Babel. Anyway i´ll hope the next iteration is smoking hot, and that RME will keep the excellent price/performance ratio.

48 dB per octave? Really?

For one reason or another, during my life I have had the pleasure of working interactions with many highly regarded designers and heads of design for various companies.

This thread reminds me of something the head of design at Rolls Royce stated one day. He said: “Every legendary, iconic design can been outlined, by just two or three strokes of a pen.”

What he meant, was that almost everyone, by looking at those two or three lines on a page, could tell you precisely the actual automobile that they represented.  Given the huge number of different vehicle designs manufactured over the years, that’s quite remarkable.

But some designs are so bold, so distinct, so impressively outstanding that they are instantly recognisable, readily discerned even from very great distances. They stand out clearly from everything else on the road. The thing is, there’s something very special indeed, a kind of inevitability, about truly great designs, that cause them to become timeless classics.

On the other hand, I also remember colleagues from a company I had an “interest” in years ago, visiting a famous Italian house of design to view their progress on a product.

Their main building was divided into six sections and everything was covered over in five of those sections. This was because they were working on designs for six different manufacturers simultaneously, and didn’t want visitors to see their competitors forthcoming product designs.

So many products are almost indistinguishable from one another.

Merely variations on a virtually identical theme. 
                     
Nothing unique to offer.                                                           

Why am I writing this?

Well, it’s because in my experience the greatest designs are fundamentally the vision and work of one profoundly gifted individual.

For sure lots of other people are deeply involved in bringing the product to series production; but essentially and radically, the visionary concept is the brain child of a singularly exceptional person.

In contrast, the designs produced by committees.

Products of endless and exhaustive consultation, involving continual and ever evolving compromise.

Gradually move away from anything true and pure in design they ever possessed in their original conceptualisation. If they ever did!

By comparison to great design, they become profoundly confused. A bewildering mishmash of diametrically opposing, disorganised ideas. Different abstractions cobbled together, held by thin layers of the weak adhesive of poorly thought through, discombobulated, subjective cogitation.  Perhaps a disturbingly true, direct, mirror reflection of their creators?

Somehow, reading this thread, brought all this to mind!

For what its worth, the best ducks are served with orange along with Grand Marnier or Cointreau, which may be of great service to earlier contributors to this thread.

So, I sincerely trust the next iteration of such RME products will continue to reflect their brilliance and ingenuity, breadth of vision, clarity of focus, absolute purity of concept and superlative excellence in build quality and reliability.

Augmenting, amplifying and extending their solidly established reputation of superb product design values. Concepts that efficiently shoehorn every possible, genuinely useful facility, into affordable, creative realizations that professionals and enthusiasts alike, can thoroughly revel in owning.

My request for ADI-2 Pro MK2:

The back TR 1/4” connectors should be, either permanently, or user definably used for a Line Output 3/4, and made TRS balanced.

Currently they (quasi, unbalanced) double the signal from the XLR’s, being a bit of wasted options.

I would have voted for this to be an additional pair of connectors, but ADI-2 Pro’s backside doesn’t seem to offer enough space for more.

But it also has advantages that the unit is compact.
For my recording environment, it sits on top of my rack and then a few other things fit well next to it.
For hi-fi - small as it is - it fits better under the TV next to my Optosel 4:1 and then there is still space for other small things.
At least it looks very tidy that way.

If you want a bigger display and more buttons, I would suggest a compromise, maybe 3/4 of 19" and then again optional rack mounts/ears to really rack it if needed.
The larger case is surely also beneficial to give it a little bit more solid stand (by more weight) and to get even automatically by this a little better cooling, so that less people are worried about heat.

The small holes on the sides of the case for screws are barely visible and you could perhaps also include plugs in black to be able to close them if necessary, so it might look a bit more "pleasing" for HiFi use.

Well the ADI-2 DAC is budget model and perhaps the ADI-3 DAC should be that to. One could always want things, but there is a cost to it. I think there should be a fourth model in the ADI line, flagship model like the UFX+. With 19" It could have a bigger display to show digital state, IO, DSP functions on/off side by side rather than behind each other. Or EQ and spectrum analyzer together could be handy. Moreover you could fit a microphone input on the front. With the extensive menus more shortcut buttons could be handy. Totalmix could also be great, but It should communicate with the specific functions of this product; Loudness, B/T and the 5 band PEQ. So thats what I want, 19" ADI-3 Flagship with Totalmix FX. A crossover for 2.2 would be great too.

I have some serious needs for rackmounting to make a portable rig with my DAC and UCXII. I can work around that but I rather dont. It also solves the "lightfootedness" of 9.5 components.

I dont know about "pleasing looks" for hifi use. Maybe that crowd should look elsewhere for product Personally I would have the DAC in blue and silver. With ears.

That's PA stuff. Not really related to an ADI, I would think. And once you start, you'll also need more outputs. For a 2-way, 3-way, 4-way, n-way?

I can think of a few things I could use for measurements. But these don't belong in an interface like the ADI.

I don’t get the sense of the size discussion?!

All ADI-2 versions are 1/2 19”, which is studio standard.
There are numerous 3rd party rack mounting options available.

Any change in size (except full 19”) would be a step in the wrong direction.

Full 19” could be another - to justify the size largely enhanced - addition to the 2-channel line, a full featured ”ADI-2 Studio”.

This is also my understanding and wouldn't like to drill holes into the device which would decrease its value.

And @KaiS .. I do not see as an issue, if the form factor wouldn't be exactly 9,5 or 19" as long as the rack mounts to the left and right of such a device would be available and if it is a little bit larger than 9,5, then the whole construction can at the end only become more stable.

Kais: Those are all nice, but u still need(or should have) the screwholes. Those are lacking in ADI-2 DAC. So any other solution would be a half measure. The shelf from the top image could work if u unscrew the feet and use those screwholes. Besides im building a 9.5 rack. Im working it out. Anyway this thread is about future models.

ADI-2 DAC is low priced, so RME designed it without rackmount option. They probably saved some, but I think they should include it. Or I should have bought the PRO instead