In this situation, how does the digital processing work? I watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBOADUtZ7qc

So would it mean in this case the analog input I send via Total Mix to AES Output will use the ADI Pro's AD conversion, sends it back digitally to UFX and then via UFX USB to my Mac. Will the recorded audio then be fully processed by the better converters and SRC by the ADI Pro and the UFX does not do Digital to Digital conversion again as it stands as a hub between the mac and ADI Pro?

Or how does this exactly work? Sorry a bit confused and not tech-savvy enough to understand the logic so bare with me.

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/

As Jeff says, if you want to use USB to send audio to your ADI-2 Pro, then the devices need to be clock synched.
For this you can take either AES or SPDIF/ADAT between UFX as clock master and ADI as clock slave.

But you do not necessarily need to create an aggregate / to route audio directly to the ADI.
I would connect USB only for the purpose to be able to perform flash upgrades on the ADI.

Otherwise you could send e.g. audio to AES OUT (assumed ADI connected through AES)
- alternatively use ADAT, as you like -
and the ADI will use steadyclock and remove any potential clock jitter, so to say refresh the clock signal,
and finally perform D/A conversion with it's own internal DAC.

And as your active monitors and headphones will be e.g. connected to ADI .. then you have have all the nice sound and advantages of your ADI for the monitoring section....

Connect the synths to the UFX's 8 analog inputs, it's perfect and optionally you can also use the ADI's two analog INs.
You seem to have the expectation/imagination, that everything that you connect to the ADI sounds much better, but the
ADI is no "sound washer" adding "mojo".
It has the same characteristic as every RME device to make a transparent AD/DA conversion as good as possible to
capture/record/keep as much of the characteristic/sound of the original signal.

OK, the ADI has higher SNR .. but all devices are already on such a high standard, that your ears won't be able to recognize any noise .... The quality of the UFX analog section is already superb as you can check yourself (by making blind tests).

Pls do not assume problems where no problems are, there was already "life" / quality before ADI-2 Pro

The qualities of the ADI with its DAC is the combination of DAC / highest quality and the ADI specific features, that make this unit shine ... High SNR, different AD and DA filter, 4 different reference levels, Auto Ref Level selection, Extreme power phone outputs, option for balanced phones, slow ramp-up of volume when plugging headphones or switching between output channels, support to act either as a converter or an USB dac, SRC, PEQ, PEQ per channel, and and and.

But to record something from a synthy .. a normal analog input like from the UFX * is fully sufficient and I am pretty sure that the analog output section of your synthy will have technical specs below ADI and UFX *.

You're welcome, and pls report your findings :-)

You get the digital breakout cable for AES/SPDIF (BO968), see manual ch 2.

AES, SPDIF, ADAT have no difference in signal quality, it is pure digital data transfer.

Whether you want/need AES, ADAT or SPDIF depends on the capabilities of the device that you want to connect and if there are multiple options take that which supports the needed cable length.

On my UFX+ I use AES to connect the ADI-2 Pro for two reasons:
- to keep my ADAT ports free for other purposes
- I have no other application for AES than that
perfect match, so I use AES.

For the connection to my 2nd ADI-2 Pro in front of the HiFi I use ADAT (optical SPDIF)
- because there is an Optosel 4:1 Mk II TOSLINK switcher in front of the other ADI-2 Pro which supports only ADAT/optical
- it gives me galvanic isolation
Besides that RME ADAT ports support (15+1) 16m up to 192 kHz (15m up to the Optosel, 1m from Optosel to ADI-2 Pro).

BTW the mentioned HiFiman is a magnetostatic headphone with 35 Ohm. I see no reason why this should not work.

OK thanks for this. Do you know if the balanced mode would drive Arya's better and make a difference compared to Single Ended?

I did.
Adjusted to the same level (balanced is exactly 6 dB louder) I couldn’t hear any perceived sound difference.

Due to the fact that you have to switch cables and settings, immediate blind A/B comparison is not possible.
So the only way is, to listen over a prolonged time, then change and listen again.
If you follow opinions spread all over the net, the difference should be night and day - but this is certainly NOT the case.

One thing can happen, although I didn’t detect it here:
In some unbalanced cable / headphones impedance configurations the stereo image is up to about 20% wider.

This effect is a result of a possible cable’s L/R common ground wire and a low headphone impedance.
In this case phase inverted crosstalk widens the stereo image.
Something similar can happen with dirty connectors making bad sleeve contact.

BTW:
I do use balanced when driving high impedance headphones in my portable configuration, iPhone + Qudelix 5K.
But only because of the 6 dB greater headroom that is needed for EQ corrections.

> Btw, I have the new Stealth Edition version and its impedance is 32ohm and sensitivity 94db/W
> which are improved from the earlier versions
> so this should make the cans more easier to drive than the previous versions.

According to your wording you still seem to think there might have been an issue, but this is not the case.
With such a low impedance you have ZERO problems.
When headphones have around 20-80 ohms, then they can even be driven by a smartphone
like e.g. Audeze LCD-X with 20 Ohms and those values are not that far from each other.
And now compare the power out analog outputs between a Smartphone and the ADI-2 Pro ....
So please relax on this topic, you have no issues in that regards.

With "muffled" I mean it sounds that the UFX+ can't drive the Arya's enough. In low gain mode I need to bring up the volume quite close to 0 to get enough drive and the volume is not too loud then to listen. I have eg. Spotify in this case max volume and and in best quality setting so the source is fine.

I don't have any other reference to compare UFX+ to as it is my only DAC/Amp. I had UFX II prior that. My DT 1990 and 1770 sounded good with them before I sold them to fund Arya's.

Are you saying that UFX+ DAC/headphone amp should be able to drive the Arya's well enough and ADI-2 Pro won't bring any major improvement to the overall quality?

What you perceive as “muffled” might simply be a few dB’s too quiet?!
Try “High Gain”.

Further, compared to both your Beyerdynamic’s ‘phones, the Ayra (although not treble-shy) sounds much smoother (“muffeled”?).
Maybe you’re not comparing amps, but headphones?
You could use TotalMixFX to boost the treble a bit if you miss some.

ADI-2 Pro is much more flexible as headphones amp.
ADI-2’s DSP functions will allow to match and fine-tune Ayra’s sound to your liking.
PEQ, Bass/Treble and Loudness functions give a lot of options.

I have understood you should use low gain for low impedance headphones and thus avoid using hi gain. So I have understood this wrong?

Well this is a good thing then if hi gain is OK to use with Arya's and it drives them fine, I can return the ADI Pro and save 1,7k eur.

Its also described in the manual, ch 20.2 (different "reference levels") and technical data show that the outputs have a fix output impedance of 2 Ohm and that High and Low differ regarding the output level.

DA - Stereo Monitor Output Phones (9-12)
As DA, but:
-Output: 2 x 6.3 mm TRS stereo jack, unbalanced
-Maximum output level at 0 dBFS, High: +19 dBu
-Maximum output level at 0 dBFS, Low: +2 dBV
-Output impedance: 2 Ohm
-Max power per channel @ 32 Ohm load, 0.1% THD: 210 mW (2.6 Vrms, +10.5 dBu)

If you ordered the ADI-2 Pro I would try it because it has some really nice features:
- slow ramp-up of volume when plugging phones or switching between monitors and phones by a remapped front key
- sets the output volume for monitors and phones like a monitor controller to protect your ears, esp. in cases where your setup should have level mismatches and 0dB output settings in TM FX might harm speakers and ears (see also https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=25399)
- dynamic loudness preserves the sound even if you have to listen at much lower volume e.g. when working in home offce, etc
- easy B/T settings to quickly adjust the sound for older mixes which sound somehow flat
- 5-Band PEQ to adjust sound to different headphones / ears
- high quality DAC chip
- Bittest capability to be able to perform an end-to-end test whether you listen to lossless audio
- sample rate converter to be able to connect devices which work at a fix other sample rate like DAT and alike
- with support for AES it allows for longer distances if e.g. HiFi is in another room

You connect it digitally through either ADAT1 or ADAT2 or AES, see here:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/

With your nice setup with an UFX+ you could even do the same like me, if you would have such use cases to use your PC with the UFX+ also as player for the HiFi, therefore I use a combination of UFX+ and two ADI-2 Pro (one for the recording corner and one for the HiFi).

Then you couild also try MusicBee with the MusicBee Remore pluging and remote control the playback through Android Smartphone or Tablet with the MusicBee remote app, very nice feature.

The 2nd ADI-2 Pro in front of the HiFi can perform then the D/A conversion entirely for all sources in front of the HiFi, e.g.:
Sound from UFX+, from TV (if it has a digital output), Sound from BluRay
And this you can nicely select / switch with the remote of the Optosel 4:1 Mk II.
This unit is capable to play up to 192 kHz (even with the long TOSLINK cabling)

PC with Musicbee player
|
UFX+ ---- ADAT1 OUT ---- ADI-2 Pro #1 ----- Monitor and Phones
         ---- ADAT2 OUT --------------------------- Optosel 4:1 Mk II ---------- ADI-2 Pro ----- HiFi or Phones
                                                     TV-------+
                                              BluRay-------+
                                    e.g Playstation----+

With RME and Mutec TOSLINK cable you can exceed the standard from ~10m to 15+1m (15m to the Optosel and then 1m from Optosel to ADI-2 Pro). If you have longer distances, then use AES another advantage of ADI-2 Pro over DAC which doesn't have AES.

This is my setup: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/index.ph … Setup-jpg/

I myself have had the misfortune of buying Sommer cables, because they generally have a good price-performance ratio and use decent connectors.
https://www.thomann.de/de/sommer_cable_ … bel_3m.htm

The TOSLINK cable from Sommer looks great at first, thick "jacket" (de: Ummantelung) to protect it from damage, nice looking Hicon Plug, but now comes the infamous BUT ...

You have to wind up the cables somehow on the back of a rack and bring them into a suitable position. And this is where the thick jacket of the Sommer TOSLINK cable is a huge disadvantage, because it makes the cable so stiff that it ends up exerting too high lateral pull on the connection socket and this is really bad.

Another disadvantage is when you have to wire TOSLINK sockets directly next to each other on the recording interface. The cables are too close together for this and its not comfortably to plug them in and out, everything is too close together, also because of the thicker Hicon plug on the cable.

So you pay a lot of money for a functionality (sheathing, Hicon plug, the "name") that brings you nothing but disadvantages later on.

The Mutec cables are particularly "praiseworthy" here. The plugs snap in cleanly, are not too thick, you can plug several Mutec cables next to each other in any recording interface and there are no handling problems. The cables can be rolled up nicely, although of course you should not bend or kink the cables too much, as with any cable (especially fibre cables).

And if you have to lay several of such Mutec cables, for example up to 8 pieces on an RME RayDAT, then you can easily twist the cables together. So don't braid a tight braid, but something similar, but light and loose. This gives them a good fit and makes them easy to lay.

The Mutec cables can also be laid much better in a small cable duct, there are some that you can glue onto plaster or tile edges and in room corners you then leave a few cm of space and can then lay around the corner with a pleasing bending radius, you could forget all that with the thickly sheathed Sommer cable.

And should the question come up now, but maybe the shielding is better with the Sommer cable... think again ... this is an optical cable with galvanic isolation, so no special electrical shielding is required. Well and remember, there are no good or bad sounding digital cables, be it a digital copper or optical connection

Finally: with the Mutec cable quality in terms of Light transmission and the quality of RME selected TOSLINKs it's proven (at least by me) that you can exceed the specification (10m) up to 15+1=16m and there is no issue even with 192 kHz sample rate.

I have UCXII and ADI-2 DAC fs. While UCXII definitely produces great sound and is capable of driving whatever you throw at it, the DAC with loudness and a bit of EQ clearly ouyshines it. Usually going with sharp filter too. Never heard the UFXII, but I recken its pretty close if not the same as UCXII. I wouldent be whitout the ADI-2 DAC fs.

This has been discussed quite often on this forum already.
There is not quality difference between different forms of digital data transfer (USB, AES, ADAT, SPDIF).

Are you really sure that you did a proper testing not to become a victim of psychoacoustic effects?
Our ear can not remember small sound differences for long, so you need to perform quick A/B tests where you can switch in seconds.

Next for our ears louder sounds better (therefore the well-known "loudness war" in the music industry.
Therefore it's very important to make quick A/B comparisons at the same volume levels.

Another aspect of psychoacoustic is, that we have a certain bias and this also heavily influences sound interpretation of our brain (this is simply how our brain works..)
If you think, that
- device A sounds better than device B, then it will.
- more expensive USB cables sound better, then it will.
- there is a sound difference between USB and AES/SPDIF/whatever - maybe you heard at different sound levels and noticed a difference because of that - then you have now a certain bias and then it will sound better.

Such psychoacoustic phenomens exists and for a valid comparison you need to do everything to exclude them.
One important methodology is to perform blind tests, that you do not know what is in use for playback.
Even more accurate is to perform double blind test where the other person, who performs the switching between A and B also does not know what is currently in use, not to influence your judgement by certain reactions.

I would propose that you check
a) 1st of all with the ADI-2 Pro's Bittest (explained in the manual) that on both computers a lossless transfer of music data between application (music player, daw, ..) and the ADI-2 Pro is guaranteed "end-to-end"
b) that you listen at the same volume level

But you also need to check settings on the application, the computer and the ADI-2 Pro..

Maybe on one of your computers
- the music players volume was turned down
- the music player had some FX active (EQ, sound enhancer)
- the music player didn't use the proper audio driver that guarantees lossless transfer of audio data by curcumventing the sound system of the computer (Windows)
- the computers sound system has some sound enhancers active
- the computers mixer was active and turned down, making sound more silent which does not sound as good
- TotalMix FX faders are not at 0dB position (on SW playback or HW Output channel or both)
- TotalMix FX has some FX active on the HW output

In case you created different profile for playback from USB and AES to prevent automatic switching of modes.
Maybe the settings in the two profiles are not equal: B/T, PEQ, dynamic loudness.
To exclude that I personally perform two things
a) work on one setting and finalize it with everything needed and with B/T, PEQ, Dynamic Loudness turned off
b) save this also as 2nd setting and then make only those adjustments to playback from another source

Also helpful is to use the key remapping, I have mapped the front key EQ to toggle any form of EQing on/off for all four analog outputs (Analog 1/2, Phones 3/4):
Options -> SPDIF / Remap Keys -> EQ (3) - EQ+B/T+Ld 1-4
By this you turn off Bass/Treble, PEQ and dynamic Loudness settings and get feedback in the display whether its deactivated or not for a valid comparison without any EQing.

Of course you also need to check, whether you use the same D/A filter:
I/O -> Main Output 1/2 -> Settings -> DA Filter

Also check whether you have perhaps erraneously changed some other settings there that also impact sound/dynamic:
Reference Level settings, Mono, Width, Phase Invert, Crossfeed ..

To check for the same volume level its good to cross check with such a measuring device and using sine tones:
https://www.thomann.de/de/digital_sound … _meter.htm

As I said, your observation is wrong, pls check.

Once music data has been transferred digital and lossless to the ADI-2 Pro three things happen.
1. RME Steadyclock technology eliminates any clock jitter
2. The clock signal becomes "refreshed" by the ADI-2 Pro's internal FS clock.
3. The final D/A conversion is being performed with the ADI-2 Pro's internal FS clock in best quality.

In terms of cabling between UFX+ and ADI-2 Pro (if you want to use it this way):
I personally would avoid coaxial SPDIF and use e.g. optical SPDIF to also get a galvanic isolation between devices.
But also AES is very good eliminating noise as it is a balanced connection and thus can be used for cable lengths over 100m in the studio. TOSLINK allows for 10m according to standard, but with RME also 15+1=16m works fine for me from UFX+ to an Optosel 4:1 TOSLINK Switcher and then 1m between switcher to ADI-2 Pro.

But you can possibly also do the following
a) cabling between UFX+ and ADI-2 Pro (optical SPDIF or AES)
b) keep both devices connected through USB (also useful for performing firmware updates

Then configure two different setup and store them in the ADI-2 Pro, then you can switch between two modes of operation
a) to be used as D/A converter for monitors / phones, getting audio from the UFX+
b) to be used as aggregated device where the DAW can access both devices through their USB connection

You can do this but I personally see it as an operational advantage to use the UFX+ as clock master.
Then applications like Music Player or DAW can set the sample rate.
The main interface will learn the sample race through the driver.
And the connected ADI-2 Pro would learn it through AES or optical SPDIF (which is a 2ch protocol up to 192kHz, so that the connected ADI-2 Pro can detect also higher sample rates automatically.

The final D/A conversion will be performed as I mentioned anyway on the ADI-2 Pro by using its local FS clock.
I personally do not think that you get audible changes (measurable yes) for the A/D and D/A conversion of the UFX+ when being clocked through ADI-2 Pro's FS clock. But it's your decision where your focus is.

I am usually recording in 44.1, so for me it would not be much fiddeling around.
But I have music content in different sample rates, there it would be a burden, having to change the sample rate on the ADI-2 Pro whenever the samplerate changes on playing back stuff randomly.

Wow thank you for such detailed walkthrough. I will run some tests and report back. I'm aware of biases what comes to critical music listening and try my best to keep this mind when testing the setup.

Alright I manage to run the test. I switched AES to SPIDF (Optical ADAT cables). Then I ran the bit tests both through USB and SPIDF. All tests (up to 96 khz) passed successfully with both using Audirvana. I listened few tracks first through USB and then listened the same files again via ADAT. I ended up making conclusion there is no audible difference, or at least I cannot audible hear any difference.

I will also use UFX+ as master clock in this case as the bit test proved the AD recording and DA conversions will be both perfect. This way I do not need to create any aggregated devices and utilize the better latency of UFX+ for multitracking.

All is good now, I can focus making music and enjoying music. Thanks everyone for the help!

Both devices are great and have their specific use cases / features.
ADI-2 * product line offers also features of an USB DAC with support for DSD (if you need it)

Sound wise I would say subtle differences.
ADI-2 * gives you the possibility to use different AD/DA filters which have a different characteristic.
KaiS reported about the following interesting discoveries https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 68#p177168: [...]I prefer “Slow Filter” for DA even at 44.1 kHz. The better impulse response more then compensates for the treble rolloff above 14 kHz (see manual page 84). I can hear a better separation of high frequency instruments, like Hihats from Shakers, and a better ambience definition. [...]

I think UFX+ is a must if you are doing recordings .. because of
- TotalMix FX
- The devices features (DURec, Autoset, Auxdevice for remote control of Octamic XTC, ...)
- the different I/O ports inclusdithat you need in a (project-) studio (incl. ADAT, AES, MIDI, ..)

I would use the ADI-2 Pro to make your setup even smarter in terms of sound and features.
You can also buy the ADI-2 Pro at any time later.

My personal "Top 10" of advantages/features:
1. ear protection: acts like a monitor controller for your main monitors and phones, you limit your max volume by this, no 0dB "accidents" and ramp-up of volume when plugging phones or switching between monitor/phones
2. selectable AD/DA filter for different purposes .. smallest latency or highest detail
3. dynamic loudness
4. auto ref level and four different reference levels to get optimum SNR over a wider volume range
5. Bit test to be able to perform end-to-end testing whether you have a lossles audio path between player and DA chip
6. perfect troubleshooting over State overview
7. SRC (sample rate converter) to decouple the fix clock of digital devices like DAT and to automatically up-/down sample to the sample rate of the rest of your environment (Pro only).
8. PEQ to adjust sound characteristic for headphones or to compensate differences in hearing
9. two phone outputs allowing to make quick comparisons  (Pro only).
10. quick B/T adjustment by front knobs for quick compensation of mastering differences for music material over the last decades
EDIT:
11. Automatic selection of operation mode / routing based on the type of cable being plugged to easy operation and also manual selection (Pro only).
12. Two DAC chips, two phones outputs to connect and compare phones with the same type of DA converter (Pro only).
13. Extreme power headphones outputs driving even phones that need a lot of power (DAC: one, Pro: two).
14. Balanced mode for phones (Pro only).
15. Analog Inputs (Pro only).
16. Digital Outputs (Pro only).
17. AES I/O (Pro only).
18. Ref levels: more according to studio levels Pro, DAC more according to HiFi and Cinch outputs with -6 dB less output volume DAC

In put together some information in a few blow articles, which could be interesting to you.

Model differences:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … ses-EN-DE/
Integration into your setup with recording interface:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … our-Setup/
Some of my use cases:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … her-EN-DE/
Some other use cases:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … C3%A4rker/
Use of PEQ to pimp up phones:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … re-SRH-840
Drivers phones very nicely, review of different Audezes and other headphones:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … ADI-2-Pro/

Updated the list of differences, as it seems to be hard for you to extract the information from different sources.

There are differences between the two products and the additional price for the Pro is justified if you consider all the additional features, the only question is whether you would use them, whether it would be worth to you.

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 21#p178121

One of the most important features I mentioned in the blog article. You may have overred it.

If you would buy the DAC to save money but then you find out you want A/D conversion to digitalize your analog material from turntable, tape or whatever.

If you want the RME conversion quality adequate to the ADI-2 DAC/Pro, then you would need to get the ADI-2 FS additionally. This is €699.

Now perform the math
ADI-2 DAC FS €1229 + €699 = €1928 ... This costs more and even takes more space ...

ADI-2 Pro FS R BE costs €1699 ...

Lesser price and we talked only about adding analog inputs with the ADI-2 FS additionally.
Now consider, all the additional features of the ADI-2 Pro on top that you get with a less price compared to €1928 ... that you wouldn't have by getting ADI-2 DAC and ADI-2 FS....

Do you get it now?

And if I remember right, the ADI-2 Pro FS R BE has not raised in the price compared to ADI-2 DAC FS which became €230 more expensive ... and also the ADI-2 FS with €699 became more expensive.

I personally think that an ADI-2 Pro FS R BE for €1699 is kind of a powerhouse and kind of "present".

Cheers.

ADI-2 DAC and PRO can be connected to any recording interface, preferably an RME recording interface, to get the quality and advanced features of TotalMix FX.

The integration of ADI-2 Pro FS and a recording interface I described in this Blog article:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … our-Setup/

The three headphones outputs of the two units (UCX II and ADI-2 Pro FS) can be controlled independent of each other.

- UCX II: by TotalMix FX
- ADI-2 Pro FS: by plugging two headphones to it, then each headphone output (3/4 and 1/2) will have individual controls, not only volume, all parameters (D/A filter, B/T, PEQ, dynamic loudness, ...).

There are some use cases where it is better to be able to route / monitor near-realtime instead of having the full RTL (round trip latency) over the DAW which increases with bigger ASIO buffer-sizes. I would not simply descope TM FX.

Not sure about the exact use case / routing that you have in mind when using the two headphones outputs of the ADI-2 PRO FS. There are different options possible. To run either headphones or active monitors or both.
I am using remap keys to toggle between phones and active monitors, then I can keep both connected.
The slow ramp-up of volume is also very nice when toggling.

I just realized I would need two sets of analog outputs in order to send two pair of monitors to a passive controller, so I would need an extra pair of analog outputs. If I can figure out some way to turn one set of analog outputs and/or the Pro FS digital I/O into a situation where I can run two pair of monitors, I think I might give the Pro FS a shot! Otherwise, it becomes about whether using the Pro FS as a headphone amp and DA in conjunction with the UCX II is worth the added cost. Or, I can just run one set of monitors and deal with it haha.