We all have our vision for this Sounds like a good idea though. Ive been testing out some of those curves from AutoEQ. An amazing tool the ADI is. Ofcourse expectations is sky high!

+1

and on this topic btw I recently switched from Sonarworks to dSONIQ Realphones (www.dsoniq.com), which for at least 8 reasons that I listed here (https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.ph … stcount=95), is blowing Sonarworks at all levels, so in case you go down this road with the next ADI it would be nice to team up with them they're reaallllly responsive vs. Sonarworks which is becoming an old and slow company.

It really comes as a relief since Sonarworks is full of bugs and not 100% stable (on Mac anyway), whereas not only dSONIQ interface is 5 stars but the correction with all headphones is another league, etc. it's so good I almost no longer need speakers anymore to mix and produce, finally with this I can trust my ears.

Clearly they are the future, go for it.

What does that have to do with it? I buy the products that best suit my setup and demands.

Furthermore, I don't think it makes sense to unnecessarily stuff an excellent and efficient tool like TotalMix FX with features that are not necessary for its core functionality.

By the way, what do you think? Room measurement only or automatic correction as well?

If you need room measurement software, then why not just use the products available on the market, some of which are even free.

In my opinion, automatic room correction based on a measurement microphone and EQ settings has the disadvantage that it only optimizes for one listening position, but a few centimeters off, the results may already be different again.

So, why should RME waste time and energy on a solution that is not a real solution, but only a compromise and unnecessarily inflates their products?

If your only concern is to measure, then I would suggest just using the measurement software solutions already available. If you want the room to sound better, then room optimization would be more beneficial.

I wish for this DAC to have DSP functions to mimic Valve circuits in various modes,single ended, push pull etc.I know of no other hardware that can do this....

My only wish for the new ADI-2/4 Pro SE is that it could have ITS OWN headphone EQ corrections.

I would trust more RME measurements and corrections than other brands. It would be a process that would take time but I think at the end of the day it could replace those software implementations and be a huge selling point for the DAC as well.

P.S: I have tried Sonarworks in the past but I am done with it. Their measurements change drastically from time to time, LCD-5 measurements for example. The software has bugs and it is just not reliable. Nuendo 12 has EQ profiles for headphones as well as Morphit (both working and sounding better than Sonarworks).

There are lot‘s of sources for headphones EQ settings.

The common “standard” these days are measurements / compensations based on Sean Olive / Harman’s research.
A certain measurement rig is needed for compatible measurements, in the range of 10K$.
Therefore not every measurement published is true “Harman”, although claimed.

The most popular source is Oratory1990, with EQ settings specially tailored for ADI-2:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wi … rme_adi-2/

I’m listening right now with my AUDEZE LCD-4 using Oratory1990 EQ settings.
To taylor it to my liking, I just switched off the highest EQ band’s treble cut, which is not for me.

The EQ’s changing the LCD-4s into another headphones, tonality-wise.
No wonder, their original tuning is way apart from Harman’s.
Other qualities not tonality related, like their definition, stay, or even are brought out more.

Yeah, some fit, some don‘t.

It‘s a very personal thing too, the interaction headphones - pinnae  is very different between various people.

A unified measurement system doesn’t do justice to everyone.
I have a silicone copy of my own ears for measurement, compensated to a very high end speakers system in a room + some schmalz.

Not different to single ended, just the option to dial it 6 dB louder.

It’s only different if headphones are re-cabled, changing from 3-wire to 4 wire.

The resistance of the common ground wire in a 3-wire arrangement (left, right, common ground) causes phase inverted crossfeed left<>right, resulting in up to ca. 10% more stereo spread with low impedance headphones.
With high impedance headphones the effect is negligible.

It’s the opposite of ADI-2’s “Width”-parameter which only narrows the stereo field.

The Sennheisers all have 4-wire cables by design, so this won’t happen.

Oratory has done good work measuring myriad of headphones, kudos to him, but his EQ-filter sets are in many headphone model´s cases laboratory exam -looking extreme fine-tunings, not practical i.e. reproducible in real use. For many headphone models he wastes a lot of filters for very narrow Q-value notches and tiny 0,5 - 2 dB gains in high treble, for example. He apparently doesn´t take into account that almost all headphones begin to exhibit enlargening amount of variance between head insertions toward high frequencies.
Not a chance they to be reproducible in real use scenarios, where users put their headphones on and take them off for every listening session.

Rtings for example has covered this, as Frequency Response Consistency -section, in their headphone reviews. HD 600 in question, for example, goes quite unconcistent above 5 kHz. So applying EQ-filters on them goes quite lottery i.e. is not reasonable anymore. 

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/revie … ser/hd-600

In using EQ, concentrating the things that actually benefit from correction, is essential. In Sennheiser HD 600´s case, which happens to be about worlds most neutral stock headphone already, the beneficial target areas for EQ are

-sub-bass -lift. This is the most audible thing for this trusty old workhorse to get its set updated.

-upper bass / low middle little shave -down

-1.3 kHz -area little shave -down

-3.2 kHz -spike/resonance shave -down

From Oratory several Sennheiser HD 600 -curves, the recommended one is his Optimum HiFi Curve, first four filters. Rest of his curves, also that "RME ADI-2" -one, are those Harman target -bass boost curves.

Harman target curves have impressive oomph-oomph for laymans etc. hasty amateur listeners, but have not much left to do with neutral sound reproduction anymore. Their major level core-problem is, that this +5 dB from neutral lifted bass doesn´t work, if source material already has hefty bass. Result is bad listening hangover and fast resetting of those EQ-settings. If listener is not total rubberhead etc boom-boom-boom -seeker, that is.

This Optimum HiFi Curve -one instead, is applicable

https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wi … f_presets/

HD600/Optimum HiFi Curve

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygs3wfnj4ntgm … 9.pdf?dl=0

Only four (4) first filters are needed/applicable. Rest goes that audio-engineer-doing-lab-exam -department, in that filter set too.

This filter set, put in in ADI´s EQ, would look like about this:

-B1: +6.0 dB, 25 Hz, Q 0.7, filter type: Shelf
-B2: -2.0 dB, 150 Hz, Q 0.5. Filter gain re-evaluated by cross-comparing (and listening) to different HD 600 -measurement sources.
-B3: -2.0 dB, 1.33 kHz, Q 1.4
-B4: -3.0 dB, 3.2 kHz, Q 2.2

Thats it. With this EQ, HD 600 is now updated to kick ass. Again, the next couple of decades.

Thanks for these suggestions, I will give them a try over the next few days! The main thing I hated with the Oratory/RME DAC/HD600 curve was very tubby bass. I do actually really love how they sound flat, and always have done.