1 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-25 19:19:13)

Topic: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Hi folks, I'm currently thinking of buying ADI-2 Pro FS BE to pair up with my UFX II and Ferrofish 16. However I'm wondering how to connect everything with my Mac.

My use case: I have lot of hardware synths that I connect to the analog ins in my UFX II and Ferrofish 16. Ferrofish is connected via ADAT to UFX II and UFX II via USB to Mac. I want to be able to multitrack and record everything in my DAW on separate tracks and this works well for that.

My question: How I will bring in ADI-2 Pro FS BE to this so I could use its better AD converters to record selected instruments as well monitor the Main out through headphones/speakers?

Potential solution: I was thinking that I would plug in both UFX II and ADI-2 via their own USB to the Mac to be able to use the AD conversion of the ADI-2 for recording selected instruments + monitor the main outs via headphones/speakers while still being able to multitrack other instruments via UFX II. Is this the right way to go? I understood they would use the same driver so I could just create an aggregated device for them. If I would use AES from ADI-2 (instead plugging it via USB to the Mac) into UFX II, I could not use ADI-2 AD conversion as it would then use UFX II AD conversion for everything, right?

Hopefully this makes sense and all comments and suggestions are welcome if this is a bad idea and other alternatives would make better sense.

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

What you said is possible, but the UFX II and ADI-2 will not have clock sync unless you make a digital connection.

I would rather connect the ADI unit to the UFX via AES/EBU instead of the USB connection. This way you have every audio channel together in TotalMix FX for the UFX II. Whatever signal you want to send to the ADI unit just gets routed to the UFX II's AES output channel.

Regards,
Jeff Petersen
Synthax Inc.

3 (edited by jiggy 2021-09-15 07:05:19)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Jeff wrote:

What you said is possible, but the UFX II and ADI-2 will not have clock sync unless you make a digital connection.

I would rather connect the ADI unit to the UFX via AES/EBU instead of the USB connection. This way you have every audio channel together in TotalMix FX for the UFX II. Whatever signal you want to send to the ADI unit just gets routed to the UFX II's AES output channel.

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. smile

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Anyone? Jeff? Ramses?

5 (edited by ramses 2021-09-21 17:32:40)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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....

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Thank you Ramses for this. So if I want to use the better quality AD in ADI, it would work the same way ie. plug my synth to ADI line in, send it via ADI AES out to UFX AES in and then via UFX USB to my mac?

7 (edited by ramses 2021-09-21 18:48:21)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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 wink

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 *.

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Thanks for your insights Ramses, much appreciated! smile

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:

Thanks for your insights Ramses, much appreciated! smile

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

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

ramses wrote:

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

After making long research on this topic and comparing different DAC and amp options, I made my mind and will get the ADI Pro FS R BE. What was also troubling me was that some people say it can't drive Hifiman Arya's but I guess it is bollocks.

Ramses: do you know how long the AES cable that comes with it is? I was wondering would it be long enough or do I need to use ADAT cables instead. I guess there is no difference in signal quality or the way it is processed between those?

11 (edited by ramses 2021-10-09 20:45:35)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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.

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

12 (edited by KaiS 2021-10-10 00:37:56)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:

...will get the ADI Pro FS R BE. What was also troubling me was that some people say it can't drive Hifiman Arya's but I guess it is bollocks.

It is, there are so many strange opinions on the net.

My ADI-2 Pro drives my Hifiman HE 1000 with ease.
So does it drive my Hifiman HE 4XX and 5XX, and so many other, much “harder to drive” ‘phones.

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

KaiS wrote:
jiggy wrote:

...will get the ADI Pro FS R BE. What was also troubling me was that some people say it can't drive Hifiman Arya's but I guess it is bollocks.

It is, there are so many strange opinions on the net.

My ADI-2 Pro drives my Hifiman HE 1000 with ease.
So does it drive my Hifiman HE 4XX and 5XX, and so many other, much “harder to drive” ‘phones.

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

14 (edited by ramses 2021-10-12 06:45:35)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:
KaiS wrote:
jiggy wrote:

...will get the ADI Pro FS R BE. What was also troubling me was that some people say it can't drive Hifiman Arya's but I guess it is bollocks.

It is, there are so many strange opinions on the net.

My ADI-2 Pro drives my Hifiman HE 1000 with ease.
So does it drive my Hifiman HE 4XX and 5XX, and so many other, much “harder to drive” ‘phones.

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

Most headphones have already a parallel routing of the cable, e.g. my Audeze LCD-3.

My expectation of the result is, that it will become louder, but the few dB higher SNR won't result in better sound at exactly the same listening level.

You can try it, but I personally would save the cost/effort and enjoy to have the possibility to have a 2nd phones output of same quality for quick headphone comparisons.

@KaiS: did you ever try balanced mode?

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

15 (edited by KaiS 2021-10-12 14:23:47)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

ramses wrote:
jiggy wrote:
KaiS wrote:

It is, there are so many strange opinions on the net.

My ADI-2 Pro drives my Hifiman HE 1000 with ease.
So does it drive my Hifiman HE 4XX and 5XX, and so many other, much “harder to drive” ‘phones.

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

Most headphones have already a parallel routing of the cable, e.g. my Audeze LCD-3.

My expectation of the result is, that it will become louder, but the few dB higher SNR won't result in better sound at exactly the same listening level.

You can try it, but I personally would save the cost/effort and enjoy to have the possibility to have a 2nd phones output of same quality for quick headphone comparisons.

@KaiS: did you ever try balanced mode?

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.

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

ok thanks Kai.

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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.

18 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-12 16:19:24)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

KaiS wrote:

I did. Adjusted to the same level (balanced is exactly 6 dB louder) I couldn’t hear any perceived sound difference.
If you follow opinions spread all over the net, the difference should be night and day - but this is certainly NOT the case.

Thanks Kai for the comments. OK I guess it makes no sense to have separate balanced cable for the Arya. 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.

Although I think I read someone saying somewhere in the RME forums that "high power output to be practically reasonable, you need headphones less sensitive than 95dB/V".

I have my ADI-2 Pro FS BE arriving later this week/early next week so can report my findings then. I also updated my UFX II to UFX+. It would be awsome if the UFX+ could already drive Arya's but unfortunately with it the sound is very "muffled".

19 (edited by ramses 2021-10-12 18:17:08)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

> 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.

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

20 (edited by KaiS 2021-10-12 19:51:05)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:

...Although I think I read someone saying somewhere in the RME forums that "high power output to be practically reasonable, you need headphones less sensitive than 95dB/V".

Too many people spread numbers without knowing what they mean.
Very few headphones would fit into that range.

Anyway, ADI-2 Pro drives almost every headphone on the market with ease.
There’s a “Low Power”-mode for very sensitive ‘phones, too.

Only extremely sensitive, read “very, very loud” In-Ears would need ADI-2 DAC’s IEM-output, or external attenuators, as these could make ADI-2’s very low self-noise audible.


Nothing to worry about at your side with your Ayra, which is quite “normal” on that behalf.
All my Hifiman’s (and many others) sound great out of my ADI-2 Pro.
The Parametric EQ works wonders on some, and a little bass boost fits my taste for most.

jiggy wrote:

... I also updated my UFX II to UFX+. It would be awsome if the UFX+ could already drive Arya's but unfortunately with it the sound is very "muffled".

Very ”muffeled”?
I’ve yet to stumble across a headphone amp that significantly changes a headphone’s tonality, and I’ve a huge collection.
Something is wrong here in your setup!!!

Or do you listen very loud (please don’t!) and simply overdrive the amp?

What is the reference you are comparing UFX+ to?

21 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-12 20:17:24)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

KaiS wrote:

I’ve yet to stumble across a headphone amp that significantly changes a headphone’s tonality, and I’ve a huge collection.
Something is wrong here in your setup!!!

Or do you listen very loud (please don’t!) and simply overdrive the amp?

What is the reference you are comparing UFX+ to?

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?

22 (edited by ramses 2021-10-12 20:23:38)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

> In low gain mode I need to bring up the volume quite close to 0 to get enough drive

But for exactly this reason you have two different reference levels there.
And how does it sound when you set it from "Low" to "High" ?

DA - Stereo Monitor Output Phones (9-12)
As DA, but:
- Maximum output level at 0 dBFS, High: +19 dBu = 16.78 dBV = 6.90 Volt eff
- Maximum output level at 0 dBFS, Low: +2 dBV = 4.21 dBu = 1.25 Volt eff
( http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Rechner-db-volt.htm )

If you look at Volt eff, thats quite a difference !

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

23 (edited by KaiS 2021-10-12 21:27:55)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:
KaiS wrote:

I’ve yet to stumble across a headphone amp that significantly changes a headphone’s tonality, and I’ve a huge collection.
Something is wrong here in your setup!!!

Or do you listen very loud (please don’t!) and simply overdrive the amp?

What is the reference you are comparing UFX+ to?

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.

24

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:

With "muffled" I mean it sounds that the UFX+ can't drive the Arya's enough. In low gain mode

Facepalm...

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

25 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-13 16:55:36)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

MC wrote:
jiggy wrote:

With "muffled" I mean it sounds that the UFX+ can't drive the Arya's enough. In low gain mode

Facepalm...

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. smile

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Hi jiggy

low or high gain has nothing to do impedance of the hedaphone. Totally different things.

Adjust gain as needed. Don't bother the RME willl drive your phone.

Peter

27 (edited by ramses 2021-10-14 08:52:22)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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/

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

28 (edited by Happy_amateur 2021-10-14 11:45:43)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

ramses wrote:

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.

When u say MUTEC cables, do they have an advantage over other tos cables? I have a .5 here I got with some other stuff from Thomann. Mutec has really nice pricing. I have some experience with toslink cables. From that ive never considered going over 5 m. Probably from the shitty quality ive bought

ADI-2 DAC, ADI-2 PRO, DigifaceUSB, UCXII, ARC, HEGEL.h80, KEF.ls50, HD650, ie400pro _,.\''/.,_

29 (edited by ramses 2021-10-20 19:32:39)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Happy_amateur wrote:
ramses wrote:

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.

When u say MUTEC cables, do they have an advantage over other tos cables? I have a .5 here I got with some other stuff from Thomann. Mutec has really nice pricing. I have some experience with toslink cables. From that ive never considered going over 5 m. Probably from the shitty quality ive bought

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 wink

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.

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

30 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-20 19:11:39)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Reporting back.

I have had the ADI-2 Pro FS R BE now couple of days. My initial impressions are that the UFX+ (in hi-gain mode) is very close to the ADI-2.

I had some difficulties getting better sound out of the ADI-2 compared to the UFX+ but after some testing with slight EQ + Loudness on, Low Power mode, Auto Ref Lev on, and using the Sharp DA filter (IMO that works the best with the planar headphones, NOS being the second best with some treble EQ), I can hear increased detail in the sound. Is this increased quality worth 1700 EUR is something I will need to consider during following days.

If anyone has any tips for best settings for ADI-2 with the Arya's (2021 SE), feel free to share your ideas. smile

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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.

ADI-2 DAC, ADI-2 PRO, DigifaceUSB, UCXII, ARC, HEGEL.h80, KEF.ls50, HD650, ie400pro _,.\''/.,_

32 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-24 08:52:47)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Been now using it for a week and do really like the ADI-2 Pro so I've decided to keep it. smile

I have been playing around with different setups and for some odd reason I found that when I plug the ADI via USB to my mac mini instead routing it via AES through UFX+ the sound is much more detailed and better. Any ideas why?

So based on this observation I would rather create an aggregated device between ADI and UFX+ to enjoy all the inputs and output in m DAW. In this setup, both UFX+ and ADI are connected via USB to my mac (I need multi-tracking within my DAW). I use AES to share the clock. This has naturally some impact on latency but it is still good (around 9ms in 128 sample rate). Also I would put ADI as clock master instead of UFX+.

Any thoughts on this?

33 (edited by ramses 2021-10-24 10:50:37)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:

I have been playing around with different setups and for some odd reason I found that when I plug the ADI via USB to my mac mini instead routing it via AES through UFX+ the sound is much more detailed and better. Any ideas why?

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

jiggy wrote:

So based on this observation

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

Also I would put ADI as clock master instead of UFX+. Any thoughts on this?

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.

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:

...for some odd reason I found that when I plug the ADI via USB to my mac mini instead routing it via AES through UFX+ the sound is much more detailed and better. Any ideas why?

Due to the fact that you need to plug some stuff around, quick A/B comparison is not possible in this case.
Therefore I suggest to re-record ADI-2’s output for both configurations on two tracks of your DAW.

Put the original file into your DAW as a reference for how it should be.
Then compare the tracks.
As the quality of all converters involved is so high there should be no other audible difference than volume.


You will soon find out if it’s:
• just a volume difference,
• or maybe something like a setting in the computer (e.g. an EQ in TotalMic) that is different.

You seem to obviously hear it, so there must be something like that, there is no other explanation.

35 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-24 14:05:13)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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.

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

jiggy wrote:

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 some setups.

I do not mean the usual bias that someone has in terms of personal tastes / listening habits.

I mean psychoacoustic effects, based on how our brain works and interprets music that you listen to, quick examples again:
- louder = better
- own expectations have an influence on our perception

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

37 (edited by jiggy 2021-10-25 19:17:41)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

ramses wrote:

I do not mean the usual bias that someone has in terms of personal tastes / listening habits. I mean psychoacoustic effects, based on how our brain works and interprets music that you listen to.

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! smile

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Hello gentlemen, I too have the UFX+ and have been very interested in the possibilities of even better sound quality by adding an ADI-2 Pro fs into my DAW.
In the USA the UFX+ is $2899 usd and the ADI-2 Pro is $1999 USD.
The UFX + sounds great and has great specifications. But I just need to know if there is something more that I’m missing from my listening experience.
My question is “will I notice a tangible difference between the sound quality of the UFX+ alone as is the case now, as opposed to running my audio through my audio interface and then to the ADI-2 via AES, and finally out to my monitors and/or headphones?”
Is there $2000 worth of performance gains that I’ll undoubtedly recognize when using exceptionally produced reference material?

39 (edited by ramses 2023-07-06 16:38:45)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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/

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

ramses wrote:

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 wink

Hi ramses! I get where you are coming from with this response, but am also a bit confused regarding the benefits of the ADI-2 Pro FS over the ADI-2 DAC FS, when I consider what you've said here. I'm wondering, why would someone purchase the ADI-2 Pro instead of the ADI-2 DAC if they have an interface and will use the interface's AD conversion instead of the AD conversion of the Pro FS? I've read all of the benefits you listed throughout this thread and others, but considering a large price difference between ADI-2 DAC and ADI-2 Pro, it seems odd that one would buy the ADI-2 Pro FS if instead of the ADI-2 DAC if they plan on using an interface with it. I figured I would reach out and see if you or anyone else might be able to clarify what I might be missing. I don't mean this as a challenge either. Rather, I am truly trying to gain a thorough understanding of the pros/cons of getting the DAC vs the PRO FS if I already own an RME interface (UCX II).

Thank you for your time and help!

41 (edited by ramses 2023-07-06 16:57:45)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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.

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Hey ramses! This does make a lot of sense. I appreciate you breaking it down for me, as well as providing a link to the updated differences between the units. Indeed, if one were going to transfer analog material to the digital realm and wanted to ensure the highest quality, they would want to use a true standalone converter AD instead of an interface AD. Makes perfect sense! I'm now going to read the updated differences you linked me to and get a better grasp of things. Thanks a ton!

Right now, I can get the ADI-2 Pro FS (silver discontinued model) for $1179, which seems like a steal. I'm not sure I need the extra features of the new ADI-2 Pro FS R, or at least don't see the value for an additional $420 (can get FS R for $1599 right now). I guess the availability of the discontinued Pro FS for $1179 is what really intrigued me and made me think, "Could I not use the Pro FS as my AD and DA?" But I understand what you mean in saying that for someone recording music (which is my use case), the UCX II AD will be perfectly fine and there is no practical reason to use the Pro FS AD. I'm simply trying to justify getting the Pro FS while only using it as a DA and not an AD.

I have another question for you. With the UCX II and ADI-2 Pro FS linked, would I be able to use all three headphone outputs between the two units? If so, would only one unit control the volume of the three headphone outputs, or would each control its own headphone output? I've scoured and scoured, but have been unable to find this question being asked, or this topic being broached. Thank you so much for your time! I truly appreciate it.

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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, ...).

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

44 (edited by skeptastic 2023-07-15 17:31:25)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Thank you! This is great news. I assumed there'd be no issue using all three phone outputs, but wanted to be sure. Since I will need an external headphone amp for the UCX II, it is a major plus for that Pro FS gives me additional phone outputs and that I can use all three with ease. If I plan to get a cheap headphone amp, then there is a bit less draw toward getting a Pro FS now. But if I assess things as I normally do, I won't settle for a cheap amp and thus I'd spend around $600+ for a dedicated phone amp anyway, making the extra few hundred for the Pro FS a no-brainer, considering the additional benefits. This will be the major dilemma I have to sort out with myself haha.

Am I correct in thinking that both Pro FS headphone outputs can be used simultaneously, with the only caveat being they must have the exact same signal and levels? I swear, I am so close to a situation in which the Pro FS alone would satisfy my needs, except the lack of a few more analog outputs for multiple sets of monitors. And having the UCX II preamps available to use in addition to my external preamp is also a plus, as I then have a more transparent option, along with a preamp that adds some sauce to the audio (via transformers, tubes, etc). I think I can make the Pro FS work all by itself, if I am comfortable using external preamps only. Could be a huge savings, with outstanding AD/DA. TotalMix isn't a must for me, as I usually skip direct monitoring and use my DAW for everything. Lots to think about here.

45 (edited by ramses 2023-07-06 21:08:00)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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.

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

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Oh, indeed! I definitely plan to learn and use TM FX if I stick with the UCX II. I am just also realizing that I never have latency issues while tracking vocals in my DAW, so this opens up the possibility of using the ADI-2 Pro FS alone, saving a bundle, and getting amazing AD/DA.

For the headphones, I'm thinking of the common scenario where I am monitoring someone else who is recording vocals. I wouldn't be listening via monitors as the control room and recording space are in the same area, so I was thinking it would be cool to use the two ADI-2 Pro FS headphone outputs since they are such high quality. Still, the UCX II phone output should be just as good for the low impedance headphones I'll be using. I'd just be happy to have more than one headphone outputs, and quality ones at that haha.

I have already ordered the UCX II from Thomann and cannot return it without a $135 delivery refusal charge, but I am still wondering if I should give the ADI-2 Pro a shot at being my interface and saving on costs. I only need the two analog inputs, have an external preamp that I prefer to use over interface preamps, and only worry about the low number of analog outputs in the FS Pro because I'd eventually like to have an A/B monitor pair. I bet I could just as easily connect a passive monitor controller to the FS Pro analog outputs and solve that issue for little money. The only thing I'd. be giving up is TM FX (not a major concern with me), and interface preamps. But now I would need to either sell the UCX II, or take the $135 hit. I ordered quickly once I saw the UCX II come in stock, but hadn't yet discovered the Pro FS.

Decisions, decisions...

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

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.

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

The combination of UCX II is well.
You get different types of I/O ports, Autoset, Instr Input and .. DURec which is really a very nice feature for backup recordings or to use the interface as tape deck.

Why do you think you would need a passive controller? This is unnecessary.
You can leave the HW outputs of the UCX II which has the ADI-2 Pro connected at 0dB.
The ADI-2 Pro remembers the last volume reliably.

If it is too loud or if you need to choose a too low volume, you need to get attenuators to solve such level mismatches:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=25399

Switchable attenuators are fine where you can select the dampening between 10, 20, 30 dB. Sound neutral.
https://www.thomann.de/de/jts_ma_123.htm

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

49 (edited by skeptastic 2023-07-15 17:35:43)

Re: ADI-2 Pro FS BE + UFX II/+

Indeed, I don't need a monitor controller at all. I was thinking that I might be able to work around the two analog outputs of the ADI-2 by sending them to a monitor controller with four analog outputs, so that I could run two pair of monitors using the two analog outputs of the ADI-2. This is in the even that I decide to stick with only the ADI-2 Pro FS, and not add the UCX II to the setup at all. I would actually need four analog outputs, and for some reason I initially failed to realize this. It had nothing to do with levels or the need for an attenuator. I've never had any issue with monitor volume, so no need for an attenuator.