crazybaby wrote:

I use Sharp as it is the flattest across the audible frequency range and I have seen no evidence that anyone can hear a difference with any "ringing" with music.

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 49#p149049

The nice thing is that you can easily try by yourself, if you hear a difference and which one you prefer.
For me with ADI-2 it was the first time to have this on the tip of my finger, and I do hear a difference in a blind test.

So I’d like to quote myself from the other thread, where I tell what to watch out for:

KaiS wrote:

I selected Slow by ear, but there is a reason why Slow sounds better (to me):

Quote from manual page 81:
”... Slow [filter generates] a near perfect impulse response.
... Slow works best at 88.2/96 kHz [and above], because the decrease in the high frequency area then happens outside the audible range.”

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.

Nice to have the selectable filters in ADI-2, everyone can easily dial through and find the personal favorite!

This reminds me to a shootout I once did between six then TOTL CD-players.

One of them stood out, sounding more transparent, as if it had a slightly boosted high frequency response.
After doing the (blind) comparison, I measured all of them and found the specific one in fact having a treble rolloff, no boost!
I remember, the company had a marketing name for it – which I didn’t care for.

They had opted for better sound in favor of looking better on measurements, a courageous decision at the time of marketing ruler-flat 20Hz-20kHz frequency responses as HiFi-ideal.