• Registered: 2020-06-13
  • Posts: 67

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Muffin wrote:
yuhasz01 wrote:
Muffin wrote:

You don't need to use digital in on the Genelec to take advantage of GLM, nor do you need to even have it connected after setup if you can control the volume level from the source.

For testing audio differences between analogue and digital he (or his friend) can use GLM to switch between the two inputs using two GLM setups that is level matched. The switch takes less than a second, at least for my Genelec 8330A connected to a Genelec 7360A subwoofer.

He can do one setup for digital in (including a calibration), make a copy that will be used for analogue that is then level matched. He can adjust the level of each monitor in 0.1dB steps in GLM.


Good concrete suggestions thank you

Thanks!

Last year I was in a similar position as you when deciding between the ADI-2 DAC and the ADI-2 Pro for use with Genelec 8330A. I used the difference in price between those two devices towards buying a Genelec subwoofer as that almost certainly would increase the sound quality much more than a possible slight audible difference between analogue and digital input.

I found the 7350A subwoofer a bit weak for me and bought the 7360A later, but both of the subwoofers increased the quality of bass very much as 1) I could place the subwoofer to where the 2.1 setup had the best bass and 2) bass heavy music is much better sounding. In GLM that is also easily testable since there is a bass management on/off toggle.

Appreciated sharing your Genelec subwoofer plan.  That was my next issue to address/acquire as well.

Thanks everyone for the helpful comments and suggestions.

WY

CD Transport>optical>RME ADI-2 DAC FS(AKM)>XLR balanced >GLM software>Genelec Monitors 8340A
  • Muffin
  • AES/EBU artist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2021-12-26
  • Posts: 143

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

yuhasz01 wrote:
Muffin wrote:
yuhasz01 wrote:

Good concrete suggestions thank you

Thanks!

Last year I was in a similar position as you when deciding between the ADI-2 DAC and the ADI-2 Pro for use with Genelec 8330A. I used the difference in price between those two devices towards buying a Genelec subwoofer as that almost certainly would increase the sound quality much more than a possible slight audible difference between analogue and digital input.

I found the 7350A subwoofer a bit weak for me and bought the 7360A later, but both of the subwoofers increased the quality of bass very much as 1) I could place the subwoofer to where the 2.1 setup had the best bass and 2) bass heavy music is much better sounding. In GLM that is also easily testable since there is a bass management on/off toggle.

Appreciated sharing your Genelec subwoofer plan.  That was my next issue to address/acquire as well.

Thanks everyone for the helpful comments and suggestions.

The Genelec subwoofers are expensive for the output they offer and they are not what I would call pretty, but for me they have one for me feature that what I want in my 2.1 desktop setup: No need for an extra external device connected to my setup after calibration nor requirement to have such software continuously running on my PC. The room EQ and bass management is done by the Genelec monitors and subwoofers, after a calibration is completed.

Where I in my home theatre to replace my passive speakers with Genelec monitors the situation would be different with respect to use of Genelec subwoofers, and at least initially, as I would then continue to use my two existing SVS subwoofers.

53 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2022-01-03 09:27:30)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,113

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

KaiS wrote:

This thread by far overly focusses on a theoretical influence of one extra AD-DA conversion.

By my decades of experience doing digital studio productions with good quality converters the resulting sound change is negligible.
Even more though as we are now talking about an AD-DA quality level higher than ever.

Opposed to this the difference between various loudspeakers / studio monitors is night and day.

In the light of this fact, the decision should be based solely on the sound of the speakers, not on their connectivity.
The only way to find out is to listen and do test mixes / productions, there‘s no shortcut.

+1 .. yes, but his focus seems to be GLM as he told, to get room correction "in the box / monitor" without any external equipment or PC for it.

I personally would prefer better speakers, because room correction is for the room, but doesn't make the speakers any better.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13
  • Registered: 2021-03-12
  • Posts: 71

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

vinark wrote:

Well you either have an analogue crossover with all drawbacks or a digital one with all drawbacks. Or a (not so) full range one driver speaker. Which can sound very good except for freq range.

Still stands that with this reasoning you could choose a speaker system which sounds worse cause it is more pure. I would still let your ears do the talking.
It is not that I don't understand your reasoning, it might just be flawed when it is about result and not ideas. It all depends on the speaker you choose. In the total chain of source, ADI, Amp, filter (analogue or digital), speaker and room, the ADI has very little impact on the end result. Most influence has the source (the recording), speakers and room. Strange enough your ears/brain adapt very quickly to a not so perfect filter.
I am just trying to be helpful here (as always), making a good decision regarding speakers is very difficult.
By the way, I mix on a blue sky system one. Fully analogue filter and amps. Amps are a little noisy...

I agree.
My personal experience with gear discussed here. I don't use it for recording/mixing - just playback at home. I have ADI2 DAC and UCX2 (for multichannel), Neumann KH750 DSP sw , KH80 DSP, monitors aligned with MA1 (both EQ and phase correction).

I have 2 paths how to playback stereo:
1. PC - USB - ADI2 DAC analog out - KH750 - KH80 ----USB-DA-AD-DSP750-DA-AD-DSP80-DA conversions, terrible, isn't it?
2. PC - USB - UCX2 coax SPDIF out - KH750 - KH80 ----USB---------DSP750-DA-AD-DSP80-DA conversions, 1st DA conversion done in KH750

Theory (and also Neumann) says 2nd option is better. What is reality? Grey is the theory and green is the tree of life.

To my ears 1st option is much cleaner, sounds much nicer and relaxed, more pleasant, better stereo image. 2nd is more harsh on middles, like some artefacts which are present in recording, it is hard to say. Difference is clear - not subtle.

I really did not expected this. More direct way is one of the reasons why I bought UCX2.
Looks like more AD-DA conversion does some cleaning which is very nice for my ears.
Another theoretical problem may be volume faders used in UCX2. First it is decreased -6dB in playback input because of of mixing with center and LFE for MCH playback and then again HW output channels volume level via ARC USB.

Is there any other explanation?

ADI-2 DAC, Digiface USB, Fireface UCXII, ARC USB, Neumann MA1 aligned monitors
  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 12,113

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

> Is there any other explanation?

Did you perform a blind (or even double blind) test using exactly the same volume levels?

How quick could you switch between the different signal paths?

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

56 Reply by vinark (edited by vinark 2022-01-03 11:07:23)

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,658

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

audafreak wrote:
vinark wrote:

Well you either have an analogue crossover with all drawbacks or a digital one with all drawbacks. Or a (not so) full range one driver speaker. Which can sound very good except for freq range.

Still stands that with this reasoning you could choose a speaker system which sounds worse cause it is more pure. I would still let your ears do the talking.
It is not that I don't understand your reasoning, it might just be flawed when it is about result and not ideas. It all depends on the speaker you choose. In the total chain of source, ADI, Amp, filter (analogue or digital), speaker and room, the ADI has very little impact on the end result. Most influence has the source (the recording), speakers and room. Strange enough your ears/brain adapt very quickly to a not so perfect filter.
I am just trying to be helpful here (as always), making a good decision regarding speakers is very difficult.
By the way, I mix on a blue sky system one. Fully analogue filter and amps. Amps are a little noisy...

I agree.
My personal experience with gear discussed here. I don't use it for recording/mixing - just playback at home. I have ADI2 DAC and UCX2 (for multichannel), Neumann KH750 DSP sw , KH80 DSP, monitors aligned with MA1 (both EQ and phase correction).

I have 2 paths how to playback stereo:
1. PC - USB - ADI2 DAC analog out - KH750 - KH80 ----USB-DA-AD-DSP750-DA-AD-DSP80-DA conversions, terrible, isn't it?
2. PC - USB - UCX2 coax SPDIF out - KH750 - KH80 ----USB---------DSP750-DA-AD-DSP80-DA conversions, 1st DA conversion done in KH750

Theory (and also Neumann) says 2nd option is better. What is reality? Grey is the theory and green is the tree of life.

To my ears 1st option is much cleaner, sounds much nicer and relaxed, more pleasant, better stereo image. 2nd is more harsh on middles, like some artefacts which are present in recording, it is hard to say. Difference is clear - not subtle.

I really did not expected this. More direct way is one of the reasons why I bought UCX2.
Looks like more AD-DA conversion does some cleaning which is very nice for my ears.
Another theoretical problem may be volume faders used in UCX2. First it is decreased -6dB in playback input because of of mixing with center and LFE for MCH playback and then again HW output channels volume level via ARC USB.

Is there any other explanation?

Thanks for posting this. Since you did not expect this, expectation bias is unlikely. So only thing you can try if you have the option is do a measurement in your room for the freq response, to see if there is a difference. Measuring distortion is more difficult I guess.

Grey is the theory and green is the tree of life. Love this one

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • Registered: 2021-03-12
  • Posts: 71

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Blind - no, no other person around, but did it many times during last several month and result was always the same. Via 2nd option there is  something what I don't like. My bias was always that via digital should be better. Maybe it is better - maybe it just reveals something wrong in the recordings.

Switching cannot be immediate because you have to switch off UCX2, digital input has priority over analog in KH750, so around 5-10 sec.

I know problems with volume matching but the difference was in more clean sound whatever volume was set - the same or a bit different.

It is against my conviction that simpler way should be better. I am a technician and sw engineer, I know something about digital audio/video/photo processing and how even small changes can make result worse.

I see biggest difference in volume setting - in DAC it is DAC chip I think and in UCX2 computed twice in Totalmix. Maybe rounding errors? What is the bit resolution during mixing in Totalmix?

ADI-2 DAC, Digiface USB, Fireface UCXII, ARC USB, Neumann MA1 aligned monitors
  • Registered: 2021-03-12
  • Posts: 71

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

vinark wrote:

Thanks for posting this. Since you did not expect this, expectation bias is unlikely. So only thing you can try if you have the option is do a measurement in your room for the freq response, to see if there is a difference. Measuring distortion is more difficult I guess.

Grey is the theory and green is the tree of life. Love this one

Frequency response is the same, I don't hear a difference, general character is the same, it is more like very small distortion on mids to highs.

It is not so big that it is not usable, I use UCX2 digital way 90% of time, I prefer ARC USB as remote comparing IR for DAC, stereo DSD I play via DAC because I don't need conversion to 24/88 PCM for UCX2 like in multichannel DSD.

ADI-2 DAC, Digiface USB, Fireface UCXII, ARC USB, Neumann MA1 aligned monitors

59 Reply by mwilson (edited by mwilson 2022-01-03 15:46:17)

  • Registered: 2021-11-22
  • Posts: 34

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

To provide an update since I started this thread, I've been using the Dynaudio LYD 7 active monitors with their 9S subwoofer. So the chain is :

USB > ADI-2 Pro FS BE R > Dynaudio 9S > Dynaudio LYD 7
meaning:
digital > dsp, d to a > a to d, dsp, d to a > a to d, dsp, d to a

The sound is okay, I can't find much fault with it, especially since I didn't take too much time tweaking the sub level and high pass. For my computer setup, listening to background music while I work, it's going to be just fine. As to the ADI's sheer d to a conversion quality, I guess it's safe to say I won't be able to ascertain since the sound I'm hearing is going through two more stages of conversion downstream.

Aside: I love the loudness implementation in the ADI. It's the feature I enjoy most, and frankly one I wasn't even aware of until after I had bought the unit.

60 Reply by Curt962 (edited by Curt962 2022-01-03 17:42:51)

  • Registered: 2019-01-07
  • Posts: 1,462

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Wilson,

Before you make expensive decisions based on Say So, and anecdotal evidence,  take a look at the actual science involved.  Oh!  You may be quite surprised to learn that microscopic differences in Speaker Tech pale in comparison to the effects of the Room itself. To that end. DRC, etc is very limited in it's abilities in the real world.  Pushbutton solutions to all of our Woes are realistically non-existent.

This Text is a very worthwhile investment!

https://i.ibb.co/R9HctHQ/51n-QJIC9-Mv-L-AC-SY780.jpg

Just saying!

* Dynamic Loudness?  IMO one of the RME's greatest functionalities!  It works WITH our Hearing to the benefit of all.

Curt.

Vintage 2018 ADI-2 DAC. "Classic AKM4490 Edition"
Cables:  Red, and White Ones.
Speakers:  Yes
  • Registered: 2021-12-14
  • Posts: 9

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Too big for a desk set up, but the Dutch and Dutch 8C's are very good. VERY.

  • Muffin
  • AES/EBU artist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2021-12-26
  • Posts: 143

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

ramses wrote:
KaiS wrote:

This thread by far overly focusses on a theoretical influence of one extra AD-DA conversion.

By my decades of experience doing digital studio productions with good quality converters the resulting sound change is negligible.
Even more though as we are now talking about an AD-DA quality level higher than ever.

Opposed to this the difference between various loudspeakers / studio monitors is night and day.

In the light of this fact, the decision should be based solely on the sound of the speakers, not on their connectivity.
The only way to find out is to listen and do test mixes / productions, there‘s no shortcut.

+1 .. yes, but his focus seems to be GLM as he told, to get room correction "in the box / monitor" without any external equipment or PC for it.

I personally would prefer better speakers, because room correction is for the room, but doesn't make the speakers any better.

I'm not the OP but having the filtering done in the monitors/subwoofer is very convenient for a desktop setup even when like me have them connected to a PC, especially when using a subwoofer. Questions about using the DAC or the Pro with a subwoofer pops up here as well as on other forums.

63 Reply by beat8000 (edited by beat8000 2022-01-04 15:53:49)

  • Registered: 2019-05-30
  • Posts: 63

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

To my opinion more relevant than the additional ADDA-conversion is to warm up an active subwoofer at least one hour before serious listening if the monitor speakers are connected to it. I have recognized a sound improvement after this time in my listening tests.

Win10 Pro, ADI-2 Pro, Basis 1, Adam A3X; RL 906; Grace M902B, Glockenklang Bugatti, Strauss SE-NF-3
  • Muffin
  • AES/EBU artist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2021-12-26
  • Posts: 143

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

beat8000 wrote:

To my opinion it is more relevant to warm up an active subwoofer at least one hour before serious listening if the monitor speakers are connected to it. I have recognized a sound improvement after this time in my listening tests.

What?

65 Reply by Curt962 (edited by Curt962 2022-01-04 18:38:35)

  • Registered: 2019-01-07
  • Posts: 1,462

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Warm Up is Over-Rated.

Carpet Cleanliness is the way forward, and if you truly like "Count the Cycles Bass Response" you need this!

https://i.ibb.co/wNqx3yV/7b19a766-e2a7-46cc-921e-c29e13e21777-1-6dbb270cc0b3857d501afa45517e0daf.png

Vintage 2018 ADI-2 DAC. "Classic AKM4490 Edition"
Cables:  Red, and White Ones.
Speakers:  Yes

66 Reply by beat8000 (edited by beat8000 2022-01-04 18:49:31)

  • Registered: 2019-05-30
  • Posts: 63

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

I'm mostly listening at low volume. Therefore it takes hours until the heat sink of my subwoofer is getting lukewarm.

Win10 Pro, ADI-2 Pro, Basis 1, Adam A3X; RL 906; Grace M902B, Glockenklang Bugatti, Strauss SE-NF-3
  • Registered: 2019-01-07
  • Posts: 1,462

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

And?.. it makes no more difference than does warming up your Smart Phone before sending a text.

No evidence to the contrary.

Curt

Vintage 2018 ADI-2 DAC. "Classic AKM4490 Edition"
Cables:  Red, and White Ones.
Speakers:  Yes

68 Reply by beat8000 (edited by beat8000 2022-01-04 18:58:13)

  • Registered: 2019-05-30
  • Posts: 63

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

About ten years ago I could hear a clear difference, but since then my hearing has deteriorated. wink
Today it's more a good feeling.

Win10 Pro, ADI-2 Pro, Basis 1, Adam A3X; RL 906; Grace M902B, Glockenklang Bugatti, Strauss SE-NF-3

69 Reply by Curt962 (edited by Curt962 2022-01-04 19:16:38)

  • Registered: 2019-01-07
  • Posts: 1,462

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Beat...

40 years ago I could hear differences that neither the Artist, nor anyone else on Earth could hear.  wink

This extraordinarily expensive, magazine review driven foolishness led me to where I am today.   

Difference?  BULLSH*T!!  Show me the Data!

Get it?

Curt

Vintage 2018 ADI-2 DAC. "Classic AKM4490 Edition"
Cables:  Red, and White Ones.
Speakers:  Yes
  • Registered: 2021-11-22
  • Posts: 34

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

KaiS wrote:

This thread by far overly focusses on a theoretical influence of one extra AD-DA conversion.

By my decades of experience doing digital studio productions with good quality converters the resulting sound change is negligible.
Even more though as we are now talking about an AD-DA quality level higher than ever.

Opposed to this the difference between various loudspeakers / studio monitors is night and day.

In the light of this fact, the decision should be based solely on the sound of the speakers, not on their connectivity.
The only way to find out is to listen and do test mixes / productions, there‘s no shortcut.

Actually in my use case, two extra AD-DA conversions; one in the subwoofer, and one in the monitors. Mind that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, rather introducing a thought experiment: a lot is known about the RME conversion due to the excellent, engineering-driven, manual documenting a whole bunch of minutia. Also known is the measured performance of the conversions taking place within (AD and DA). Virtually nothing is known about the subsequent AD-DA conversions. And just like a chain, in which the weakest link dictates the overall strength, the least good conversion in this audio chain will negate the high marks of the RME conversion.

So where am I going with this? If the subsequent AD-DA conversions are of a lesser quality than the preceding RME, then the RME is squandered; a no-frills, low-cost DAC might yield very close results.

71 Reply by Curt962 (edited by Curt962 2022-01-04 19:41:16)

  • Registered: 2019-01-07
  • Posts: 1,462

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Wilson,

I think we understand where you are with this matter.  For better or worse, my new Monitors have no DSP imposed on me for this very reason.  That said, I may be giving my ears a bit too much credit in believing they are quite so resolving.

My Subs use DSP, and I'm happy with it.  My mains do not. That's my choice, but hardly a mandate.

In the end..   LISTEN!

All of our thoughts, and philosophies are meaningless if it doesn't sound good to you, and surely choosing Speakers by Committee is a Fool's Game.

Do your Listening Homework, and decide for yourself. 

Best!

Curt

Vintage 2018 ADI-2 DAC. "Classic AKM4490 Edition"
Cables:  Red, and White Ones.
Speakers:  Yes

72 Reply by beat8000 (edited by beat8000 2022-01-04 19:47:56)

  • Registered: 2019-05-30
  • Posts: 63

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Curt962 wrote:

Beat...

40 years ago I could hear differences that neither the Artist, nor anyone else on Earth could hear.  wink

This extraordinarily expensive, magazine review driven foolishness led me to where I am today.   

Difference?  BULLSH*T!!  Show me the Data!

Get it?

Curt

I have no data because it was only my listening impression.
However I couldn't hear any difference with the subwoofer and my RL906, only with the Strauss SE-NF3.

But you're right I have also read a lot of magazines before I bought the RL906 / Basis 1. Later on I have recognized that the drivers used for the RL906 are not very expensive. wink
Fortunately I made progresses in the following years and I could buy the Strauss monitors almost without any magazines. wink

Win10 Pro, ADI-2 Pro, Basis 1, Adam A3X; RL 906; Grace M902B, Glockenklang Bugatti, Strauss SE-NF-3
  • Registered: 2021-11-22
  • Posts: 34

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Thanks Curt, I'm actually enjoying the system, sound is okay given it's something to listen to while I work. If it had been for critical listening I'd likely have gotten passive speakers with a nice amp to drive them.

Plus I always liked the look of Dynaudio's speakers :-)

It's Nick, not Wilson btw.

  • Registered: 2019-01-07
  • Posts: 1,462

Re: Class D active studio monitors fed by ADI-2

Hey again Nick!

We as a group try to assist with useful information, and sometimes disuade a new user from making costly errors.

Simply do your listening, and then it's up to you. 

FWIW?  I love Active Monitors!   They're sometimes a bit more demanding, but that was good for me to motivate some Acoustic House Cleaning, and end with a very pleasant listening experience that EVEN MY WIFE CAN HEAR!

All that said,  I'm having a good time, and surely hope you will too.

Curt

Vintage 2018 ADI-2 DAC. "Classic AKM4490 Edition"
Cables:  Red, and White Ones.
Speakers:  Yes