Topic: Is the ADI-2 DAC "soundstage 2-dimensional"? And the ADI-2 Pros?
Hi I've been looking to get the ADI-2 (Pro) since I'm producing music and I can't make any compromise when it comes to my sound gear/headphones/headphones amp I've only heard the best things about the ADI-2 from all over the internet and friends. But I wouldn't buy a DAC/AMP that flattens the sound I have from, say, my sound card source. I need something transparent but also not reducing the soundstage like crazy, for mixing purposes I'm sure you understand what I mean. My Lake People G103-S MK2 is actually pretty awesome for the price but I thought I would need to get this RME everyone is raving about. So I've had in my mind to get the ADI-2/4 Pro of course since it looks like it's coming out very soon!
Anyway I accidentally stumbled upon this comment - I don't think he/she's speaking about the Pro, only the entry-level ADI-2 DAC? But since I have never tried either, do the DAC and Pro series share the same soundstage?
And will the ADI-2/4 Pro soundstage sound > "2-dimensional, with little height and depth, more sibilant, more fatiguing and less refined, with harshness, squeal, screech, sqawk, metallic sheen, unnatural, extra distorted and all?" as the author claims (again it's referring to the DAC here I think, but still, is this any true??) It's not alarming me so far since I trust RME but I'd like a second opinion though. Cheers guys!
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rme-adi … t-17081993
As for the Hugo2, since no-one else has chimed in, I was led to try Hugo2 because of dissatisfaction with the sound from the ADI2-DAC (and the iFi Audio iDAC2). I have owned and used all three together for two years now. The ADI2-DAC has a couple of flaws to my ears. The first is the soundstage which is rather 2-dimensional. It is wide but doesn't have much height and has very little depth to it. The Hugo2 puts the stage in a sphere around your head with better height and much better depth. The second flaw occurs whenever the recording contains any harshness, squeal, screech, sqawk, metallic sheen or undue sibilance. The ADI2-DAC makes it worse and is fatiguing to listen to for those tracks. It makes me want to turn it down or listen to something else. The Hugo2 is far more refined. It doesn't add distortion of its own to what is already distorted. It just sounds natural and unfatiguing because it is far more accurate in time than the RME. You can still hear the flaws in those recordings. They are just not thrown at you in an unpleasant way.
The best I can describe it is that when I first got the Hugo2, I found myself tensing and flinching for faults I was expecting to hear, only for them not to occur. I quickly learned to stop flinching and tensing and just relax knowing that the Hugo2 was not going to offend my ears. I wrote somewhere else (but can't now find it) that the Hugo2 is what I've been waiting 40 years for digital audio to sound like. The ADI2-DAC is still a good and very versatile piece for it's price, but I'm afraid the Hugo2 plays on an altogether loftier plain and is worth every penny of its asking price. Of course if you already have a headphone amp, you could save some by getting the Qutest.
On the subject of USB, neither ADI2-DAC nor Hugo2 are perfect here. Both can be improved by addition of an iPurifier2/3 (disclaimer: I own a bunch of these, other decrapifiers are available but the iFi ones are very good in my experience). I feed my DACs by optical or coaxial where those options are available.
EDIT: one more thing on latency. The ADI2-DAC has a couple of short delay filters - SD Sharp and SD Slow. Be sure to use those. Personally I use both the ADI2-DAC and Hugo2 on optical with the TV and have never had any lipsync issues.
