Topic: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

I ordered an RME ADI 2 pro Black Edition with the AKM chips.

My question is that , I hope the analog output stage is designed for sound and not just for measurements.     

That is, which op amps are used in the model?  And do they have a lot of negative feedback applied so the sound is dull and lifeless but measures well?


Also are the op amps and analog output stages in the regula RME ADI FS different than the RME ADI PRO Black edition?


No offense, I just have had the worse experience with companies such as topping which use a ton of negative feedback in their analog output stages to measure well, but sound so dull and lifeless.   Plus no weight to the sound. 

I am going to use the RME ADI2 pro BE as just a DAC for my HIFI


Thanks in advance !

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

I do not mean to offend you, but: Why did you order it in the first place?

Is there still time to cancel and think it over?

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Hi, searching the forum and the internet helps. I don't remember in details, yet I came across all these topics while reading this forum. The type of opamps, the topology of the amps .... Some is hidden, some is not.

And, I strongly prefer the ADI2DAC over a Topping E30 sound wise and of course feature wise even more.

Btw, strange timing in my eyes.

Cheers, Ernst

ADI-2 PRO FS R BE / ADI-2 DAC FS / some old multibit treasuers ;-)

4

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

An OPAMP that is used without negative feedback will have > 80 dB of amplification (aka unusable).

An OPAMP that has a gain of 0 dB (used as impedance buffer etc, standard circuit element) therefore uses tons of negative feedback (> 80 dB).

As such you should not buy ANY device that uses an OPAMP as it will always and unavoidably have tons of negative feedback.

Welcome to reality!

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

5 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-19 18:50:00)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

... I just have had the worse experience with companies such as topping which use a ton of negative feedback in their analog output stages to measure well, but sound so dull and lifeless.   Plus no weight to the sound...

I can’t comment on Topping products, I do not own any.

I can say the RME ADI-2 does by no means sound dull or lifeless or un-weighty.

It’s basic sound is neutral and realistic with no coloration detectable.
Plus, it’s multiple options allow to add various kinds of coloration and adaptions to the sound, from moderate to strong, if needed.


Focusing on and arguing about Operational Amplifier’s negative feedback, as a layman, is pointless.
Op-amps in general, with no exception, work with high amounts of NFB.
This is the general, underlying principle of OP-amps.

BTW: even discreet constructions usually have the same electronic circuits like built-in in OP-amps.

For sound quality it’s the overall design that counts, and even an expert can not judge this just by the look on schematic‘s, parts selection or PCB layouts.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

joachim.herbert wrote:

I do not mean to offend you, but: Why did you order it in the first place?

Is there still time to cancel and think it over?


No offense taken. 

I can return it that’s why , and I was intrigued by RME


So I’ll see how I like it.

7 (edited by Nkam 2023-03-20 00:20:44)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

MC wrote:

An OPAMP that is used without negative feedback will have > 80 dB of amplification (aka unusable).

An OPAMP that has a gain of 0 dB (used as impedance buffer etc, standard circuit element) therefore uses tons of negative feedback (> 80 dB).

As such you should not buy ANY device that uses an OPAMP as it will always and unavoidably have tons of negative feedback.

Welcome to reality!


Thanks for the response.

So for using it with the AKM specific chip in mind, would the op amp used need to have a specific amount of negative feedback applied in any DAC? 
Or does the designer decide how much negative feedback is applied?

And how are the op amps in the RME ADI2 pro Black edition biased? Class A?


Thank you for the educational responses.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:
Nkam wrote:

... I just have had the worse experience with companies such as topping which use a ton of negative feedback in their analog output stages to measure well, but sound so dull and lifeless.   Plus no weight to the sound...

I can’t comment on Topping products, I do not own any.

I can say the RME ADI-2 does by no means sound dull or lifeless or un-weighty.

It’s basic sound is neutral and realistic with no coloration detectable.
Plus, it’s multiple options allow to add various kinds of coloration and adaptions to the sound, from moderate to strong, if needed.


Focusing on and arguing about Operational Amplifier’s negative feedback, as a layman, is pointless.
Op-amps in general, with no exception, work with high amounts of NFB.
This is the general, underlying principle of OP-amps.

BTW: even discreet constructions usually have the same electronic circuits like built-in in OP-amps.

For sound quality it’s the overall design that counts, and even an expert can not judge this just by the look on schematic‘s, parts selection or PCB layouts.

Yeah I guess I’m asking to be educated with this.   
What is the difference of using op amps and discreet?    What are the benefits and cons?

Thank you for your response.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

What is the difference of using op amps and discreet?

One time I will help you:

It is very easy to get information. Just use the following link with your question (!) and try to understand the answers:
https://www.google.com/advanced_search? … &hl=en

If you don't understand the answers, then log in to the appropriate forums, ask your questions and you will very definitely get an answer.

Already for several years the main differences (using+op+amps+or+discret) are space requirements (OP are small) and production costs (discrete circuits would be extremely more expensive if trying to reach the technical level of an OP circuit), a larger device would also be more expensive.

By the way, www.google.com/advanced_search uses Boolean algebra functions to give you the best results you want.

10 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-20 01:18:42)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

Yeah I guess I’m asking to be educated with this.   
What is the difference of using op amps and discreet?    What are the benefits and cons?

Thank you for your response.

Discreet (a circuit built from multiple single electronic elements) vs integrated (multiple elements combined in a chip):

There is no sound difference that can be generalized.

In the audio world both topologies are developed to fulfill the same tasks.
Highly skilled developers create them.
There are teams spending much time to create specialized Audio Operational Amplifiers like those used in ADI-2.


Integrated has some advantages:

• Putting lots of elements very close together allows to use of smaller structures, as less power is needed to hand the audio signal from one stage to the next.
Smaller, less power means faster in the silicon world.
Just think of what has been achieved with CPUs with ultra-small structures in terms of speed.

• Having the whole circuit in one chip gives better thermal coupling.
This betters the stability of working points.

• Manufacturing of an integrated chip is much cheaper than stitching lots of discrete parts together for the same purpose.
The user gets more return, better quality for the money.


Some advantages of discrete:

• The developer can tailor a circuit for a very exact task, e.g. to create a certain amount of distortions to color the sound.
Purposely created colorful distortions with an OPA only is almost impossible.
But - not all discrete circuits are built to create distortions, so again no generalization.

• A different topology to what an OPA does can be used.
One has to admit, that this alone does not necessarily lead to a different sound result.


In my experience, and I have built amps with various designs, even with tubes:

The sound difference you can achieve with amps is over-estimated.
It takes careful listening to detect them.

Opposed to that, the effect of a touch of EQ, or different loudspeakers / headphones are several magnitudes stronger than varying the amp.
Even using another DA-Filter (ADI-2 has a number to choose from) makes more of a sound difference.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:
Nkam wrote:

Yeah I guess I’m asking to be educated with this.   
What is the difference of using op amps and discreet?    What are the benefits and cons?

Thank you for your response.

Discreet (a circuit built from multiple single electronic elements) vs integrated (multiple elements combined in a chip):

There is no sound difference that can be generalized.

In the audio world both topologies are developed to fulfill the same tasks.
Highly skilled developers create them.
There are teams spending much time to create specialized Audio Operational Amplifiers like those used in ADI-2.


Integrated has some advantages:

• Putting lots of elements very close together allows to use of smaller structures, as less power is needed to hand the audio signal from one stage to the next.
Smaller, less power means faster in the silicon world.
Just think of what has been achieved with CPUs with ultra-small structures in terms of speed.

• Having the whole circuit in one chip gives better thermal coupling.
This betters the stability of working points.

• Manufacturing of an integrated chip is much cheaper than stitching lots of discrete parts together for the same purpose.
The user gets more return, better quality for the money.


Some advantages of discrete:

• The developer can tailor a circuit for a very exact task, e.g. to create a certain amount of distortions to color the sound.
Purposely created colorful distortions with an OPA only is almost impossible.
But - not all discrete circuits are built to create distortions, so again no generalization.

• A different topology to what an OPA does can be used.
One has to admit, that this alone does not necessarily lead to a different sound result.


In my experience, and I have built amps with various designs, even with tubes:

The sound difference you can achieve with amps is over-estimated.
It takes careful listening to detect them.

Opposed to that, the effect of a touch of EQ, or different loudspeakers / headphones are several magnitudes stronger than varying the amp.
Even using another DA-Filter (ADI-2 has a number to choose from) makes more of a sound difference.


Thank you so much for explaining. 

I got the RME ADI 2 BE today. 
Didn’t hook it up to my stereo and speaker setup yet. 
But so far I like the Marantz much more with just headphones unfortunately. 

Both the Marantz and RME have their own headphone amp so it should be different as a standalone DAC with my speakers.

I have a Benchmark LA4 preamp into a Benchmark AHB2 amp out to two proac DT8 with external crossovers I built.  Same values.  Better parts. 

I’ll see how the RME sounds there tomorrow.

Thanks again for all the help!

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Just FYI, some opamps, like those used in some API gear, ARE discrete:

https://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/b … ete-opamps

https://musicwall.app/hermetech

13 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-20 08:46:28)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

I got the RME ADI 2 BE today. 
Didn’t hook it up to my stereo and speaker setup yet. 
But so far I like the Marantz much more with just headphones unfortunately. 

Both the Marantz and RME have their own headphone amp so it should be different as a standalone DAC with my speakers.

I have a Benchmark LA4 preamp into a Benchmark AHB2 amp out to two proac DT8 with external crossovers I built.  Same values.  Better parts. 

I’ll see how the RME sounds there tomorrow.

Which Marantz, and which headphones model?

• Integrated amps usually have high-impedance headphones outs, with dynamic headphones you get a significant bass-boost from this.

• When you compare, make sure have exact same level for both, else always the louder wins.

• Check with ADI-2’s options under I/O before making a final judgement.
E.g. the DA-Filter selection makes a difference.


Babaluma wrote:

Just FYI, some opamps, like those used in some API gear, ARE discrete:

https://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/b … ete-opamps

Yes, as mentioned:

OPerational Amplifier (OPA) is a topology (the most used for audio).
Discrete- or integrated-circuit are building types, you can find integrated circuit amps that are NOT based on OPA structures too.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:
Nkam wrote:

I got the RME ADI 2 BE today. 
Didn’t hook it up to my stereo and speaker setup yet. 
But so far I like the Marantz much more with just headphones unfortunately. 

Both the Marantz and RME have their own headphone amp so it should be different as a standalone DAC with my speakers.

I have a Benchmark LA4 preamp into a Benchmark AHB2 amp out to two proac DT8 with external crossovers I built.  Same values.  Better parts. 

I’ll see how the RME sounds there tomorrow.

Which Marantz, and which headphones model?

• Integrated amps usually have high-impedance headphones outs, with dynamic headphones you get a significant bass-boost from this.

• When you compare, make sure have exact same level for both, else always the louder wins.

• Check with ADI-2’s options under I/O before making a final judgement.
E.g. the DA-Filter selection makes a difference.


Babaluma wrote:

Just FYI, some opamps, like those used in some API gear, ARE discrete:

https://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/b … ete-opamps

Yes, as mentioned:

OPerational Amplifier (OPA) is a topology (the most used for audio).
Discrete- or integrated-circuit are building types, you can find integrated circuit amps that are NOT based on OPA structures too.

The Marantz HD DAC1 and Beyerdynamic DT1990pro headphones.

Sorry but the Marantz is way nicer. 
Btw im a musician with 40+ years of playing.   Piano, violin and guitar.   So my ears are pretty good.   Not showing off.  Just showing you I’m not a kid in my moms basement.

When you mean filters do you mean the sharp , SD sharp etc? 
If so I also use HQplayer    Some serious filters in there and modulators. 

Question.  I set the RME in DAC mode and set the output to +24db since the benchmark DAC3 is +24db and the rest of my setup is benchmark.    So where do I put the volume at and lock it?  At 0db?
Because I put the output to +24db but the volume knob was still changing the volume.

Much obliged.

15 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-20 16:10:41)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

When you mean filters do you mean the sharp , SD sharp etc? 
If so I also use HQplayer    Some serious filters in there and modulators

Yes, these are the so called DAC-Reconstruction-Filters.

These are not sound-effects, but a selection of different solutions to the task of extracting the audio (see below).
My personal favorite is AKM’s “Slow”-Filter, witch gives a warmer sound (than standard “Sharp”) and most natural transients.

Note that these filters are mainly audible at sample rates of 44.1 and 48 kHz.
At higher SR’s they are way out of the audible band.

Nkam wrote:

Question.  I set the RME in DAC mode and set the output to +24db since the benchmark DAC3 is +24db and the rest of my setup is benchmark.    So where do I put the volume at and lock it?  At 0db?
Because I put the output to +24db but the volume knob was still changing the volume.

Volume at 0 dB.
I/O / Line Output 1/2 / Settings / Lock Volume: “ON”.



Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter

... For the same reason, the output of a DAC requires a low-pass analog filter, called a reconstruction filter - because the output signal must be bandlimited, to prevent imaging (meaning Fourier coefficients being reconstructed as spurious high-frequency 'mirrors'). This is an implementation of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula. ...

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:
Nkam wrote:

When you mean filters do you mean the sharp , SD sharp etc? 
If so I also use HQplayer    Some serious filters in there and modulators

Yes, these are the so called DAC-Reconstruction-Filters.

These are not sound-effects, but a selection of different solutions to the task of extracting the audio (see below).
My personal favorite is AKM’s “Slow”-Filter, witch gives a warmer sound (than standard “Sharp”) and most natural transients.

Note that these filters are mainly audible at sample rates of 44.1 and 48 kHz.
At higher SR’s they are way out of the audible band.

Nkam wrote:

Question.  I set the RME in DAC mode and set the output to +24db since the benchmark DAC3 is +24db and the rest of my setup is benchmark.    So where do I put the volume at and lock it?  At 0db?
Because I put the output to +24db but the volume knob was still changing the volume.

Volume at 0 dB.
I/O / Line Output 1/2 / Settings / Lock Volume: “ON”.



Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter

... For the same reason, the output of a DAC requires a low-pass analog filter, called a reconstruction filter - because the output signal must be bandlimited, to prevent imaging (meaning Fourier coefficients being reconstructed as spurious high-frequency 'mirrors'). This is an implementation of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula. ...


Thank you and super kind of you.

I just listened to the RME through my speaker rig and again prefer th Marantz.   The RME is better as a stand-alone DAC rather than it’s headphone output.   But still the Marantz has a deeper soundstage , sounds more intimate and timbre is more realistic. 
The RME has a bit tighter bass.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:
KaiS wrote:
Nkam wrote:

When you mean filters do you mean the sharp , SD sharp etc? 
If so I also use HQplayer    Some serious filters in there and modulators

Yes, these are the so called DAC-Reconstruction-Filters.

These are not sound-effects, but a selection of different solutions to the task of extracting the audio (see below).
My personal favorite is AKM’s “Slow”-Filter, witch gives a warmer sound (than standard “Sharp”) and most natural transients.

Note that these filters are mainly audible at sample rates of 44.1 and 48 kHz.
At higher SR’s they are way out of the audible band.

Nkam wrote:

Question.  I set the RME in DAC mode and set the output to +24db since the benchmark DAC3 is +24db and the rest of my setup is benchmark.    So where do I put the volume at and lock it?  At 0db?
Because I put the output to +24db but the volume knob was still changing the volume.

Volume at 0 dB.
I/O / Line Output 1/2 / Settings / Lock Volume: “ON”.



Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter

... For the same reason, the output of a DAC requires a low-pass analog filter, called a reconstruction filter - because the output signal must be bandlimited, to prevent imaging (meaning Fourier coefficients being reconstructed as spurious high-frequency 'mirrors'). This is an implementation of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula. ...


Thank you and super kind of you.

I just listened to the RME through my speaker rig and again prefer th Marantz.   The RME is better as a stand-alone DAC rather than it’s headphone output.   But still the Marantz has a deeper soundstage , sounds more intimate and timbre is more realistic. 
The RME has a bit tighter bass.

All the subjective—I heard, he heard, they heard— gets no one anywhere here with using RME products and technology and has little value. More appropriate  for audiophile forums unless you have some data to present as well.

WY

CD Transport>optical>RME ADI-2 DAC FS(AKM)>XLR balanced >GLM software>Genelec Monitors 8340A

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

yuhasz01 wrote:
Nkam wrote:
KaiS wrote:

Yes, these are the so called DAC-Reconstruction-Filters.

These are not sound-effects, but a selection of different solutions to the task of extracting the audio (see below).
My personal favorite is AKM’s “Slow”-Filter, witch gives a warmer sound (than standard “Sharp”) and most natural transients.

Note that these filters are mainly audible at sample rates of 44.1 and 48 kHz.
At higher SR’s they are way out of the audible band.

Volume at 0 dB.
I/O / Line Output 1/2 / Settings / Lock Volume: “ON”.



Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter

... For the same reason, the output of a DAC requires a low-pass analog filter, called a reconstruction filter - because the output signal must be bandlimited, to prevent imaging (meaning Fourier coefficients being reconstructed as spurious high-frequency 'mirrors'). This is an implementation of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula. ...


Thank you and super kind of you.

I just listened to the RME through my speaker rig and again prefer th Marantz.   The RME is better as a stand-alone DAC rather than it’s headphone output.   But still the Marantz has a deeper soundstage , sounds more intimate and timbre is more realistic. 
The RME has a bit tighter bass.

All the subjective—I heard, he heard, they heard— gets no one anywhere here with using RME products and technology and has little value. More appropriate  for audiophile forums unless you have some data to present as well.

Please don’t get uptight if someone doesn’t like what you like. 

We all have different tastes.
I love measurements and is the reason I own a Benchmark LA4 pre and AHB2 amplifier. 

I simply so far do not like the RME DAC.
As a matter of fact I called Rory from benchmark and told him I love your pre amp and amp but I can’t quite get along with your Benchmark DAC3.   
He wasn’t offended.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:
yuhasz01 wrote:
Nkam wrote:

Thank you and super kind of you.

I just listened to the RME through my speaker rig and again prefer th Marantz.   The RME is better as a stand-alone DAC rather than it’s headphone output.   But still the Marantz has a deeper soundstage , sounds more intimate and timbre is more realistic. 
The RME has a bit tighter bass.

All the subjective—I heard, he heard, they heard— gets no one anywhere here with using RME products and technology and has little value. More appropriate  for audiophile forums unless you have some data to present as well.

Please don’t get uptight if someone doesn’t like what you like. 

We all have different tastes.
I love measurements and is the reason I own a Benchmark LA4 pre and AHB2 amplifier. 

I simply so far do not like the RME DAC.
As a matter of fact I called Rory from benchmark and told him I love your pre amp and amp but I can’t quite get along with your Benchmark DAC3.   
He wasn’t offended.

Your personal taste and preferences do not have any appeal or value to others  in this “technology “ forum.  There are many other forums that showcase personal preferences. You’re entitled to listen to any products you enjoy…. That does not help any one here with RME products and technology enhance their enjoyment.

WY

CD Transport>optical>RME ADI-2 DAC FS(AKM)>XLR balanced >GLM software>Genelec Monitors 8340A

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

yuhasz01 wrote:
Nkam wrote:
yuhasz01 wrote:

All the subjective—I heard, he heard, they heard— gets no one anywhere here with using RME products and technology and has little value. More appropriate  for audiophile forums unless you have some data to present as well.

Please don’t get uptight if someone doesn’t like what you like. 

We all have different tastes.
I love measurements and is the reason I own a Benchmark LA4 pre and AHB2 amplifier. 

I simply so far do not like the RME DAC.
As a matter of fact I called Rory from benchmark and told him I love your pre amp and amp but I can’t quite get along with your Benchmark DAC3.   
He wasn’t offended.

Your personal taste and preferences do not have any appeal or value to others  in this “technology “ forum.  There are many other forums that showcase personal preferences. You’re entitled to listen to any products you enjoy…. That does not help any one here with RME products and technology enhance their enjoyment.

Do you moderate this forum?

Is it verboten to come to the conclusion that you might not like a product so much?

The Benchmark DAC3 measures super well also.  And viola it sounds different than the RME. 
How is that possible with your measurements?

Please don’t take audio to religious levels.   
That isn’t science as well.  It’s called dogma.

Peace

21 (edited by emeissl 2023-03-21 10:23:29)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

What might be the sense of "I like this better than that" or "This is not so good, than that" here in this forum? Does it tell anything about an item, or does it tell us something about the person?
What do you want tell us?

Cheers, Ernst

ADI-2 PRO FS R BE / ADI-2 DAC FS / some old multibit treasuers ;-)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:
yuhasz01 wrote:
Nkam wrote:

Please don’t get uptight if someone doesn’t like what you like. 

We all have different tastes.
I love measurements and is the reason I own a Benchmark LA4 pre and AHB2 amplifier. 

I simply so far do not like the RME DAC.
As a matter of fact I called Rory from benchmark and told him I love your pre amp and amp but I can’t quite get along with your Benchmark DAC3.   
He wasn’t offended.

Your personal taste and preferences do not have any appeal or value to others  in this “technology “ forum.  There are many other forums that showcase personal preferences. You’re entitled to listen to any products you enjoy…. That does not help any one here with RME products and technology enhance their enjoyment.

Do you moderate this forum?

Is it verboten to come to the conclusion that you might not like a product so much?

The Benchmark DAC3 measures super well also.  And viola it sounds different than the RME. 
How is that possible with your measurements?

Please don’t take audio to religious levels.   
That isn’t science as well.  It’s called dogma.

Peace

Double blind listening tests  results to share with forum?  Otherwise pointless comments

WY

CD Transport>optical>RME ADI-2 DAC FS(AKM)>XLR balanced >GLM software>Genelec Monitors 8340A

23 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-21 19:14:56)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

yuhasz01 wrote:

Double blind listening tests  results to share with forum?  Otherwise pointless comments

Double-blind is a bit a strong demand, not doable for a single person.


True blind A/B is sufficient for valid results.

• Switching A/B should be immediate.

Every run needs to be noted (no expectation bias filter excluding those that don’t “fit”), like A better, B better, A/B no difference.

Typically I start with some sighted A/Bs to get a grip on the sound characteristics to expect.
Then run a little number of blind A/Bs to basically confirm this.
Based on this I ask myself a certain question or two, like; “which one is more transparent” e.g.
Then explicitly start the test and note the results.

• The number of runs needs to be statistically significant, 50+ minimum I’d say.

• Important: Levels need to be matched within a few 1/100 dB to detect small differences between A and B.
An precise levelmeter / voltmeter is obligatory to reach this.
Else ALWAYS the little louder one wins.
I usually re-check in between and after the test.

• Such a test, including the preparation, need some hours to perform.


Of course, simple sighted plugging around some devices can detect large sound differences like can be found e.g. various headphones, but not for the tiny ones present with electronics.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

DSP hands off -state ADI sounds like straight wire. Colorature level absolute zero. Not practically possible to be any more neutral.

If something deviates from that, there must be other variables.

Little volume differences most likely. Or ADI´s DSP is not completely hands off. May be also little additional treble shave-down, by other DA-filter than SD Sharp. That has proven to be problematic setting for I-heard-it-myself -audiophiles.

The reference device (Benchmark) can also have some straight wire -deviating little properties/flavors engaged itself.

25 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-21 19:23:38)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

MstrC-117 wrote:

DSP hands off -state ADI sounds like straight wire. Colorature level absolute zero. Not practically possible to be any more neutral.

That’s not quite what I found - between sample rates 44.1 and 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz and higher, there is an audible difference (tested with an analog turntable e.g.).

This alone says 44.1 is NOT “wire with gain”.

The DAC-Filters sound a little different too for the lower SR’s.

26 (edited by MstrC-117 2023-03-21 19:58:00)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:
MstrC-117 wrote:

DSP hands off -state ADI sounds like straight wire. Colorature level absolute zero. Not practically possible to be any more neutral.

That’s not quite what I found - between sample rates 44.1 and 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz and higher, there is an audible difference (tested with an analog turntable e.g.).

This alone says 44.1 is NOT “wire with gain”.

The DAC-Filters sound a little different too for the lower SR’s.

DA-filter´s possible treble shave-down effect goes further up, away to inaudible ultrasonic frequencies, when sample rate increases. Other filters than SD Sharp may have this shaving effect audible in 44.1 and 48 k sample rates. In ADI´s DA-filter catalogue there is at least this one NOS -named filter (audiophile favorite), which has ridiculously strong  (several decibels) attenuation.   


I don´t know what exactly you have tested, but in my opinion ADI, with DSP disengaged, is as zero colorature of a device as device can be.

By going to enough far atom/particle/nutcase -level, there sure can be found some unpurities too, of course.

27 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-21 23:22:43)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

MstrC-117 wrote:
KaiS wrote:
MstrC-117 wrote:

DSP hands off -state ADI sounds like straight wire. Colorature level absolute zero. Not practically possible to be any more neutral.

That’s not quite what I found - between sample rates 44.1 and 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz and higher, there is an audible difference (tested with an analog turntable e.g.).

This alone says 44.1 is NOT “wire with gain”.

The DAC-Filters sound a little different too for the lower SR’s.

DA-filter´s possible treble shave-down effect goes further up, away to inaudible ultrasonic frequencies, when sample rate increases. Other filters than SD Sharp may have this shaving effect audible in 44.1 and 48 k sample rates. In ADI´s DA-filter catalogue there is at least this one NOS -named filter (audiophile favorite), which has ridiculously strong  (several decibels) attenuation.

I think the filter’s sound differences are not very much related to a few dB treble more or less, in the upmost 1/2 octave.
I’ve tested the EQ compensation, but that didn’t change much for me.

It’s more about the balance between better transient response and acceptable amount of aliasing.
NOS, in my experience, is already too far from the latter.

AKM’s “Slow” and ESS’ “SD LD” are my favorites (equally named filters are different on both chips).


When, in my studio, mixing multi-microphone recordings I have the option to time-align main and spot-mics.
This does not change the frequency response - spot and main mic’s are purposely place in different axis’ to the instrument to avoid cancellations - but improves the transients.
The sound difference is very significant, and not always is a sharp focus a change to the better!

The DA-Filter’s sound effects heads in the same direction, but to a lesser amount.

MstrC-117 wrote:

I don´t know what exactly you have tested, but in my opinion ADI, with DSP disengaged, is as zero colorature of a device as device can be.

By going to enough far atom/particle/nutcase -level, there sure can be found some unpurities too, of course.

I’m mainly referring to my experience with ADI-2/4 Pro SE as AD/DA with a turntable connected.
Changing the sample rate makes a significant sound difference, to the better at higher SR’s, specially from 44.1 to 96 kHz or higher.

This simply means, 44.1 is not the max. possible neutrality, not “wire with gain”.
Not that I want to say any other DACs can do better at 44.1 kHz.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:

AKM’s “Slow” and ESS’ “SD LD” are my favorites (equally named filters are different on both chips).

SD LD is AKM afaik? Just curious which one you mean.

I always appreciate your very very informative and helpful posts! Thanks very much for taking the time!

29 (edited by MstrC-117 2023-03-22 21:52:16)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:

I’m mainly referring to my experience with ADI-2/4 Pro SE as AD/DA with a turntable connected.
Changing the sample rate makes a significant sound difference, to the better at higher SR’s, specially from 44.1 to 96 kHz or higher.

This simply means, 44.1 is not the max. possible neutrality, not “wire with gain”.
Not that I want to say any other DACs can do better at 44.1 kHz.

Aha, so you were talking about AD-conversion along in chain?

Well, that changes things and increases difficulty level to achieve that coveted Straight Wire -tier substantially.

In that case ADI´s AD-filter selection from input side comes along to play also. In lower sample rates it may have audible, combined/summed up shave-down -effect, with DA-filter from output side. Which higher sample rate again moves further away, to there ultrasonic region (out of human hearing range).

So yes, I agree, best digitizing results are quite possibly achieved running ADI on higher sample rates, to keep those AD-DA -double filtering effects and other analog conversion extra-anomalies out of being audible.


In analog input -tasks I haven´t myself tested lower sample rates at all, I have always run ADI at only 192 kHz from analog input. Very, very transparent that is, even then. I would go as far as awarding Straight Wire -certificate to it too, even in those hardened AD-DA -conditions.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:
MstrC-117 wrote:
KaiS wrote:

That’s not quite what I found - between sample rates 44.1 and 48 kHz vs. 96 kHz and higher, there is an audible difference (tested with an analog turntable e.g.).

This alone says 44.1 is NOT “wire with gain”.

The DAC-Filters sound a little different too for the lower SR’s.

DA-filter´s possible treble shave-down effect goes further up, away to inaudible ultrasonic frequencies, when sample rate increases. Other filters than SD Sharp may have this shaving effect audible in 44.1 and 48 k sample rates. In ADI´s DA-filter catalogue there is at least this one NOS -named filter (audiophile favorite), which has ridiculously strong  (several decibels) attenuation.

I think the filter’s sound differences are not very much related to a few dB treble more or less, in the upmost 1/2 octave.
I’ve tested the EQ compensation, but that didn’t change much for me.

It’s more about the balance between better transient response and acceptable amount of aliasing.
NOS, in my experience, is already too far from the latter.

AKM’s “Slow” and ESS’ “SD LD” are my favorites (equally named filters are different on both chips).


When, in my studio, mixing multi-microphone recordings I have the option to time-align main and spot-mics.
This does not change the frequency response - spot and main mic’s are purposely place in different axis’ to the instrument to avoid cancellations - but improves the transients.
The sound difference is very significant, and not always is a sharp focus a change to the better!

The DA-Filter’s sound effects heads in the same direction, but to a lesser amount.

MstrC-117 wrote:

I don´t know what exactly you have tested, but in my opinion ADI, with DSP disengaged, is as zero colorature of a device as device can be.

By going to enough far atom/particle/nutcase -level, there sure can be found some unpurities too, of course.

I’m mainly referring to my experience with ADI-2/4 Pro SE as AD/DA with a turntable connected.
Changing the sample rate makes a significant sound difference, to the better at higher SR’s, specially from 44.1 to 96 kHz or higher.

This simply means, 44.1 is not the max. possible neutrality, not “wire with gain”.
Not that I want to say any other DACs can do better at 44.1 kHz.


I usually do REW freq response measurements but also RT60 decay when comparing devices.   Because I don’t have an analyzer.

The RME is different than the Marantz in the 200hz-360hz region in the RT60 decay measurements.   Mind you I did a bunch to compensate for room temp , mic temp , etc.
the RME in that test has a slight dip in those freq the way my stereo is setup. 
The Marantz is pretty flat from 100hz to 7khz. 

Of,course that can be adjusted by speaker placement.

But I also hear the Marantz fuller and with a deeper soundstage.
And that just could be added distortion from the Marantz.  Not enough distortion to hide details but make the soundstage bigger and deeper.
So I don’t know. 

All I know is my ears prefer the Marantz. 

I didn’t come here to throw anything in anyones face.  That is NEVER my intent.  I came to ask questions about the RME before I bought it because it was highly recommended to me by the author of HQplayer

Peace.

31 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-23 07:56:59)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

You like the Marantz’ sound better - I’m perfectly fine with that.


Just a sidemark:
RT60 (Reverberation Time 60 dB) is nothing that electronics have any influence on, it’s a relatively course acoustics / room reverb measurement.

No electronic device has a “post ringing”, creates reverb.
If you find differences in measurements of it it’s just that RT60 is not very repeatable, e.g. room and mic noise changes the result for each run.

Acoustic measurements in general have no better repeatability than +/- 0.5 dB IF YOU DON’T CHANGE THE MIC POSITION.
If you re-do the setup the repeatability is much lower.

Electronics are to be measured in the electric domain, not through speakers in a room.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:

You like the Marantz’ sound better - I’m perfectly fine with that.


Just a sidemark:
RT60 is nothing that electronics have any influence on, it’s a relatively course acoustics / room reverb measurement.

No electronic device has a “post ringing”, creates reverb.
If you find differences in measurements of it it’s just that RT60 is not very repeatable, e.g. room and mic noise changes the result for each run.

Acoustic measurements in general have no better repeatability than +/- 0.5 dB IF YOU DON’T CHANGE THE MIC POSITION.
If you re-do the setup the repeatability is much lower.

Electronics are to be measured in the electric domain, not through speakers in a room.


True.   Even ambience/temp of mic, drivers etc will make a difference.

I ran the tests around 4 times to make sure.
But in the end you are right.


Thanks for not attacking me.   
I’m not trying to ‘ bash’ anything here. 
Just wanted some info on the RME. 

As a musician of 40 years this is kinda what I hear from it that I don’t like. 

I’ll try and explain this without too much music theory. 

If you have a jazz trio.  Or any trio playing.   
They are spaced a certain distance from each other according to venue and if they are acoustic , rely on a PA etc.
if they have no PA they can’t get too far from each other. 
I’ll get to what I’m trying to say here from that.

Let’s say it’s a guitar , vocal and upright bass. 
The guitar might be playing the 3rd , the bass the fundamental and the vocal will sing around the 5th sometimes or play in harmony with the guitar and bass. 
These notes create what is called harmony. 
The notes actually also interact with each other ( which is why everyone needs to be in tune with each other) and they also create a whole sound emanating from all instruments , kind of binding them together. 

So when people say “ oh this DAC or piece of gear spaces the instruments properly apart from each other “ sometimes that is good up to a point. 

Recently I went to see Beethoven’s 3rd at a concert hall.   
In the most common classical fashion the violins were on the left , cellos one the right with the bass.   They off course make up the most players.
One Oboe in the back middle , one bassoon, one flute , etc. 

Yes you could hear the violins clearly come from the left and differentiate them from the cellos.  But they also created a large soundscape all across when they were in harmony.   

The RME for some reason separates the instruments to the point where I can’t hear a central harmony so much. 

I’ve also heard DACs which are just a mush of everything together.

But the Marantz keeps separation while also hearing that central harmony of all the instruments more. 

Maybe too low of THD isn’t a good thing after all. 
I have no idea.
Maybe it should be kept around 0.001% to have that more binding effect of everything.
Maybe that’s what people like about vinyl?

Don’t know.
Just throwing things out there and what I didn’t like about the RME.

Maybe that’s what makes it sound a bit flat as well to me. 
Who knows. 

Peace and thank you for the civilized conversation.

33 (edited by KaiS 2023-03-23 09:50:10)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

I can see what you’re after.

Harmonic Distortions in the sub-‰-range, in my experience, have no audible effect on the result.
To hear them they need to be above 1% at least.

The parameter that varies this separation vs. “glue” (as some audio engineers call it) would be the choice of the DA-Filter.
It’s the single one factor DAC-designers do use for decades to create a certain sound without completely leaving the neutral territory.

I’d be curious which one comes closest to your ideal on ADI-2.
Remember it has most effect for music playing at 44.1 kHz sample rate.


One has to admit, that 99% of this separation<>glue is created in the studio / recording process.
During production I can go into one direction or the other, always based on what the musicians deliver.

That’s the reason why no two recordings of classical music pieces sound the same.

It’s a complex synergy, even interaction, from what the director heads for, the musicians perform, the hall sound, microphone placement and selection, which takes are created in recording and used during editing, and finally how the microphones are mixed (which by itself is a complex process).


To me it’s always a bit funny if I see how much I can change during the recording process and what minimal, subtle differences are discussed for the equipment reproducing these.

As an audio engineer it’s more like the question:

How will it sound on iPhone vs big speaker, in a car, headphones, on a small radio etc., that influences decisions done.
Just lately I had a production where the director used Bose headphones, so I had to make the recording sound great on those.
And- it’s alway the musical performance that’s center of all efforts.
If the performance is great it will work everywhere.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:
KaiS wrote:

You like the Marantz’ sound better - I’m perfectly fine with that.


Just a sidemark:
RT60 is nothing that electronics have any influence on, it’s a relatively course acoustics / room reverb measurement.

No electronic device has a “post ringing”, creates reverb.
If you find differences in measurements of it it’s just that RT60 is not very repeatable, e.g. room and mic noise changes the result for each run.

Acoustic measurements in general have no better repeatability than +/- 0.5 dB IF YOU DON’T CHANGE THE MIC POSITION.
If you re-do the setup the repeatability is much lower.

Electronics are to be measured in the electric domain, not through speakers in a room.


True.   Even ambience/temp of mic, drivers etc will make a difference.

I ran the tests around 4 times to make sure.
But in the end you are right.


Thanks for not attacking me.   
I’m not trying to ‘ bash’ anything here. 
Just wanted some info on the RME. 

As a musician of 40 years this is kinda what I hear from it that I don’t like. 

I’ll try and explain this without too much music theory. 

If you have a jazz trio.  Or any trio playing.   
They are spaced a certain distance from each other according to venue and if they are acoustic , rely on a PA etc.
if they have no PA they can’t get too far from each other. 
I’ll get to what I’m trying to say here from that.

Let’s say it’s a guitar , vocal and upright bass. 
The guitar might be playing the 3rd , the bass the fundamental and the vocal will sing around the 5th sometimes or play in harmony with the guitar and bass. 
These notes create what is called harmony. 
The notes actually also interact with each other ( which is why everyone needs to be in tune with each other) and they also create a whole sound emanating from all instruments , kind of binding them together. 

So when people say “ oh this DAC or piece of gear spaces the instruments properly apart from each other “ sometimes that is good up to a point. 

Recently I went to see Beethoven’s 3rd at a concert hall.   
In the most common classical fashion the violins were on the left , cellos one the right with the bass.   They off course make up the most players.
One Oboe in the back middle , one bassoon, one flute , etc. 

Yes you could hear the violins clearly come from the left and differentiate them from the cellos.  But they also created a large soundscape all across when they were in harmony.   

The RME for some reason separates the instruments to the point where I can’t hear a central harmony so much. 

I’ve also heard DACs which are just a mush of everything together.

But the Marantz keeps separation while also hearing that central harmony of all the instruments more. 

Maybe too low of THD isn’t a good thing after all. 
I have no idea.
Maybe it should be kept around 0.001% to have that more binding effect of everything.
Maybe that’s what people like about vinyl?

Don’t know.
Just throwing things out there and what I didn’t like about the RME.

Maybe that’s what makes it sound a bit flat as well to me. 
Who knows. 

Peace and thank you for the civilized conversation.

With this phenomena you are clearly in the psychoacoustic regions, that is a good thing because the experience of music is in our heads, but a bad thing cause it is very influenceable. It would be very interesting, if you did not know what dac your are listening to if the results would be the same. and repeatable.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

vinark wrote:
Nkam wrote:
KaiS wrote:

You like the Marantz’ sound better - I’m perfectly fine with that.


Just a sidemark:
RT60 is nothing that electronics have any influence on, it’s a relatively course acoustics / room reverb measurement.

No electronic device has a “post ringing”, creates reverb.
If you find differences in measurements of it it’s just that RT60 is not very repeatable, e.g. room and mic noise changes the result for each run.

Acoustic measurements in general have no better repeatability than +/- 0.5 dB IF YOU DON’T CHANGE THE MIC POSITION.
If you re-do the setup the repeatability is much lower.

Electronics are to be measured in the electric domain, not through speakers in a room.


True.   Even ambience/temp of mic, drivers etc will make a difference.

I ran the tests around 4 times to make sure.
But in the end you are right.


Thanks for not attacking me.   
I’m not trying to ‘ bash’ anything here. 
Just wanted some info on the RME. 

As a musician of 40 years this is kinda what I hear from it that I don’t like. 

I’ll try and explain this without too much music theory. 

If you have a jazz trio.  Or any trio playing.   
They are spaced a certain distance from each other according to venue and if they are acoustic , rely on a PA etc.
if they have no PA they can’t get too far from each other. 
I’ll get to what I’m trying to say here from that.

Let’s say it’s a guitar , vocal and upright bass. 
The guitar might be playing the 3rd , the bass the fundamental and the vocal will sing around the 5th sometimes or play in harmony with the guitar and bass. 
These notes create what is called harmony. 
The notes actually also interact with each other ( which is why everyone needs to be in tune with each other) and they also create a whole sound emanating from all instruments , kind of binding them together. 

So when people say “ oh this DAC or piece of gear spaces the instruments properly apart from each other “ sometimes that is good up to a point. 

Recently I went to see Beethoven’s 3rd at a concert hall.   
In the most common classical fashion the violins were on the left , cellos one the right with the bass.   They off course make up the most players.
One Oboe in the back middle , one bassoon, one flute , etc. 

Yes you could hear the violins clearly come from the left and differentiate them from the cellos.  But they also created a large soundscape all across when they were in harmony.   

The RME for some reason separates the instruments to the point where I can’t hear a central harmony so much. 

I’ve also heard DACs which are just a mush of everything together.

But the Marantz keeps separation while also hearing that central harmony of all the instruments more. 

Maybe too low of THD isn’t a good thing after all. 
I have no idea.
Maybe it should be kept around 0.001% to have that more binding effect of everything.
Maybe that’s what people like about vinyl?

Don’t know.
Just throwing things out there and what I didn’t like about the RME.

Maybe that’s what makes it sound a bit flat as well to me. 
Who knows. 

Peace and thank you for the civilized conversation.

With this phenomena you are clearly in the psychoacoustic regions, that is a good thing because the experience of music is in our heads, but a bad thing cause it is very influenceable. It would be very interesting, if you did not know what dac your are listening to if the results would be the same. and repeatable.

I’ve done blind tests.  And passed them quite easily.

Again I’m not bragging. Please don’t take it that way.
But do you know what playing musical instruments for 40+ years does to your hearing? 
The way a musician can identify differences is much different than someone not trained in music. 
Studio engineers have some of that as well
But as you become intimate with you instrument you get at least great relative pitch and your hearing is much more focused than many. 

It’s super easy to me to tell the RME apart from my Marantz and other DACs
In fact it takes me only seconds or minute to see if I like something and pinpoint it.
I studied and played music for a long time.  It’s hard work. Super hard work.

And it does make your hearing better.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

KaiS wrote:

I can see what you’re after.

Harmonic Distortions in the sub-‰-range, in my experience, have no audible effect on the result.
To hear them they need to be above 1% at least.

The parameter that varies this separation vs. “glue” (as some audio engineers call it) would be the choice of the DA-Filter.
It’s the single one factor DAC-designers do use for decades to create a certain sound without completely leaving the neutral territory.

I’d be curious which one comes closest to your ideal on ADI-2.
Remember it has most effect for music playing at 44.1 kHz sample rate.


One has to admit, that 99% of this separation<>glue is created in the studio / recording process.
During production I can go into one direction or the other, always based on what the musicians deliver.

That’s the reason why no two recordings of classical music pieces sound the same.

It’s a complex synergy, even interaction, from what the director heads for, the musicians perform, the hall sound, microphone placement and selection, which takes are created in recording and used during editing, and finally how the microphones are mixed (which by itself is a complex process).


To me it’s always a bit funny if I see how much I can change during the recording process and what minimal, subtle differences are discussed for the equipment reproducing these.

As an audio engineer it’s more like the question:

How will it sound on iPhone vs big speaker, in a car, headphones, on a small radio etc., that influences decisions done.
Just lately I had a production where the director used Bose headphones, so I had to make the recording sound great on those.
And- it’s alway the musical performance that’s center of all efforts.
If the performance is great it will work everywhere.

Yeah I don’t know what produces that result. 
No idea.   I have my theory on THD.   
But I don’t have experience as let’s say someone who makes DACs and has messed around with those variables. 

It was just a theory.   

I would love to learn more about all of this.
Would be great to have a DAC maker explain all this and what changes qualitatively when they change parameters in their DACS. 
That’s the only way to really know

I also use HQplayer a lot.   And those filters are amazing. 
But it still doesn’t make the change I’m looking for.

Thanks once again , appreciate the great convo

37 (edited by vinark 2023-03-23 11:10:39)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:
vinark wrote:
Nkam wrote:

True.   Even ambience/temp of mic, drivers etc will make a difference.

I ran the tests around 4 times to make sure.
But in the end you are right.


Thanks for not attacking me.   
I’m not trying to ‘ bash’ anything here. 
Just wanted some info on the RME. 

As a musician of 40 years this is kinda what I hear from it that I don’t like. 

I’ll try and explain this without too much music theory. 

If you have a jazz trio.  Or any trio playing.   
They are spaced a certain distance from each other according to venue and if they are acoustic , rely on a PA etc.
if they have no PA they can’t get too far from each other. 
I’ll get to what I’m trying to say here from that.

Let’s say it’s a guitar , vocal and upright bass. 
The guitar might be playing the 3rd , the bass the fundamental and the vocal will sing around the 5th sometimes or play in harmony with the guitar and bass. 
These notes create what is called harmony. 
The notes actually also interact with each other ( which is why everyone needs to be in tune with each other) and they also create a whole sound emanating from all instruments , kind of binding them together. 

So when people say “ oh this DAC or piece of gear spaces the instruments properly apart from each other “ sometimes that is good up to a point. 

Recently I went to see Beethoven’s 3rd at a concert hall.   
In the most common classical fashion the violins were on the left , cellos one the right with the bass.   They off course make up the most players.
One Oboe in the back middle , one bassoon, one flute , etc. 

Yes you could hear the violins clearly come from the left and differentiate them from the cellos.  But they also created a large soundscape all across when they were in harmony.   

The RME for some reason separates the instruments to the point where I can’t hear a central harmony so much. 

I’ve also heard DACs which are just a mush of everything together.

But the Marantz keeps separation while also hearing that central harmony of all the instruments more. 

Maybe too low of THD isn’t a good thing after all. 
I have no idea.
Maybe it should be kept around 0.001% to have that more binding effect of everything.
Maybe that’s what people like about vinyl?

Don’t know.
Just throwing things out there and what I didn’t like about the RME.

Maybe that’s what makes it sound a bit flat as well to me. 
Who knows. 

Peace and thank you for the civilized conversation.

With this phenomena you are clearly in the psychoacoustic regions, that is a good thing because the experience of music is in our heads, but a bad thing cause it is very influenceable. It would be very interesting, if you did not know what dac your are listening to if the results would be the same. and repeatable.

I’ve done blind tests.  And passed them quite easily.

Again I’m not bragging. Please don’t take it that way.
But do you know what playing musical instruments for 40+ years does to your hearing? 
The way a musician can identify differences is much different than someone not trained in music. 
Studio engineers have some of that as well
But as you become intimate with you instrument you get at least great relative pitch and your hearing is much more focused than many. 

It’s super easy to me to tell the RME apart from my Marantz and other DACs
In fact it takes me only seconds or minute to see if I like something and pinpoint it.
I studied and played music for a long time.  It’s hard work. Super hard work.

And it does make your hearing better.

Musician and music producer for over 40 years and I did not think you are bragging or anything. Just curious what could cause this effect in this case. If it is specific to the Marantz, they should create an audi plugin of it. Having simple control over separatation vs blending would be very interesting.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

38 (edited by weme 2023-03-24 15:55:30)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

I have a Benchmark LA4 preamp into a Benchmark AHB2 amp out to two proac DT8 with external crossovers I built. 
The Marantz HD DAC1 and Beyerdynamic DT1990pro headphones.

I set the RME in DAC mode and set the output to +24db since the benchmark DAC3 is +24db and the rest of my setup is benchmark.

The RME for some reason separates the instruments to the point where I can’t hear a central harmony so much. 
But the Marantz keeps separation while also hearing that central harmony of all the instruments more. 
(Maybe that’s what makes it) sound a bit flat as well to me.

It’s super easy to me to tell the RME apart from my Marantz and other DACs
In fact it takes me only seconds or minute to see if I like something and pinpoint it.

a musician with 40+ years of playing

Your listening test information about "RME ADI-2 PRO" vs Marantz HD-DAC1 is very interesting. After my recherche on the Marantz HD-DAC1 I now also understand the background of your technical questions (#1, ...).

The Marantz HD-DAC1 (DAC chip CS4398) has analogue output amplifiers (HDAM / HDAM SA2) for headphones and audio out: HDAM (Hyper Dynamic Amplifier Modules) are discrete circuits (requiring partially selected transistors) as an alternative to operational amplifiers.
https://www.marantz.com.tw/de-de/shop/u … ers/hddac1

https://www.diyaudio.com/community/thre … ule.92395/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/thre … st-5148718
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/thre … st-4827512
...
https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/marantz-hd-dac1 <- also contains measurements

I can understand that you are disappointed with the listening results of the RME ADI-2 PRO. From a technical point of view, we unfortunately lack comparative measurements of the dynamic intermodulation (DIM), etc.

Listening test (don't need a blind test) / measurements:
If someone has their device-related emotions under control, they don't need a blind test to find the best listening result! I use short audio-sequences that interest me for comparison, your audio sequences may be longer. The output levels of the amplifiers are the same or differ by a maximum of < 0.5 dB (even less when testing with headphones).

For measuring, you could buy or borrow a simple digital multimeter and make comparative measurements, e.g. with ~ 440 Hz. Because you only make comparative measurements at short time intervals and under the same temperature conditions, you have very accurate measurements. Left and right channels must be measured. Conversion of values to dB:
=20*(LOG(value or name of cell;10))

Some questions:

DAC filter: According to your information above you might not be able to hear frequencies e.g. > 15 kHz. Do you hear differences between the DAC filters and can you describe them?

You bought an RME ADI-2 Pro FS R?

Your audio sources (SPDIF, USB, ... with sample rate) for testing are?

If USB: settings in the driver comparable?

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

vinark wrote:
Nkam wrote:
vinark wrote:

With this phenomena you are clearly in the psychoacoustic regions, that is a good thing because the experience of music is in our heads, but a bad thing cause it is very influenceable. It would be very interesting, if you did not know what dac your are listening to if the results would be the same. and repeatable.

I’ve done blind tests.  And passed them quite easily.

Again I’m not bragging. Please don’t take it that way.
But do you know what playing musical instruments for 40+ years does to your hearing? 
The way a musician can identify differences is much different than someone not trained in music. 
Studio engineers have some of that as well
But as you become intimate with you instrument you get at least great relative pitch and your hearing is much more focused than many. 

It’s super easy to me to tell the RME apart from my Marantz and other DACs
In fact it takes me only seconds or minute to see if I like something and pinpoint it.
I studied and played music for a long time.  It’s hard work. Super hard work.

And it does make your hearing better.

Musician and music producer for over 40 years and I did not think you are bragging or anything. Just curious what could cause this effect in this case. If it is specific to the Marantz, they should create an audi plugin of it. Having simple control over separatation vs blending would be very interesting.

I don’t know what causes it.   That’s why I was just assuming THD. 
And from that technical aspect I’m totally a novice .
But I have heard DACs with higher THD around 0.01% and they tend to be too much of a single blob mess. 
Again just a theory and assumption.
I would love to be able to build a DAC and monitor the THD level in the output stage to see what effect it has on the overall sound.

Maybe that’s why some people love vinyl ?

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

weme wrote:
Nkam wrote:

I have a Benchmark LA4 preamp into a Benchmark AHB2 amp out to two proac DT8 with external crossovers I built. 
The Marantz HD DAC1 and Beyerdynamic DT1990pro headphones.

I set the RME in DAC mode and set the output to +24db since the benchmark DAC3 is +24db and the rest of my setup is benchmark.

The RME for some reason separates the instruments to the point where I can’t hear a central harmony so much. 
But the Marantz keeps separation while also hearing that central harmony of all the instruments more. 
(Maybe that’s what makes it) sound a bit flat as well to me.

It’s super easy to me to tell the RME apart from my Marantz and other DACs
In fact it takes me only seconds or minute to see if I like something and pinpoint it.

a musician with 40+ years of playing

Your listening test information about "RME ADI-2 PRO" vs Marantz HD-DAC1 is very interesting. After my recherche on the Marantz HD-DAC1 I now also understand the background of your technical questions (#1, ...).

The Marantz HD-DAC1 (DAC chip CS4398) has analogue output amplifiers (HDAM / HDAM SA2) for headphones and audio out: HDAM (Hyper Dynamic Amplifier Modules) are discrete circuits (requiring partially selected transistors) as an alternative to operational amplifiers.
https://www.marantz.com.tw/de-de/shop/u … ers/hddac1

https://www.diyaudio.com/community/thre … ule.92395/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/thre … st-5148718
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/thre … st-4827512
...
https://www.whathifi.com/reviews/marantz-hd-dac1 <- also contains measurements

I can understand that you are disappointed with the listening results of the RME ADI-2 PRO. From a technical point of view, we unfortunately lack comparative measurements of the dynamic intermodulation (DIM), etc.

Listening test / measurements:
If someone has their device-related emotions under control, they don't need a blind test to find the best listening result! I use short audio-sequences that interest me for comparison, your audio sequences may be longer. The output levels of the amplifiers are the same or differ by a maximum of < 0.5 dB (even less when testing with headphones).

For measuring, you could buy or borrow a simple digital multimeter and make comparative measurements, e.g. with ~ 440 Hz. Because you only make comparative measurements at short time intervals and under the same temperature conditions, you have very accurate measurements. Left and right channels must be measured. Conversion of values to dB:
=20*(LOG(value or name of cell;10))

Some questions:

DAC filter: According to your information above you might not be able to hear frequencies e.g. > 15 kHz. Do you hear differences between the DAC filters and can you describe them?

You bought an RME ADI-2 Pro FS R?

Your audio sources (SPDIF, USB, ... with sample rate) for testing are?

If USB: settings in the driver comparable?

Yeah I have a digital multimeter. 
And I always volume match. 


Yes the Marantz has a discreet analog output section so that is very different right there. 
It also has a bit more THD at 0.001%

I have no idea why this happens with some DACs.

41 (edited by weme 2023-03-24 16:08:53)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

It’s super easy to me to tell the RME apart from my Marantz and other DACs
In fact it takes me only seconds or minute to see if I like something and pinpoint it.
a musician with 40+ years of playing

Yes the Marantz (HD-DAC1) has a discreet analog output section so that is very different right there.

I would love to be able to build a DAC and monitor the THD level in the output stage to see what effect it has on the overall sound.

Measurements of THD (THD+N) [Total Harmonic Distortion + noise] are only static measurements and can therefore never (!) explain the sound of amplifier circuits if certain listener-individual values are undercut - it is similar with IMD (Intermodulation Distortion).

In the audio field we unfortunately have this standard situation: at the request of marketing people as well as the "decades of trained needs of the majority of buyers".

Static measurements of THD or THD+N (plus noise):
- e.g. at 1 kHz (one single measurement, one frequency).
- e.g. in a range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz (a number of single measurements)

Very simple dynamic measurements of IMD
- Here only the distortions of one frequency pair (i.e. only 2 frequencies) are measured.


Test the audibility of THD / IMD yourself:

Take audio signals and adjust the volume for your headphones. Note the volume (in dB !) and then reduce the volume on the Marantz HD DAC1 / RME ADI-2 PRO:

-dB -> THD / IMD [%}
-50 -> 0,316
-51 -> 0,282
-52 -> 0,251
-53 -> 0,224
-54 -> 0,200
-55 -> 0,178
-56 -> 0,158
-57 -> 0,141
-58 -> 0,126
-59 -> 0,112
-60 -> 0,100
-61 -> 0,089
-62 -> 0,079
-63 -> 0,071
-64 -> 0,063
-65 -> 0,056
-66 -> 0,050
-67 -> 0,045
-68 -> 0,040
-69 -> 0,035
-70 -> 0,032
...

Here you can read what @MC (engineer and owner of companies like RME) writes about THD:
"Very high values (10.0k) cause around -60 dB distortion (0.1%). It is therefore also possible to use K2 and K3 separately and intentionally as an effect. This can be quite instructive - when one notices that no difference between 0.1% and 0.0001% distortion is audible."
User’s Guide ADI-2 DAC v3.1, page 28


The more complex the music is (organ / orchestra / ...), the more dynamic distortions have an effect: Instruments, vocals are covered by a fog / curtain.

To evaluate audio amplifiers we need other standard measurements:
- DIM (Dynamic Intermodulation distortion) in %.
- TIM (Transient Intermodulation) in %.
- Multitone measurements in %
...
- For digital signal sources (file): Digitise analogue output signals, save as a file and compare with the original.

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Does anyone know if the analog output stage opamps in the RME pro Black edition is biased in Class A?

The unit gets pretty darn hot.

43

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

The unit is full of components. No need for Class A to get warm to hot.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam wrote:

I would love to learn more about all of this.

Maybe this helps: http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/FindingCG.html
Very Interesting Article!

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

hasan.ay386 wrote:
Nkam wrote:

I would love to learn more about all of this.

Maybe this helps: http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/FindingCG.html
Very Interesting Article!

Wow - Just skimmed it - but very enlightening read!

MADIface-XT+ARC / 3x HDSP MADI / ADI648
2x SSL Alphalink MADI AX
2x Multiface / 2x Digiface /2x ADI8

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Randyman... wrote:
hasan.ay386 wrote:
Nkam wrote:

I would love to learn more about all of this.

Maybe this helps: http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/FindingCG.html
Very Interesting Article!

Wow - Just skimmed it - but very enlightening read!

Load of rubbish.

47 (edited by hasan.ay386 2023-04-09 15:32:03)

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

badboygolf16v wrote:

Load of rubbish.

…Sounds a bit ignorant to me.

If you make such statements, you must also argue reasonably

Re: RME ADI -2 pro BE , WHICH OP AMPS AND NFB?

Nkam has been helped extensively here, the thread could be closed - in my opinion:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/foru … st-1555630