You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX III making the ADI-2 FS redundant?
Hi everyone,
My setup right now is a UFX with SPDIF out into my ADI-2 FS for monitoring.
I am wondering if upgrading to the UFX III would make the ADI-2 FS redundant and thus I could possibly remove it from the chain? It would help finance the upgrade...
Thanks for your help!
You can connect the loudspeakers to the UFX that you have and take out the ADI-2.
If it is redundant for you, no one can tell.
With a new UFX lll you have the newest interface and no need to connect further units.
The analog outputs of the interfaces are all very good. (for me)
You can connect the loudspeakers to the UFX that you have and take out the ADI-2.
If it is redundant for you, no one can tell.
With a new UFX lll you have the newest interface and no need to connect further units.
The analog outputs of the interfaces are all very good. (for me)
Thank you. I am using the ADI-2 to have better conversion for monitoring. Is it a huge difference from the UFX? I don't know, but I did not want to have to "doubt" that my monitoring was not optimal.
Is the conversion on the UFX III better or on par with the ADI-2 FS?
Anybody willing to comment on the conversion ADI-2 FS vs RME UFX III? Is one better than the other or are they on par with each other?
Thanks 
No RME device is designed to sound "better" than (as in somehow specfifically different from) others.
You can compare technical specifications in the manuals. Whether or not you can hear any difference is something only your ears can tell you....
FWIW, I was using an ADI-2 Pro fs with a ff800. When I got the UFX3, I hooked it up the same way (adi for monitors) then switched to the UFX and was very pleasantly surprised. Sounded really good to me, and I took the ADI out of the chain.
I didn't do a bunch of a/b testing, but I could tell immediately it was more than fine. One thing I notice with that stuff is after using it for a while, or playing through it, I either still like it after a while or something is bothering me. That's sort of my super unscientific test, but it holds some truth to me from past experiments.
You could test yourself if you get one and know for sure, and then sell the ADI if you really wanted to find out how it works for you. If you sell the ADI first, you might always be second guessing yourself. Just a thought.
I just got the UFX III a couple of days ago.
Here was my setup before:
UFX -> ADI-2 DAC FS (through AES) -> Unity Audio Boulders MKII
Now I changed to:
UFX III -> ADI-2 DAC FS (through AES) -> Unity Audio Boulders MKII
Is it possible that the detail has improved even though I am using the AES out on both setup? Would it make a difference at all? Am I being played by my own mind? I feel like everything has opened up, but I am quite aware of the brain's trick on the mind...
Anyone can attest if the DA has an impact on the AES out ?
EDIT: rephrased, some comments on FS clock, please re-read.
What do you have, an ADI-2 FS or an ADI-2 DAC FS? Could you kindly stay consistent in your product descriptions? Thanks.
Option A) if you connected an ADI-2 DAC FS as clock slave:
- D/A conversion happens in both cases (UFX, UFX III) on the ADI-2 DAC FS
- using it's internal FS clock
In this case, no difference whether you use UFX or UFX III
Option b) if you connected an ADI-2 FS as clock slave:
- D/A conversion happens in both cases (UFX, UFX III) on the ADI-2 FS
- but if I remember right clock is being used from clock master (either UFX or UFX III)
So, if I recall it right, the ADI-2 FS would use the clock from AES which is in the case of UFX III a FS clock.
Then it could be, that there is maybe a little difference in sound.
But I also remember that it has been mentioned on forum, that the introduction of FS clock alone with the ADI-2 Pro FS it delivered only better measurable but not audible better results.
The question is
- what device you have exactly and whether I remembered correctly that ADI-2 FS would use the clock from AES and
- whether you did proper blind testing to avoid any bias ..
I think there is a good chance that the difference is based on expectation / psychoacoustic effects, if tests have not been performed as blind tests with quick A/B tests possible.
EDIT: rephrased, some comments on FS clock, please re-read.
What do you have, an ADI-2 FS or an ADI-2 DAC FS? Could you kindly stay consistent in your product descriptions? Thanks.
Option A) if you connected an ADI-2 DAC FS as clock slave:
- D/A conversion happens in both cases (UFX, UFX III) on the ADI-2 DAC FS
- using it's internal FS clock
In this case, no difference whether you use UFX or UFX IIIOption b) if you connected an ADI-2 FS as clock slave:
- D/A conversion happens in both cases (UFX, UFX III) on the ADI-2 FS
- but if I remember right clock is being used from clock master (either UFX or UFX III)So, if I recall it right, the ADI-2 FS would use the clock from AES which is in the case of UFX III a FS clock.
Then it could be, that there is maybe a little difference in sound.
But I also remember that it has been mentioned on forum, that the introduction of FS clock alone with the ADI-2 Pro FS it delivered only better measurable but not audible better results.The question is
- what device you have exactly and whether I remembered correctly that ADI-2 FS would use the clock from AES and
- whether you did proper blind testing to avoid any bias ..I think there is a good chance that the difference is based on expectation / psychoacoustic effects, if tests have not been performed as blind tests with quick A/B tests possible.
It is the ADI-2 DAC FS. I also suspected it was my mind playing tricks on me. Next step is to see if I can hear any difference from the UFX III vs the ADI-2 DAC FS. Thank you
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → UFX III making the ADI-2 FS redundant?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.