Great idea!!

I was thinking about KaiS discoveries regarding the use of "Slow filter" for ADI-2 Pro FS.

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 08#p157808
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 68#p177168

And as we now have the same converters in the UFX III like in the ADI-2 Pro FS ... the idea came up.

EDIT: as a side note: I have not yet been able to accurately reproduce the acoustic properties of the slow filter, which KaiS described in various postings, in my environment. Perhaps I would need an acoustic optimization of the room for such subtleties, which is unfortunately not possible in our flat.
Subjectively, I tend to say that I also like the Slow Filter when I listen to it, but I can't really say why.
Maybe it's psychoacoustic, or the differences in this room are just so small that you can't hear and describe it exactly.
For now, I tell myself, it's good if KaiS could figure it out in his studio with blind tests. Then I just tell myself that it will not be wrong for my environment in principle for listening (healthy pragmatism). If it had sounded worse, then I simply would not have used the D/A filter.

I think that everyone should decide for themselves, with their ears, in their premises.
It would at least be nice to be able to use the D/A filters in the recording interface for those who want / need or simply want to it (at least for the monitoring, mastering, listening to music).

Curious if to implement the different digital filters for UFX III DAC chip it would require a physical hardware revision or would only require a firmware/software update?

It doesn't have to be complicated, a simple setting in Fireface USB Settings selecting one of the DAC filter types would do it.

RME competitors (Neumann and Merging Technologies) are currently including such a feature in their audio interfaces.

It would be a great addition.

I hope RME implement this as they appear to have a gap in their product range.

My requirements were a high end recording interface that also could perform as a high end DAC in a home hifi system. I'm sure many people have this dual use for their audio interface.

Some will say you could buy UFX III and the ADI-2 DAC FS. Yes, that would meet my needs but it would cost significantly more and also creates duplication and waste.

The duplication is because the UFX III already has great DAC conversion - it just lacks some of the useful settings of ADI-2 DAC FS -  the most important of which (for me personally) are the digital filters and the ability to accurately control volume remotely.

In a world of diminishing resources and the need to reduce emissions and waste it would be ridiculous for me to purchase ADI-2 DAC FS simply for the digital filters and better remote volume operation.

Both these things could be well implemented in the UFX III.

When controlling Main output using the sliders on the TM remote iPad app there is a slight delay and it's difficult to get a smooth volume transition using touch screen.

A feature that would act more like a physical volume remote control in the app. Tap an up arrow/button (or perhaps above slider) to increase volume 0.5dB and tap a down arrow/button (or below slider) to decrease volume 0.5dB.

I can but dream.

I didn't explain myself very well.

When I say gap, I mean an entirely modular approach with no redundancy. See:

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=37934

Managed to get a loan of ADI-2 DAC (revision B so AK4493 DAC chip) and have to say I enjoyed the slow filter playback.

It's criminal this feature is not included in the entire Fireface range UFX III, II, 802 and UCX II.

You surely will need a good and trained ear.

Using various D/A filters offers sonically subtle and delicate differences, which are likely discernible only to those with very keen ears, using high-quality equipment, ideally in an acoustically optimized environment.

The utilization of D/A filters is only possible in products where the built-in digital-to-analog converters (DACs) support D/A filtering. Each type of D/A filter has distinct characteristics. The standard filters address typical requirements, such as low latency and a nearly linear frequency response. Therefore, recording interfaces typically incorporate converters with fixed D/A filters.

Now, in certain products (e.g., UFX II and UFX III), by chance, converters are integrated that support different D/A filters. This isn't the case for every recording interface.

Consequently, the desire arose to perhaps make the D/A filters switchable, specifically for the purpose of pure monitoring or music listening.

For the standard operation of a recording interface, however, it would be advisable to use the standard filter, as low latency and a linear frequency response initially constitute the foundation—elements that anyone might require in recording, mixing, and mastering situations.

The question now is whether RME intends to overhaul its products for "potentially questionable" benefits (regarding the normal use case of a recording interface) , given that, in most cases, utilizing the standard filter with a linear frequency response would likely be more suitable for working with the recording interface.

One could argue that someone who needs all these features should consider acquiring the ADI-2*. However, not everyone can afford to do so, making it quite considerate and friendly of RME to make it switchable in the already relatively expensive flagship interfaces. This would be appealing to those who don't have the funds to purchase the ADI-2 DAC/Pro solely for monitoring purposes.

What is the benefit of the SD Slow filter, if any? Looking at the ADI-2 DAC manual the impulse response timing of SD Slow filter looks identical to Slow filter but has a small amount of additional ringing and is not phase linear. What's the point/benefit?

Yes, he doesn't mention the SD Slow filter, just the Slow filter.

I'm kind of wondering what the point of SD Slow is, what benefit it brings over just Slow?

Thanks, I did read the ADI-2 DAC manual but still none the wiser.

The frequency response of both SD Slow and Slow appears identical at 44.1 kHz.

Slow has linear phase, SD Slow doesn't.

The impulse responses of SD Slow and Slow appear almost identical except for some slight additional ringing on SD Slow.

So, I'm still struggling to see any advantage or purpose to SD Slow? Why would you use it over Slow?