fulano wrote:thank you for your response. the UCX II seems a bit overkill for my needs, as I don't really record more than 2 channels at a time. But it would be a smaller footprint than a BBF and an ADI-2, and so I'm open to it, as I like to have a clean desk.
But an UCX II could be more useful, if you want TM FX and if you want to avoid a combination recording interface
and ADI-2 reference converter.
In contrast to the BBF Pro FS, the UCX II has already more powerful headphone outputs, as the device is not designed to operate with limited USB bus power.
If Crossfeed should be of interest to you: UCX II will also get it, see here: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=38691. BBF Pro FS wouldn't have the needed resources free for an implementation.
fulano wrote:Am i right in thinking that the BBF Pro FS and ADI-2 and UCX II have minimal differences between them in terms of sound quality and headphone amp quality?
All RME headphone outputs are of good quality, but they differ in technical specs, power, and features.
Sound differences will most likely be only subtle, and it will also depend on the headphones that you connect.
If you own high-impedance headphones now or in the future, it could quickly become the case that the headphone outputs of a BBF Pro FS are not powerful enough. The BBF Pro FS is designed to work with (limited) USB bus power. Check the manuals, technical section. There you can see that it can only deliver a certain power.
The headphone outputs of the UCX II have already more power like the flagship interfaces.
ADI-2 DAC/Pro have even so called "extreme power" outputs which you need to drive headphones with high impedance.
See also this RME video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Zyuo-cOIk
If you're thinking long-term and want to play it safe, it's best to go straight for the ADI-2 DAC/Pro.
Besides that, you can all the additional features of an ADI-2 DAC/Pro (auto ref level, dynamic loudness, PEQ, remote, slow ramp-up of volume on channel change, …).
fulano wrote:Is the ADI-2 more geared towards audiophiles and less toward music producers/mixing/mastering engineers?
If you have read the blog article about the ADI-2 Series of devices closely, then you should be able to answer your question yourself. So you either only browsed quickly over it or you skipped relevant information. Regarding your remaining questions ...
In the 1st chapter I summarized the model history of these reference converters which started with the ADI-2 Pro.
In short: the ADI-2 DAC has the same "sonic" quality, but has been optimized for the demands of HiFi users to be able to stay under €1000 (at that time).
The ADI-2 DAC has less I/O, fewer features (no SRC, no balanced phones, one D/A converter less) and the ref levels are more fine-tuned to the demand of HiFi users. But this has nothing to do with less sonic quality, only what the typical signal strength is, that HiFi devices support on their analogue inputs.
Did you watch this video? Mastering Converter Shoot-out with the ADI-2 Pro FS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doHG32aXBDY
Do you know what the other (purely A/D converter) costs to which the ADI-2 Pro (1st version of the ADI-2 Pro FS) is being compared? Lavry Gold 122, Crane Song Hedd, both rounded €5000.
As a side note … after watching the videos, you can download the original wave files and listen to it lossless:
https://www.rme-audio.de/downloads/Eins … amples.zip
Any remaining questions or doubts, whether ADI-2 * are fully fledged studio products?
For a comparison of recording interfaces
I think you can work very well with all RME devices. They follow the paradigm of transparent high-quality conversion.
Better look for I/O and features.
See my comparison Excel here: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=35156
To sum up
As you have a BBF already, I would propose a combination of your BBF and ADI-2 DAC or Pro FS connection via ADAT.
BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13