Topic: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

Hi,

i have owned the original ADI-2 PRO a few years ago and now i am thinking to
get another one but since the original is discontinued i guess the most recent
model is the RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition!?

Is there any list of newly aded features and changes, or in other words,
are there any significant changes that would be interesting from a music recording perspective?

I am looking for a simple as possible setup and i am not satisfied with my current interface as it
is supposed to be a high end unit but it having major flaws that render it useless.

I do understand that the RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition does not have any preamps etc. but i would
buy an external preamp to be able to record with my dynamic and condenser microphones.

Is the windows driver still ASIO compatible or are there any changes to that?

Thanks!

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=32506

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … ses-EN-DE/

> Is the windows driver still ASIO compatible or are there any changes to that?

The only driver is the MADIface driver and this is an ASIO driver.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

Thanks, so basicaly the newest version has a remote, FS clock and a newer model AK chip!?

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

FIXXXER wrote:

Thanks, so basicaly the newest version has a remote, FS clock and a newer model AK chip!?

Yes, if you know the original model you know the current one.

You might even have a look at ADI-2/4 Pro SE that adds some features that improve studio use.

5 (edited by ramses 2024-04-29 06:37:40)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

KaiS wrote:
FIXXXER wrote:

Thanks, so basicaly the newest version has a remote, FS clock and a newer model AK chip!?

Yes, if you know the original model you know the current one.

You might even have a look at ADI-2/4 Pro SE that adds some features that improve studio use.

Yes good point

5 ref levels keep SNR/DR high over an even longer range
4x Line Output (XLR and TRS); 2nd rear output now balanced (TRS).
TRS output can be assigned to channels 3/4 as independent 2nd line output (*)
Balanced headphones use channels 3/4 only.
Single standard 4.4 mm Pentaconn plug for balanced headphones, super low noise.
Headphone amplifiers with little more power (4W balanced) including IEM power setting.
Line/Phono inputs (MM compatible) with RIAA mode "for directly digitizing vinyl discs".
Trigger out function for powering on/off external devices together with ADI-2/4.
Supported D/A Filter (7): SD Sharp, SD Slow, Sharp, Slow, SD LD, Brickwall, NOS.
New PSU ATS040T-P120, lockable, with safety ground.
Optional: DPS-2 linear power-supply from RME

(*) to get a 2nd playout path for e.g. mastering

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

@KaiS
Sounds good,thanks. I have checked the features of the Pro SE but it looks like i would be al set with the Pro FS.
I am not 100% sure about the classification on the two analog inputs, are these "line level"?

I do realize that i would need a microphone preamp and a DI box for guitar direct recording, but for devices that have a line level output, for example a amp modeler i could simply connect it to the analog inoputs, is that correct?

@ramses
i am all about simplicity and the most straight forwared setup possible, so ithink that the Pro FS would be the better choice.

I am a bit confused about the two new headphone inputs and the labeling.
Are these two separate stereo headphone inputs that could be used in balanced mode,
or do i necesarily need to have a balanced HP?

7 (edited by ramses 2024-05-01 12:44:11)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

> i am all about simplicity and the most straight forwared setup possible, so ithink that the Pro FS would be the better choice.

The devices are very similar from the basic concept, but have a slightly different feature set.
Finally, it is all about requirements and features that are or might become useful.

I am also still using two ADI-2 Pro FS R BE because at the time of the purchase the ADI-2/4 Pro SE wasn't available yet, and it works well for me. Currently, I do not need the additional features. But I wouldn't exclude making a model update some time later.

> Are these two separate stereo headphone inputs that could be used in balanced mode

(outputs) Yes, where Pentaconn plug is a new type of plug which is becoming more and more standard and saves you two separate plugs.

I still think the best and most flexible setup is still a combination of recording interface with TotalMix FX and one of these reference converters according to your current or future demands.

But if you do not want a recording interface or TotalMix FX then it could be worth thinking about an ADI-2/4 Pro SE because it offers a 2nd play out path, e.g. for a mastering chain.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

8 (edited by FIXXXER 2024-05-04 14:04:42)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

@ramses
Ok, so i got the RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition for testing.
The unit was used already, so i probably got a retoure unit, which is OK, but might be an issue...

The initial setup was a bit janky, i had to install the driver 3 times before
the interface god finally recognized and showed up in my devices list.
The procedure was as alweays, install driver, restart the pc, connect the device, restart the pc again.

After the initial setup i was able to play back and record audio within my DAW. At this point i realized again
how great the RME drivers are. With my other "high end" interfaces, (which i can name if desired) i do not have
a "steady" performance in terms of latency. The drivers of those units always report a wrong latency and the latency
always shifts a few samples evedn thoug the project sample rate, buffer size etc. in not changed.
With the MADiface driver this is no issue aat all.

However, when it comes to simplicity and ease of use, in my opinion it is not as intuitive especially when encountering
issues that can not be explained my logic.

For example, for what ever reason the volume setting on the Main 1/2 controls the volume of my headphones (3/4)
and i can absolutely not understand why this is the case. Should it not be possible to set the volumes of the analog
outputs and the headphones separately?

I have also tried ADI-2 remote but i am confused as what the purpose of this software is, as it seems like it can not control the
hardware. My tzhought was that this software is made so that people could change settings etc easily on the pc screen instead of clicking through the menues on the small display on the unit.

Am i doing it wrong or is there jsut a misunderstanding of what the doftware is used for?

Maybe the UCXII would be better for my use?
I simply want an interface that works.

9 (edited by KaiS 2024-05-04 15:47:48)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

You‘re on an old firmware - what does it show on bootup?
ADI-2 Remote App only works from a later firmware.


Volume 1/2 controls PH3/4 too, if purposely linked as “Dual Volume“.
You can see a square all around the 1/2 and 3/4 volumes on the main screen
Push the VOLUME dial once to exit “Dual Volume”.


Best do a full factory reset to eliminate all screwed settings and load the latest firmware:


RESET:

While powering up, push and hold the VOL button (NOT the VOLUME dial) and Encoder 1, until you see the message: “Reset done.

User Setups and EQ Presets are not deleted.


Or a full factory reset:

While powering up, push and hold the VOL button (NOT the VOLUME dial) and Encoder 1 and Encoder 2, until you see the message: “Reset done“.

All user Setups and EQ Presets are deleted.
Take notes before, or store them through the Remote App, if you want to keep some.

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

Thanks for the advice, i guess since the unit was previously used it might
have some unusual settings, so a factory reset is definitively a good idea!

I will report back! smile

As for the dual volume, i have read about it in the manual and i thought it was disabled.
I am doing a lot of reamping and it requires me to have the main volume at 0db to be able to have
a true 1:1 signal ratio, so it's not practical if the headphones blast at full volume at the same time! big_smile

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

OK, resetting the device to factory solved the issue with the volume,
the unit seems to work fine now and is actually usable!

I am comparing right now to my current interface (not yet sure if it is allowed to name it?)
and i like both, the other interface has a bit more dense tone,
the ADI-2 is more separated which i would prefer for mastering
but overall i can not say one is "better" than the other,
it's more a thing of flavour and preference.

On the driver side it is night and day, RME was,
is and always will be the best in this regard!

As for alternatives. to avoid having to hook up external devices like a preamp,
DI box etc. i am now also considering
to buy the UCX II, which seems to have somewhat the specs that i would require (XLR outputs would have been great)
but i see that the USB devices are sing another driver. I guess it's simply the naming ir is there a difference between the
madiface and the usb driver? I guess the USB driver simlpy has Total Mix included.

Speaking of external devices, is there a benefit in having a high end DI box VS the integrated INstrument HI-Z inputs?
From my experience a dedicated Di box sounds better, but i have not yet heard a RME HI-Z so i have no comparison.

As for mic preamps, i do not really care, as long as it's transparent and not noisy i'll take it.

I am not a fan of TotalMix at all, i do not understand how peeople can say that it is easy and logical,
to me it is everything but that, but that might be due to how my brain operates wink

As for converters, is there like a significant difference between the converters in the ADI-2 and the UCX II?
With the ADI-2 the converter is named after all, but on the UCXII spec sheet i can not find any info about the
used chips. Does anybody know which one is used for the UCXII?

Thanks in advance!

12 (edited by KaiS 2024-05-04 19:20:48)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

In my experience mic preamps make a difference, not the least because of different impedance interactions with the mic.

A lot of mid-level studio interfaces have very poor (read: cheap) mic-pre designs.
EIN often just only -110 dBu (from possible ca. -130 dBu) speaks for itself.

Hi-Z for passive (no battery inside) guitars, bass and such aren’t that problematic if they are really Hi-Z (> 1 MOhm).
Still I prefer my Klark LBB 100 DIs for the job, positioning close to the musician allows shorter instrument cables.


As for converter sound:

I don’t see night and day differences, but with lower sample rates of 44.1 and 48 kHz the filters are audible.
ADI-2 has a nice selection of those.

From 88.2 kHz and up, most converters sound transparent to me, so if you’re doing a lot of analog/digital/analog back and forth, I’d suggest to produce that way.

13 (edited by FIXXXER 2024-05-05 22:41:26)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

I am working with 48khz so i'd prefer to use the ADI-2 over the UCX II.

Of course there is the UFXIII but as i do only need 2 analog inputs and
2 analog outputs* it is way to much for me, so i can not justify buying it.

However i am still not sure if i can use the ADI-2 PRO as i need to,
maybe i can describe what i am doing in my home studio a bit further.

1. Recording and mixing music with VST and real instruments.
This includes the use of dynamic and condenser microphones,
as well as DI recordings of electrical bass and guitar.

I am aware that i rewuire a preamp and or DI box for that purpose.
My old setup with the OG ADI-2 PRO consisted of the ADDA and a Great River ME-1 NV preamp.

As far as i know nmost sudio devices work with a +4db level and as the ADI-2 PRO ican be
set to operate at those levels there shopuld be no issue connecting a preamp or DI box to
the analog inpit 1 and 2, is that correct?

2. Reamping and creating amplifier profiles
This requires sending a "test" signal from my DAW through the analog output 1 to a reamping box, to an amp,
and back into a preamp/DI Box, however as my amps (Diezel VH4 and Diezel Hagen) do have a Line out,
it should be possible to get the correct signal levels by just connecting to the line input of the ADI-2 PRO, correct?

*in this case more than 2 analog outputs would be beneficial as i would ned to disconnect my studio monitors
every time i am reamping but i see no big issue i this, so the ADI-2 PRO should be fine.

I think in theory this should all work, however as the line out on the amps and or my load box is using a TS output,
connecting a TS cable to the XLR/TRS combo input might not be optimal?

14 (edited by KaiS 2024-05-05 23:23:55)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

If you already have the original 1st genereation silver face ADI-2 Pro there’s nothing to gain buying an ADI-2 PrO FS R BE.

Due to RME’s firmware update policy your machine is on the same functional level - minus IR Remote that you don’t urgently need.


I did a comprehensive blind A/B between the 1st gen. ADI-2 Pro and the latest ADI-2/4 Pro SE:
Both are that good, no quality difference was audible.


To avoid constant replugging, front PH 3/4 can be used as send for your re-amp chain.
The headphones outputs have the same audio quality as the rear connectors.
It’s just a matter of fitting cable adapters.


Regarding levels: ADI-2 can adapt to any reasonable level you need for your purpose.

Professional recording studios BTW use +19 or +22 dBu for digital full scale.
This equals the “old, analog” +4 dBu with the then used headroom of 15-18 dB above reference.

But don’t let that be your guide, it’s just a convention, not a quality measure.

For re-amping you need to set the levels that your equipment can work with, and ADI-2 doesn’t care, it just takes what it gets.

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

Thanks for all the info!

I do not own the old ADI-2 PRO anymore but i remember how great it was, so i came back to ceck the FS R.
I sold the ADI-2 PRO and my Great River preamp because i wanted an all in one unit, went to UA, whioch i highly regret as it is not usable with Windows. After that i had another high end interface and lately bought the lastes hottest interface,
which sounds phenomenal, the ease of use is great as well but it has major flaws.
The driver is quite bad compared to RME drivers but the worst part is that the headphone output bleeds into the four inputs whioch makes recording impossible. I am still waiting for the support to handle this, if i am lucky it is not a general issue and it is just my unit that is faulty. However even if that is that is the case, there remains the bad driver, so i am already looking for an alternative, which i have hjopefully found with the ADI-2 PRO FS R!

16 (edited by ramses 2024-05-06 11:07:57)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

A combination of UFX III and ADI-2 Pro FS R BE gives you the best base for really everything.

https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … iii-en-de/

Uses the MADIface driver with down to 32 samples ASIO buffer size at single speed.

You have enough I/O ports for every kind of setup that you might need as a guitarist. Up to using the UFX III as parallel effect loop, stereo setup of guitar combos plus connecting additional analog gear like Lexicon PCM for the amp and mixing/mastering.

Should you use the Instr inputs for connecting 1 or 2 guitars, it might happen, that you require more mic inputs, so I added a 12Mic (UFX II/III and 12Mic have similar if not the same Mic preamps). For that purpose, MADI is ideal; therefore I recommend getting UFX III. By MADI you also have some spare channels for creating special Submixes that you can also record (via loopback). UFX III also has the advantage of supporting USB3 CC mode (if Linux might be a topic for you).

BTW .. the UFX III (also UFX II) uses the same converter, like the ADI-2 Pro FS.

In my setup a 2nd ADI-2 Pro FS R BE performs all AD/DA related tasks in front of a High End HiFi that I can use for Music playback and also as Monitor B, controlled by ARC USB.

Here 2 diagrams as an example / overview for you from the above-mentioned blog article:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/attachme … i-v002-jpg
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/attachme … op-etc-jpg

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

You could start with an UFX III and later (or make your wallet) decide if you need an ADI-2.

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

KaiS wrote:

You could start with an UFX III and later (or make your wallet) decide if you need an ADI-2.

+1
Would also do it in this order, as TM FX is so beneficial, one shouldn't simply omit it. The best is the combination of both to also get ADI-specific features and its SRC can sometimes also be beneficial.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

19 (edited by FIXXXER 2024-05-29 00:12:35)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

So the UFXIII has the same converter as the ADI-2 PRO FS R,
does that mean also that the audio quality is the same or can
the audio quality vary due to some other factors?

I must admit that i am not a fan of TotalMix,
people always say that it is easy to use and intuitive, i do not think it is,
i like simplicity, however the main reason i do not see any benefit in TM
is simply because i have absolutely no use for it.

I mainly record guitars at home and in very rare ocassions vocals, that's it!
Drums, bass, and basicaly everything else is realized with virtual instruments.

I also record alone, one microphone, one track at the time,
so i absolutely do not need any routing or FX when recording.

The ADI-2 Pro was a bit tricky to use back then, but now with the
remote software it seems perfect for my application.

The only downside is that i need to buy an external preamp/DI.

The big plus is that i can justify buying new gear haha, i
can also choose if i want a clean preamp or something with character.

I am planing to get a 4 slot 500 series rack and fill it with some basics,
preamp, eq, maybe a compressor and a second,
diferent flavour preamp.

So all in all, the ADI-2 PRO FS R seems like the better choice, right?

20 (edited by ramses 2024-05-29 09:22:27)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

FIXXXER wrote:

So the UFXIII has the same converter as the ADI-2 PRO FS R

Same as ADI-2 Pro FS (AK4490), not ADI-2 Pro FS R BE (AK4493) which differs a little in technical specs.

Not only for UFX III, same for later models of UFX II, which got now the same analog and digital section as the UFX III.
The only difference is now MADI/USB3 (due to high number of channels).

FIXXXER wrote:

does that mean also that the audio quality is the same or can the audio quality vary due to some other factors?

Same chip, maybe little differences in the analog section, but both of high quality, see technical specs. Other differences: device-specific features of the reference converters like auto ref level and 4 (ADI-2/4 Pro SE even 5 and support for turntable and RIAA support).

Regarding D/A filter. With the ADI-2 DAC/Pro you can change A/D and D/A filter, with UFX II/III not. The reason is, that recording interfaces get the AD/DA filter which gives the best linearity, especially @single speed, to prevent that something is missing in the higher frequencies (see treble roll-off at single speed for e.g., slow filter).

FIXXXER wrote:

I must admit that i am not a fan of TotalMix [...]

I am also playing guitar. For me, it is the opposite.
I have absolutely no issues with TM FX and couldn't live with it anymore.
The concept of having individual Submixes per HW output is completely fine and covers all needs.
To click to an HW output and to move the fader of Inputs and Audio coming from PC I regard as easy and straightforward for changing a submix. Once it is set, you can store it. That's it.

With one mouse click, you can even provide the same settings as "DAW mode" and route everything in the DAW.
Same as you would get in DAW mode.
The advantage, you have still the option to route the vocals of a vocalist on the "shorter way" directly from the input to the output without having RTL over DAW.

What I did after a couple of years. Removed all routings and deployed only the necessary ones.
Additionally, I marked every channel as hidden that I do not require.
Result: even more overview, especially in matrix mode, which is perfect for reviewing the routings.

As a guitarist, I have additional comfort with TM FX: the integration and optimum utilization of two external FX, Lexicon PCM 81 and 91. With a few TM FX routings / Snapshots, I can use them either for guitar, DAW or both (81 with modulation effects for guitar and 91 as external FX in Cubase).

Also, a big win, the quality of the instrument input of the UFX III. I plug my guitar into the UFX III and can route the guitar signal to everywhere where I want and even make a backup recording using DURec.

My use cases for UFX III:
- send the signal to my booster/amp if I want to record the two combos (stereo setup).
- use the UFX III as a parallel effect loop for the amps.
- play guitar through VSTi up to an ASIO buffer size of 128 samples at single speed with a RTL of 7.3 ms (lowest RTL with 32 samples is 2,99 ms)
- reamping with the recorded dry guitar signal from instrument input

My use cases for ADI-2 Pro FS R BE
- for monitoring with closed planar headphones DCA Aeon 2 CB / active monitors
- for listening music with active Monitors / HiFi
- using dynamic loudness a lot when listening to music during work at very low levels so that it is not disturbing
- excellent sound for any content (YouTube, Games, ...)
- protection of ear and equipment, solves any level mismatches, 0dB in TM FX do not lead to excessive volume
- slow ramp-up of volume when inserting phones or switching between active monitors and phones

It helps to understand the typical flows in such a digital setup.
TM FX submix supports this ideally:
- any input signals are (with default settings) recorded 1:1, about those you do not need to care
- routing has to deal with HW outputs, you decide on a per HW output basis, what needs to be routed to there,
  either for monitoring purposes or if you want to make use of 3rd party FX
- click to a loopback button of any HW output and you can record this output/submix on the corresponding input.

FIXXXER wrote:

So all in all, the ADI-2 PRO FS R seems like the better choice, right?

Whatever you prefer, it depends on your demands and personal preferences.

My preference will always be a combination of RME recording interface and reference converter.

Therefore, I summarized my use cases above, which should demonstrate to you that a combination of recording interface and reference converter makes sense, also for a guitarist. Both in combination results in an optimum setup with the needed flexibility of TM FX and the unique features of the reference converters for monitoring.

If UFX III and reference converter are too expensive in combination, then I would think about a combination of UFX II or UCX II and ADI-2 Pro FS R BE. If only one device is desired for use in the home recording studio, then my choice would clearly be a recording interface with TM FX.

An ADI-2 Pro FS R BE or ADI-2/4 Pro SE can also be integrated into the setup at a later date.

However, if you're struggling with TM FX, it could also make sense to buy everything completely so that you only have to deal with the routing one time.

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

21 (edited by vinark 2024-05-29 09:52:02)

Re: ADI-2 PRO VS RME ADI-2 Pro FS R Black Edition

So all in all, the ADI-2 PRO FS R seems like the better choice, right?
Yes, or the Babyface pro fs. Then you have a mic and guitar input which you can add external preamps to if you feel the need.
I don't, if I need a little more colored sound I use a plugin in my daw. Routing in tmfx is very easy with the Babyface cause it has few ins and outs and you can hide the adat ports.

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