Jump to content
  • JoshM

    RME ADI-2 DAC FS Review

    I’m a DAC junkie. Sure, DACs fall far behind speakers, headphones, and (of course) source material in importance. Amps, too, probably outrank DACs in the audiophile hierarchy. But a DAC is, quite literally, a system’s link between the digital and the analog world, and a poor DAC can squeeze the life out of an otherwise solid system. 


    But there’s danger in writing DAC reviews. There are those “objectivist” audiophiles that insist that all “properly designed” DACs sound the same. If someone claims that he or she can hear differences between “properly designed” DACs, two questions inevitably, and quickly, follow: Was the listening level matched? Was the listening blind? If the answers to both questions are “yes,” the results are nonetheless dismissed.


    For those who insist that all “properly designed” DACs sound the same, the best advice I can give is to stop reading now and purchase one of the many sub-$100 DACs that measure near “perfection.” (The $99 Schiit Modi 3, discussed later in this review, would be my recommendation, thanks to Schiit’s excellent customer service and bulletproof warranty.)


    For everyone else, this is a review of the RME ADI-2 DAC FS (U.S. MSRP $1,099), a DAC that’s been highly praised by both “objectivist” and “subjectivist” (or, perhaps, realist) reviewers. After living with the ADI-2 DAC for several months, I discovered the device’s strengths and weaknesses and came to appreciate its versatility and build quality.  










    Physically, the ADI-2 DAC is an unassumingly impressive device. Whereas many audiophile DACs these days are hulking, the ADI-2 is a mere 8.5 by 2 by 6 inches. Despite its diminutive size, it’s solidly built, with a metal body and reassuring heft. Perhaps the only part of the ADI-2 that feels less-than-substantial is the slim plastic remote control. But it’s functional, and a remote of any kind is a welcome addition for those who plan to use their DAC beyond arm’s reach.


    At first glance, the most striking element of the ADI-2 DAC is the array of buttons and knobs packed onto its small face plate. At left is a flush, soft-push power button surrounded by an LED halo, which lets you know the unit’s power status. Moving right, there’s a 1/4-inch headphone jack, spec’d at an excellent .1-ohm impedance, and a 1/8-inch IEM jack. Further to the right is where things get complicated. 


    I’ll leave it to RME’s extremely detailed (and commendably readable) manual to explain it all, but the ADI-2 DAC’s right side is crammed with an LED-ringed volume knob, four vertical buttons (VOL, I/O, EQ, and SETUP), a small display screen, and two smaller vertical knobs. By manipulating this panoply, the ADI-2’s user can do everything from selecting the input source to setting the output volume to collapsing the signal to mono to tweaking the perceived stereo width to inverting the signal’s polarity, among other options. Most importantly, at least in this reviewer’s opinion, the ADI-2 DAC includes a five-band parametric EQ and five DAC filters (Short Delay Sharp, Short Delay Slow, Sharp, Slow, NOS). 


    The ADI-2 DAC’s many options (and I haven’t even mentioned them all) gives the device a sort of Swiss Army knife of audio vibe. (It’s a DAC! It’s a headphone amp! It’s a preamp! It’s an equalizer! Etc.) The ADI-2 even has a setting that, after downloading a few WAV files from RME’s website, lets the user test that his or her playback is bit perfect. 


    Like a Swiss Army knife, even if one doesn’t intend to use all of the ADI-2 DAC’s tools, it’s nice to know they’re there.


    The comparatively straightforward rear of the ADI-2 DAC features USB and both RCA and Toslink optical digital inputs, balanced and RCA analog outputs, and a locking connector for the external power supply. 


    For most of my listening, I used the USB input from my Mac Mini, playing tracks from Audirvana (which, thanks to the RME, I now know is a bit-perfect setup). For using the RME as a DAC feeding my other amps, I set the output level at +13 dBu and used the Sharp filter (more on this selection later). 


    The ADI-2 DAC’s default screen displays the device’s output and volume, the file’s sample rate, and a (very visually pleasing) frequency analyzer. 


    Before tackling the ADI-2 DAC’s performance as a DAC, it’s worth addressing three features that I regard to be the ADI-2’s most unique for a DAC its price: 1) its headphone amp, 2) its parametric EQ, and 3) its ability to serve as a preamp.






    My initial listening to the ADI-2 DAC took place through its own headphone amp. And, as a result, my initial reaction to the ADI-2 was one of disappointment. The ADI-2 DAC’s headamp has a decidedly low-fi sound. Listening to Bob Dylan’s elegiac “What Good Am I?” from the 24/96 edition of Oh Mercy on Qobuz on my (previously reviewed) Brainwavz Alara, the ADI-2’s headphone amp comes across as dynamically compressed, tonally skewed, and lacking in both depth and width.1 When the track was supposed to thump, it plunked. Dylan’s twangy guitar sounded oddly processed, and Malcolm Burn’s cheesy-yet-lovable keyboards were pulled to the front of the mix, rather than set to the back. As I cycled through other headphones, those characteristics held. Kicking the ADI-2’s headamp into “Hi-Power” mode may have ever-so-slightly improved the dynamics, but little else. 


    After this underwhelming introduction to the ADI-2, I wondered whether the issue was the headphone amp or the DAC itself. Using the ADI-2 to feed a variety of external headphone amps, I quickly discovered it was the former. Routing the ADI-2 DAC’s outputs to my Schiit Ragnarok and using it to power the Alara, the situation improved dramatically. The dynamics, tonality, and soundstage I expected on “What Good Am I?” returned. But it didn’t take the Schiit’s top-of-the-line headphone amp to reveal the ADI-2’s amp’s shortcomings. The budget-minded Monoprice/Alex Cavalli Liquid Spark ($109.99 US MSRP) also put the ADI-2’s headamp to shame, at least to this reviewer’s ears. All told, I decided that it’s best to view the ADI-2 DAC’s headamp as a nice, if underwhelming, “bonus” feature — a point of view that eliminates the ADI-2 as a knockout AIO (all-in-one) unit, but that seems reasonable given that most of the ADI-2’s competitors don’t include a headamp at all.


    While the ADI-2’s headamp disappointed, it’s parametric EQ didn’t. As someone obsessed with finding versions of albums that got the sound right at the mastering stage, I generally avoid equalization. Digital EQ, in particular, can sound grainy to my ears. However, the ADI-2’s parametric EQ proved to sound surprisingly analog unless pushed to unreasonable extremes. With the ADI-2, I found myself slightly tweaking albums that lack a good mastering in ways that were unambiguously enjoyable and unobtrusive. 


    Likewise, when used as a preamp for an external power amp, the ADI-2 proved to be limpid, lacking all of the flaws of its headamp. Its smooth volume control also lacks the artificiality of some digital preamps. Because its digital, the ADI-2 DAC offers perfect channel balance, and its .5 dB volume increments allow for precise fine-tuning regardless of the power amp’s gain. 


    Thus far, the ADI-2 DAC is two for three on its most intriguing (for the price point) features. But how does it fare as a standalone DAC?


    The ADI-2 DAC uses AKM’s AK4490 chip. So to assess its sound (and value) as a DAC qua DAC, I pitted the ADI-2 against two other AKM-based DACs positioned at two very different price points: the Crane Song Solaris (U.S. MSRP $1,949), designed by the legendary Dave Hill, and Schiit’s budget DAC, the Modi 3 (U.S. MSRP $99). The former also functions as a preamp and includes a headamp (excelling at both); whereas the latter is plain vanilla DAC.


    For this comparison, all of the DACs were fed into my Schiit Ragnarok amp. I used the balanced outputs on the ADI-2 and Solaris and the only outputs (single-ended) on the Modi 3. Listening took place on both headphones and speakers.2


    As mentioned above, the ADI-2 DAC offers a variety of filter options to the user. Like most minimum phase filters, both the Short Delay Sharp and Short Delay Slow filters sounded somewhat artificial and “digital” to my ears. The NOS filter was fun to play with, but while it had a little of the appealing tonal density that some NOS DACs are known for, it came at the price of a significant loss of detail. Both the Sharp and Slow filters sounded good to my ears, with the former having somewhat more detail and the latter sounding somewhat more natural. In regular use, I could see myself bouncing between the Sharp and Slow filters, but for purposes of comparing the RME against the Solaris and Modi 3, maximizing detail seemed to be the more important priority, so I went with the Sharp filter. 


    Keeping with the Dylan theme, I pulled up the hi-res edition of Blood on the Tracks in my Audirvana library and put the DACs through the paces, eventually zeroing in on short 10- to 20-second snippets of specific songs. 


    My first reaction was that these are all quality DACs that get the most important things, such as timbre, correct. Nonetheless, there exist notable differences in other areas of presentation. 


    Listening to “Simple Twist of Fate,” I was impressed by the $99 Modi 3. It had excellent front-to-back depth, but exhibited a bit of grain, especially in the treble. Moving to the ADI-2, the soundstage got slightly shallower. This relative lack of depth made the reverb on Dylan’s voice and overall “room sound” less apparent through the ADI-2. However, the ADI-2 surpassed the Modi 3 in smoothness, overall detail, and “blackground.” Instrument placement, left to right, was clearer on the ADI-2 than the Modi 3 and, overall, music sounded more lifelike through the ADI-2. Listening to the same segments of “Simple Twist of Fate” through the Solaris and moving back and forth between the DACs, the Solaris’s superlative detail retrieval was apparent immediately. The Solaris also took the ADI-2’s superior imaging and improved it even further, providing ultra-precise placement of instruments in the soundstage. Overall, the Solaris combined the best elements of the Modi 3 (depth) and ADI-2 (detail and smoothness) but simply did them all better. 


    Moving forward a year in Dylan’s catalog, Desire’s iconic opener “Hurricane” further illustrated the differences between these AKM-based DACs. Through the Modi 3, each hit of Howard Wyeth’s propulsive snare is rendered as an indistinct thwak. Through the ADI-2, small details are somewhat more apparent, and the overall sound is more realistic. Reaching the Solaris, the distinct sounds of the snare head and wires are both clear and smooth. The same pattern repeats itself with the string articulation on Scarlet Rivera’s sinuous violin. 


    In short, the Modi 3 is an excellent DAC for $99. But its grain gives it more digital sound, and it leaves some detail unresolved. The ADI-2 offers more detail and smoothness, despite its shallower stage, and is clearly the superior DAC. The Solaris, for its part, simply outclasses both the Modi 3 and the ADI-2. Only when it comes to “blackground” might the ADI-2 ever-so-slightly exceed the Solaris, but when it comes to detail, depth, smoothness — virtually any other trait one can think of — the Solaris is the better DAC.



    So where does that leave the ADI-2 DAC?


    In the end, the ADI-2 is very fine sounding DAC with excellent build quality and oodles of features. Whether it’s the right DAC for you depends on whether you intend to use all of its features and which ones you value most. 


    If you don’t intend to use the ADI-2’s equalizer, play with its filter options, or use it as a preamp, but you do want a good headphone amp, the Modi 3 plus one of the many quality sub-$125 heaphone amps out there is probably a better, and more economical, choice. 


    But for someone who loves all of the ADI-2’s bells and whistles (and plans to use them), the ADI-2 is a good choice. Even if the headphone amp isn’t the best, its serviceable, and the fact that the ADI-2 has both balanced and single-ended outputs means that it could be center of a system, simultaneously feeding an external headamp and providing a preamp for power amp and speakers without any cable swapping.



    1  All listening was done through Audirvana on my Mac Mini via USB output. Levels were matched within .2 dB for all DACs. But, no, my listening was not blindfolded. Or double blind. Or sextuple blind. And I’m okay with that.

    2  Most listening was done on KEF Reference 1 speakers with an SVS SB-13 Ultra subwoofer. Headphones included Focal Clear, Sennheiser HD800S, and MrSpeakers Ether 2.



    Product Information:








    About the Author


    Josh Mound has been an audiophile since age 14, when his father played Spirit's "Natures Way" through his Boston Acoustics floorstanders and told Josh to listen closely. Since then, Josh has listened to lots of music, owned lots of gear, and done lots of book learnin'. He's written about music for publications like Filter and Under the Radar and about politics for publications like New Republic, Jacobin, and Dissent. Josh is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Virginia, where he teaches classes on modern U.S. politics and the history of popular music. He lives in Charlottesville, Virginia, with his wife and two cats.

    Edited by JoshM

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    9 hours ago, wgscott said:

    I have the same DAC as one of the most unapologetically subjectivist people that posts here.


    Out of curiosity, what DAC and what member? 


    As I said above, I don't think of myself as solely "subjectivist" or "objectivist," and I certainly think that people are allowed to believe what they want. My preamble was an attempt to flag for self-identified objectivists that my review would involve my subjective impressions (like @austinpop's reviews and others') and to politely suggest not to read on if that's not their cup of tea. Unfortunately, judging by the reaction to this review by the ASR crowd, that didn't matter.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, andrewinukm said:

    I don't know why people who dismisses observational reviews (reviews based on individual listening), and insists on measurements plus bias-controlled-test come here and demands for all kinds of nonsense. They have their playground at ASR, go have fun there.



    Please share a little more about the hearing training courses.


    Harman How to Listen is the classic. The Sound Gym site is also great. I've used both. The only downside is that the Harman is a desktop app and the Sound Gym tends to work best on desktop. But there are also some good, if less full-featured, apps to use on smartphones and tablets. HearEQ, Quiztones, and StudioEars are my favorites. 

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Great review. I have an ADI-2 DAC and I agree with your assessment. I will say that any shortcomings of this DAC are easily forgotten if you rely on some of the impressive DSP software engineering in this product. For example, I have Sony MDR-Z1R headphones which famously suffer in some areas of its frequency response due to some poor design decisions, but they are nearly perfect with some parametric EQ. I also have some programmed “setups” for custom bass/treble tone adjustments for other cans, adaptive loudness for low-level listening, and don’t forget the huge database of IR commands, that any universal remote can support, to control almost every function of the DAC to include on-the-fly selection of DA filter or Crossfeed algorithm (works great with the Harmony Elite remote).


    I don’t have very demanding or inefficient cans, so the headphone amp is more than adequate for my needs and I therefore can’t comment on it’s shortcomings. My most demanding cans (the aforementioned Z1Rs at 64 Ohms) are driven in low-power mode  and I never go higher than -20dB. For my very efficient cans or very noise sensitive IEMS, the IEM output of the DAC has been very adequate (I never go above -10bB) and noise is inaudible at any volume.


    Thanks for a great review. Reviews like yours and @austinpop (like the recent dCS Bartok review) are a joy to read. I do follow ASR, I do appreciate objective measurements, but I also love a healthy combination of subjective and objective analysis.



    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 11/8/2019 at 11:03 AM, JoshM said:

    As I said in the beginning of my review, if one doesn’t think it’s possible for DACs above a certain theshold to sound different, I’d suggest buying the Modi 3 and not reading my reviews. 


    What is 'a certain threshold'?


    I'd suggest purchasing a DAC that gets as close as it gets to reconstructing the source material.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, plissken said:


    What is 'a certain threshold'?


    I'd suggest purchasing a DAC that gets as close as it gets to reconstructing the source material.


    You’d have to ask the ASR crowd what that threshold is for them. According to Amir’s reviews, DACs that measure much “worse” than any mentioned in this review are audible identical to “perfect” DACs in his blind listening.


    Personally, I think Marv’s SBAF post (linked as “realist” in my review) comes closer to the truth. 

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 11/8/2019 at 6:34 PM, Ralf11 said:



    were those 2 things done for this RME review?


    BTW, Rajiv laid out a nice list of why different DACs might sound different - if you search under his username, or for "sticky" and mine you'll find it


    My vote goes for analog stages in the DAC...


    I think that austinpop was mostly quoting this post by the late Charles Hansen (Ayre):


    On 9/1/2017 at 11:44 PM, Charles Hansen said:


    Hi Mansr,


    The thing that I see over and over and over in this thread is an irrational belief in the importance of the DAC chip itself. Just about everything affect the sound of an audio product, but when it comes to DACs, I would rank (in order or sonic importance the general categories as follows:


    1) The analog circuitry - 99.9% of all DACs are designed by digital engineers who don't know enough about analog. They just follow the app note. The specs on the op-amps are fabulous and digital engineers are inherently seduced by the beauty of the math story. There are minor differences in the sound quality between various op-amps, but it's kind of like the difference between a Duncan-Heinz cake mix and a Betty Crocker cake mix. 99.8% of the op-amps are used a current-to-voltage converters with the inverting input operating as a virtual ground. This is probably the worst way to use an op-amp as the input signal will cause the internal circuitry to go into slewing-limited distortion. http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4311648/Op-amp-myths-ndash-by-Barrie-Gilbert


    With discrete circuitry, the only limit is your imagination. You are free to adjust the topology of the circuit, the brands of the parts, the active devices, the bias current in each stage - anything you can think of. Think of this as going to a world-class patisserie in Paris and seeing all the different things that can be made.


    2) The power supplies - 99.9% of all DACs use "3-pin" power supply regulators, which are pretty much op-amps connected to a series pass transistor. Everything in #1 applies here.


    3) The master clock - jitter is a single number assigned to measure the phase noise of an oscillator over a fixed bandwidth. It is far more i important to know the spectral distribution of the timing variations and how they correlate to audible problems. 99.9% of all DACs use a strip-cut AT crystal in a Pierce gate oscillator circuit. It's pretty good for the money but the results will depend heavily on the implementation, particularly in the PCB layout and the power supplies (#2).


    It's hard to rank the rest of these so I will give them a tie score.


    4) The digital filter - 99.9% of all DACs use the digital filter built into the DAC chip. About a dozen companies know how to make a custom digital filter based on either FPGAs or DSP chips.


    4) PCB layout - grounding and shielding, impedance-controlled traces, return currents, and return current paths are all critical. For a complex digital PCB, 8 layers is the minimum for good results.


    4) The DAC chip - almost everything these days is delta sigma with a built-in digital filter. Differences between different chips is one of the less important aspects of D/A converter designs. Both ESS and AKM have some special tricks to reduce out-of-band noise, which can be helpful, but not dramatic.


    4) Passive parts - the quality of these can make a large difference in overall performance, especially for analog. Not many digital engineers sit around listening to different brands of resistors to see what sounds best.


    These are just a few of the things that make differences in the way that a DAC will sound.


    Hope this helps,

    Charles Hansen

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am an ADI 2 DAC user for a year.

    I use Aurdivana on a DELL and send the sound to a mR(with Uptone ULTRACAPs) which is then connected with a Uptone USPCB A>B to ADI 2 DAC. I am upscaling in Audirvana and the dac understand whatever comes. 

    Not many words from, it just sounds FANTASTIC!

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

  • Create New...