[486892]

I'm sure it's been said somewhere but to go through 325 pages would be more time than I have! On all the settings I'm interested how have people set there rme up?

I use RME as a DAC and preamp, because I do like the amp part, but not as it is. So, my settings are 0dBf, SD Slow filter with value 1 crossfeed usually for headphones.

When I use it for mastering music I usually add some presence for 5k and remove some boxiness from 400-600Hz with EQ and take out the crossfeed. I prefer Slow filter beside SD Slow sometimes. And I usually record mixdown and master in 192kHz quality, using RME ASIO drivers. The DigiCheck is handy tool as well.

 

[flubje]

I use RME as a DAC and preamp, because I do like the amp part, but not as it is. So, my settings are 0dBf, SD Slow filter with value 1 crossfeed usually for headphones.

When I use it for mastering music I usually add some presence for 5k and remove some boxiness from 400-600Hz with EQ and take out the crossfeed. I prefer Slow filter beside SD Slow sometimes. And I usually record mixdown and master in 192kHz quality, using RME ASIO drivers. The DigiCheck is handy tool as well.

Appreciate that UtaA, it's interesting to see how others have there's setup, I'm still learning with it - especially the EQ side also only using it as a standalone DAC so might be a bit overkill as just a DAC....

 

[486892]

Appreciate that UtaA, it's interesting to see how others have there's setup, I'm still learning with it - especially the EQ side also only using it as a standalone DAC so might be a bit overkill as just a DAC....

No problem, RME brand was developed for producing music from beginning and they still are with ADI-DAC. I'v been a fan of RME over a decade and I used to have their FireFace's, but ADI-DAC is okay as well for having your master chain all analog.

 

[flubje]

No problem, RME brand was developed for producing music from beginning and they still are with ADI-DAC. I'v been a fan of RME over a decade and I used to have their FireFace's, but ADI-DAC is okay as well for having your master chain all analog.

The way you made that sound is almost like I'm worth selling it for a DAC only if it's more for mainly producing music....I was sold on the display haha

 

[486892]

The way you made that sound is almost like I'm worth selling it for a DAC only if it's more for mainly producing music....I was sold on the display haha

Not quite, many high-end audiophile people prefer ultra clean sound from DAC/amp to spice their signal themselves with other gear like tubes, saturators etc.. and to hear their headphones as they are. Its a hobby for sound lovers in the end. Sometimes you can find all in one gear, but no too often.

Producers for sure need a reference level honesty from sound to trust what they hear is true.

 

[flubje]

Not quite, many high-end audiophile people prefer ultra clean sound from DAC/amp to spice their signal themselves with other gear like tubes, saturators etc.. and to hear their headphones as they are. Its a hobby for sound lovers in the end. Sometimes you can find all in one gear, but no too often.

Producers for sure need a reference level honesty from sound to trust what they hear is true.

Yes I guess so Sir!
I have had quite a few DACs now and for me this one seems to sound the best or have some good synergy going on with my setup...just have myself doubting if it's ONLY being used as a DAC that it's overkill

 

[486892]

Yes I guess so Sir!
I have had quite a few DACs now and for me this one seems to sound the best or have some good synergy going on with my setup...just have myself doubting if it's ONLY being used as a DAC that it's overkill

As a DAC it is a best value you can get with that money, and I wouln't sell it for any prize. I used to run it DAC only, because something wasn't right with the amp, but with RNHP it sound better with its amp than from DAC only. I think its like you said, the synergy of your setup, so what sound right to your ears will work for you the best, Sir : )

 

[Slaphead]

I'm sure it's been said somewhere but to go through 325 pages would be more time than I have! On all the settings I'm interested how have people set there rme up?

Straight out of the box - I've found no need to mess with anything, apart from the odd occasion where I've come across an "out of phase" video on youtube when I've used the phase function to bring the sound back into correct phase.

 

[Tennessee]

I use RME as a DAC and preamp, because I do like the amp part, but not as it is. So, my settings are 0dBf, SD Slow filter with value 1 crossfeed usually for headphones.

When I use it for mastering music I usually add some presence for 5k and remove some boxiness from 400-600Hz with EQ and take out the crossfeed. I prefer Slow filter beside SD Slow sometimes. And I usually record mixdown and master in 192kHz quality, using RME ASIO drivers. The DigiCheck is handy tool as well.

SD slow sounds very good and along with slow has second, almost perfect impulse response, but the most perfect impulse response has NOS and it wins for me every time I’m testing them. I have big horn towers and NOS can PROPERLY hit with the bass in opposite to every other filter which have more rounded bass because of aliasing. The same goes for contours of voices or even acoustic instruments NOS doing it perfectly. Its biggest con is not deep and not too wide stage (at least it‘s high ), but for me precision and good attack is everything. Even on my second system ATCs I’m running another RME with NOS and it can compete with DACs 5x the price. To counter treble drop I just upscale everything with software to 32bit 352.8/384kHz.

 

[flubje]

Straight out of the box - I've found no need to mess with anything, apart from the odd occasion where I've come across an "out of phase" video on youtube when I've used the phase function to bring the sound back into correct phase.

I think I played around with the filters and that was about it can't remember what I left it on now - sounds good and I don't think I could hear much difference between them in my opinion!

SD slow sounds very good and along with slow has second, almost perfect impulse response, but the most perfect impulse response has NOS and it wins for me every time I’m testing them. I have big horn towers and NOS can PROPERLY hit with the bass in opposite to every other filter which have more rounded bass because of aliasing. The same goes for contours of voices or even acoustic instruments NOS doing it perfectly. Its biggest con is not deep and not too wide stage (at least it‘s high ), but for me precision and good attack is everything. Even on my second system ATCs I’m running another RME with NOS and it can compete with DACs 5x the price. To counter treble drop I just upscale everything with software to 32bit 352.8/384kHz.

I might try giving NOS a go this weekend!

 

[Tennessee]

SD LD has a lot of post ringing and through that nice echo effect, but that doesn’t always sounds right.
SD sharp has the best airiness in trebles.
Sharp is overall the nicest sounding with big stage, but not much attack. If you aren’t looking for something special I would start with that.
SD slow has the nicest mids and vocals, but it has shallow stage and rather roundy bass.
Slow has very round bass, average stage, but nice vocals and it can split the sound from speakers.

 

[flubje]

SD LD has a lot of post ringing and through that nice echo effect, but that doesn’t always sounds right.
SD sharp has the best airiness in trebles.
Sharp is overall the nicest sounding with big stage, but not much attack. If you aren’t looking for something special I would start with that.
SD slow has the nicest mids and vocals, but it has shallow stage and rather roundy bass.
Slow has very round bass, average stage, but nice vocals and it can split the sound from speakers.

When you put it like that, makes it a hard choice........Sharp & SD Slow sound the best IMO !

 

[Tennessee]

People usually saying that they hear no difference, because tonality does not change and that is what they expect.
Rather what changes is the presentation of the music. The easiest to spot differences is to start with good quality bassy song, play it louder and observe what is happening with the bass.
Then play vocals and observe how big or small the mids are getting and how precise or round they start sounding.
With trebles it is easy on bells or hi hats, their presentation changes and they will move on stage in depth, wide or height.

 

[flubje]

People usually saying that they hear no difference, because tonality does not change and that is what they expect.
Rather what changes is the presentation of the music. The easiest to spot differences is to start with good quality bassy song, play it louder and observe what is happening with the bass.
Then play vocals and observe how big or small the mids are getting and how precise or round they start sounding.
With trebles it is easy on bells or hi hats, their presentation changes and they will move on stage in depth, wide or high.

You have got to have a good set of ears on you to pick these things Tennessee ........I think from my clubbing speaker hugging days and my Whamo Jamo's I use to have in my bedroom, clipping like nobody's business wernt to kind on my ears haha !

 

[486892]

Yes, I agree @Tennessee, you can hear those filters as they sound for me also. I like Slow's, because of their focus on mid area the most. NOS is interesting one but it feels that it is lacking some space, being narrow, but I will experiment more with that after your recommendation for sure. The Sharp for me is too boring, lacking some life, not exited at all, a very safe choice.