Even without eq it will be degraded a lot. Those class d amps in monitors have much higher noise and distortion than adi-2. You should be able to hear hiss noise when you turn these monitors on.

So technically (in terms of low noise and distortion) there is no benefit using something as good as the adi-2 compared to a $100 audio interface. The noise and distortion are dominated by your amps and speakers.

To answer your question,yes, many studio monitors are already heavily eq-ed by either analog circuits or AD-EQ-DA, whose quality  are magnitudes lower than ADI-2’s

You could consider the Geithain RL 906 active monitor. Plays very well in the nearfield (coaxial design). I used it in combination with UFX, UFX+ and now ADI-2 Pro FS R BE.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/geithain-rl906

[...]Each driver is powered by its own Class-AB MOSFET amplifier, with an active crossover at 3kHz and full electronic overload protection. The bass amp delivers 80W, while the tweeter amp manages 40W, and at full chat the speaker can manage 104dB SPL at one metre.[...]

There are more compact active speakers with A/B amp technology. Pioneer have an interresting pair https://www.pioneerdj.com/en/product/mo … ions/#info I scooped these for a while.

You just have to look around, comparing specs and reading reviews. Ive never had a chance to compare amplifier technology. Have class a/b myself, and Im perfectly happy. Bang Olufsen, B&O invented ICE tech class D amps and they are using it in their top of the range so I wouldnt disregard it. Some other class d manufacturer, Lindorf have digital input skipping some internal conversion step. I think its smart to have some purist mind to avoid converting back and forth, EQing this and that. Keep the signal chain as short and clean as possible. It really speaks for itself. The HEDD´s that RME tout, probably great speakers, but really expensive stuff. Genelec is another maker I would consider if you have an arm and a leg to spare.

I have KEF LS50, the inactive model coupled to a Hegel H80 A/B amp. This is a good setup which can do some credit to the high SNR and blackness of the ADI-2 DAC. The KEF speakers are coaxial so its great stereo perspective and they have really nice and tight bass in my 12m2 listening room. Price now is somewhere around 12 - 1400 euros. The KEFs are already a modern classic, which I bought without any real auditioning.

I have/had them all here in my demo (KH120, KH310, KH420).
All models deliver an exceptional virtual 3D stage image and bass is extremely tight if placed correctly.

I know these monitors from my work for Fraunhofer Institute. They are a quasi standard in scientific research.

Can recommend both the Neumann KH 420 which is completely analogue and the LS 50. However recently KEF seems to have changed some of their models, not sure if the original LS 50 is still available

In contrast to that RL906 is said to be uncritical and allows also parallel placement where space is an issue like in mobile broadcast vans. Did you ever hear those?
That Fraunhofer uses Neumann is good, but not sufficient as selection criterium. In my nearfield situation they failed whatever placement I tried.
Much better was KSDigital CS55 at that time, but they were too big and were a little bit noisy when you turn down the volume. Otherwise much more value in terms of 3d stage and overall sound reproduction.
Our different recommendations show that everybody needs to carefully check in his own listening situation. We have all different ears, rooms, use cases and listening habits.

Thank you all for the input and recommendations, and let me provide a few more data points:

My home office is on the small size, about 10x12 feet, or 3x4 meters. The desk isn't against the wall, but rather protruding into the room about 1/3 along the long side, perpendicular to the wall (L-shaped workstation). Speakers would be firing towards the closer wall, with me sitting pretty much against the wall facing the room.

Price isn't as sensitive a matter, in fact I had ordered a pair of Dynaudio LYD-7 along with their 9s subwoofer, when the DSP/class D dawned upon me, so a little over 2k USD proposition. I have canceled the order as soon as I realized the additional conversions and posted my inquiry here.

I did look at Genelec 8040, Neuman KH120, and Focal Shape 65 so far (which according to multiple reviews I read can be on the fatiguing side in terms of high frequency response, though there's always the PEQ in the ADI-2 to deal with that).

I wasn't aware of the Gethain RL 906, they seem highly rated but can't seem to be able to locate a dealer states-side; I've reached out to them and see what gives.

I'll check out the other models recommended in this thread and see if there's a fit.

LS50 meta is the latest iteration of LS50(inactive) There is an active version too, thats LS50 wireless

That sums it up!

Well you either have an analogue crossover with all drawbacks or a digital one with all drawbacks. Or a (not so) full range one driver speaker. Which can sound very good except for freq range.

Still stands that with this reasoning you could choose a speaker system which sounds worse cause it is more pure. I would still let your ears do the talking.
It is not that I don't understand your reasoning, it might just be flawed when it is about result and not ideas. It all depends on the speaker you choose. In the total chain of source, ADI, Amp, filter (analogue or digital), speaker and room, the ADI has very little impact on the end result. Most influence has the source (the recording), speakers and room. Strange enough your ears/brain adapt very quickly to a not so perfect filter.
I am just trying to be helpful here (as always), making a good decision regarding speakers is very difficult.
By the way, I mix on a blue sky system one. Fully analogue filter and amps. Amps are a little noisy...

Well I almost agree...
No sense going digital-analog-digital-analog except when the end result is better LOL.
The big question is, if this route negates the superb audio quality of the ADI? If the same speaker design with an all analogue version versus a class D dsp version, the last one sounds better (better freq response, better phase, lower distortion), the all analogue one degrades the ADI even more. I am not for DSP at all but for end result.

I hear what you say, but I'll offer one more example for why I believe an analog chain post ADI would make more sense: filtering. I can easily tell the difference between the various options available, and have settled on a preferred one. With DSP in the speakers, I have no control over its own filtering, nor am I likely to even know what kind it employs. Same for its A to D conversion at ingestion.

If I wanted what's pleasing to the ears, heck, I'd get a pair of passive speakers, a tube amp, and a dram of Scotch—it's got to be five o'clock somewhere right? But the whole raison d'être of the ADI-2 is to be the quarterback of a highly-transparent system, allowing utmost flexibility and granular control over most aspects, from routing to conversion parameters. DSP in active speakers is mostly a black box with little known technically about its implementation.

Circling back to what you wrote, I don't know whether this route negates the ADI benefits. But having spent money on it already, I don't what to spend even more money only to find out I'm at the wrong end of a restocking fee on class D active speakers.

To provide context, and I did mention it a couple of times, this is my workstation setup. It's not meant as a system where full-blown amps and speakers are palatable.

I am curious on the Geithain though, but so far they haven't emailed me with a US dealer contact—perhaps there aren't any this side of the pond.

I had the same doubt and I ended up getting a pair of Neumann KH 80 DSP for my desk at arms reach.

Even though it does internal AD-DA for the drivers, in theory this is a Con, but there are some Pros to compensate:
- Small size
- Excellent dispersion
- Linear phase (FIR) = time alignment
- Higher order filter between drivers (48 dB/oct; 8th order with phase correction)

I use it in flat mode and lowest gain and volume = zero hiss.

FYI the KH 80 DSP dynamic range A-D-A is rated at 111 dB(A) woofer; 112 dB(A) tweeter, which is pretty good considering the ADI-2 DAC is about 115-120 dB depending on volume.

IME the trade-off was worth it, I am happy.

On the desk, to the sides of my display. About 0.9 to 1 meter between them, and similar distance to my listening position. So definitely near-field.

If you directed this at me, I had the KH 120 A in mind, not D. So class AB amplification

You don't need big monitors this close. My JBLs are almost exactly in the same distance and position on some cheap stands from Thoman.

The KH 120s should be great. Genelec, PMC and Focal would be other brands to consider.

It‘s really funny how people here recommended speakers they never heard, bring down a whole category of amplifiers in general, and ...

To select a studio monitor you need to hear it and do test mixes at the very position it’s intended to be used.
First you have to look into your wallet, then select from the possible candidates BY AUDITIONING them in your studio.

There’s NO general difference between various amplification, but there’s worlds of a difference between speakers from different makers.

If you have a small wallet, here’s my recommendation of a modern classic, from a company that builds highly appreciated studio monitors for more than half of a century.
They’ve learned how to build great quality at a modest price.

I just installed a pair of these as nearfields in a pro studio, and the results are great.
Concentrics are unbeatable as nearfield monitors IMO.
https://www.tannoy.com/product.html?modelCode=P0CMZ

You didn't, and that's because I confused models. Sorry, been looking all over the place at so many things it's starting to be a blur. And KaiS' advice is solid, but I don't have the luxury to audition model after model in my setup.

The Neumann sub is way too big for me so it's a nonstarter. I thought of the subwoofer from Dynaudio which does DSP itself.

Edit: the Neumann sub isn't the large one I had in mind when writing the above. My apologies for the confusion. I think I need to take a step back and let things crystalize before proceeding. And give a chance to audition the Dynaudios over the weekend.

What is optimal way to connect adi-2DAC  to active powered speakers like Genelec?  Analogue or digital?  With or without GLM software?

Which of these devices do you own already and what do you want to achieve ? What is your focus ?

The ADI-2 DAC or PROs
- advanced features
- D/A conversion quality

you could also get other active monitors without GLM ....

Or is the use of Genelec monitors with GLM your main aim?

If I remember right (to be checked by you) you need to use digital inputs for making best use of GLM.

So .. as only the ADI-2 Pro FS has digital outputs, then you would need an ADI-2 Pro and not the DAC version ....

Most inexpensive solution is using ADI-2 DAC FS and connecting it analog to active monitors.

Thanks for sharing your setup and experience

Since you already own the ADI-2 DAC you could try it with the new Genelec before selling it to buy an ADI-2 Pro to use it's AES output.

This thread by far overly focusses on a theoretical influence of one extra AD-DA conversion.

By my decades of experience doing digital studio productions with good quality converters the resulting sound change is negligible.
Even more though as we are now talking about an AD-DA quality level higher than ever.

Opposed to this the difference between various loudspeakers / studio monitors is night and day.

In the light of this fact, the decision should be based solely on the sound of the speakers, not on their connectivity.
The only way to find out is to listen and do test mixes / productions, there‘s no shortcut.

Thanks for this information, I was not 100% sure how exactly GLM works. Good that you clarified :-)