Could be a trade off, or one could also argue that the adc-Dac chain, when compared to the distortion levels of the speaker is effectively pretty much transparent. That's debatable, but, interesting thing is many people pay more for their PEQ solution than the cost of one of these speakers. It's not that easy to find a solution that's an actual speaker or room correction at driver level , not at the application level, like using an EQ for your DAW, your media player, The output of your "Internet browser", all with different plugins, it can be off-putting for some... And then, and I know it's contradictory from some of my previous comments, but some will use it without computers too, KRK has some DJs or aspiring DJs using this out of a mixer at home, or anything you need monitoring really. Bottom line, this speaker would not perform as well without DSP, they make sure it's part of the package so people will love it, the benefit is greater than the loss. Now, would it be nice to have digital inputs? Sure it would, but it's a different product. We are looking at something here that's the result of quite rigorous cost saving analysis.With these DSP monitors, isn't that a counterintuitive design to include an ADC/DAC which is likely inferior to what the user is using upstream? Or is the tradeoff to gain built in EQ > the drop in quality from a second ADC/DAC stage of lesser quality?
Seems to me the preferred signal path is analog only after the DAC from your source and to perform EQ in the digital domain at the source right?
Last edited: