Your opinions please?

[Bodfish]

On the following statement...

All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate

But would it SOUND better?

I really don't get this odd obsession some people seem to have with nailing down statements of 'truth' on a subject that is fundamentally subjective.

 

[bigboss]

Anyway, with the stuff I listen to, distortion is a good thing.:rockout:

You shouldn't have bought Russ Andrews' products then!

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate

ooh... this is getting rather old. (pun intended )

an active version may be more accurate, that I agree with. but not because it'll suffer less from distortion. there are other, more important factors to take into account. for more info see post #7 here or search the web for amounts of harmonic distortion drivers introduce.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

All other things being equal, an active version of the exact same, passive speaker, will suffer less from distortion, and therefore be more accurate

ooh... this is getting rather old. (pun intended )

an active version may be more accurate, that I agree with. but not because it'll suffer less from distortion. there are other, more important factors to take into account. for more info see post #7 here or search the web for amounts of harmonic distortion drivers introduce.

 

[chebby]

But would it SOUND better?

Steady on there! We don't get to the listening part until the measurements and all the scientifically conducted, double blind testing has been done.

Can't have people just going off, willy-nilly, buying any old hi-fi and enjoying it like that.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with JD, you like what you like, regardless of tech

And i believe for those seeking above all else, the truest possible reproduction of source, high quality actives are the way to go.

 

[Bodfish]

But would it SOUND better?

Steady on there! We don't get to the listening part until the measurements and all the scientifically conducted, double blind testing has been done.

Can't have people just going off, willy-nilly, buying any old hi-fi and enjoying it like that.

Damn, of course, my mistake.

*hangs head in shame*

 

[fr0g]

I agree with JD, you like what you like, regardless of tech

And i believe for those seeking above all else, the truest possible reproduction of source, high quality actives are the way to go.

Better

And in fact, your second sentence is an unescapable fact, not a belief.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with JD, you like what you like, regardless of tech

And i believe for those seeking above all else, the truest possible reproduction of source, high quality actives are the way to go.

Better

And in fact, your second sentence is an unescapable fact, not a belief.

It's what i've always said (though some may have convinced themselves otherwise).

As for the 2nd sentence, Be careful with them facts, fr0g

 

[John Duncan]

Putting aside your somewhat revisionist view of 'all you've ever said', Max, let me put something else to you.

Which is more 'technically' accurate - a 16/44 recording or a 24/96 one?

 

[Frank Harvey]

Now gentlemen, excuse me while I go off and enjoy my passive system

Im thoroughly enjoying mine as I type

 

[Anonymous]

Putting aside your somewhat revisionist view of 'all you've ever said', Max, let me put something else to you. Which is more 'technically' accurate - a 16/44 recording or a 24/96 one?

Are they both of the same recording? Same master etc?

 

[John Duncan]

Putting aside your somewhat revisionist view of 'all you've ever said', Max, let me put something else to you. Which is more 'technically' accurate - a 16/44 recording or a 24/96 one?

Are they both of the same recording? Same master etc?

Let me remove the ambiguity of mastering and suchlike. Take a 24/96 recording and downsample it to 16/44. Which is a more 'accurate' representation of sound? Theoretically.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry JD but i don't like the attitude of some around here at the minute so i'm off (not you of course)..

I don't know the answer, btw..

Laters..

 

[fr0g]

Sorry JD but i don't like the attitude of some around here at the minute so i'm off (not you of course)..

I don't know the answer, btw..

Laters..

Technically it's the 24/96. But the only difference is the fact that the 24/96 goes up to 48 KHz. But since humans cannot hear past 20 or so, it's an inaudible difference. Anyone who says otherwise needs to prove it

 

[Anonymous]

Let me remove the ambiguity of mastering and suchlike. Take a 24/96 recording and downsample it to 16/44. Which is a more 'accurate' representation of sound? Theoretically.

Without any doubt the 24/96 recording is a more accurate representation. Both downsampling and lowering bit depth are lossy operations, meaning that it will not be possible to recreate the original from the copy.

Now, whether the difference is audible, and whether there is value in representing music (as opposed to sound) as 24/96... :bounce:

 

[John Duncan]

Technically it's the 24/96. But the only difference is the fact that the 24/96 goes up to 48 KHz. But since humans cannot hear past 20 or so, it's an inaudible difference. Anyone who says otherwise needs to prove it

So is it an indisputable fact that 24/96 is a more accurate recording than a 16/44 one, and anyone interested in the highest possible accuracy should be listening to 24/96?

Just so's I'm clear.

 

[John Duncan]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

 

[bigblue235]

Sorry JD but i don't like the attitude of some around here at the minute so i'm off (not you of course)..

I don't know the answer, btw..

Laters..

There was some bloke a while back who used to do stuff like that. Y'know, create a confrontational thread then disappear when it wasn't going his way. But he usually said he had to take the dogs for a walk or something like that...

Come on, Max. You're the one that starts all this stuff. You now have a couple of threads where people are waiting for replies. Couldn't just be that you've gone off to research something, could it?

 

[Alec]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

Sigh. Yesssss. And it is as boring as the rest of this thread.

 

[Paul.]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

Well I liked it.

 

[chebby]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

Sigh. Yesssss. And it is as boring as the rest of this thread.

Better get used to it.

This thread (or one of the others steered to the same subject whatever they started out as) will have a few hundred largely similar posts.

When it ends another will start and so on...

 

[Alec]

(can you see where I'm going with this, btw?)

Sigh. Yesssss. And it is as boring as the rest of this thread.

Better get used to it.

This thread (or one of the others steered to the same subject whatever they started out as) will have a few hundred largely similar posts.

When it ends another will start and so on...

Maybe if I don't get used to it, there is some hope you're wrong.

 

[chebby]

Maybe if I don't get used to it, there is some hope you're wrong.

I hope i'm wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

When it ends another will start and so on...