• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Your opinions please?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

Bodfish

New member
Jun 25, 2009
16
0
0
ooh.. said:
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.
 

oldric_naubhoff

New member
Mar 11, 2011
23
0
0
ooh.. said:
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

New member
Mar 11, 2011
23
0
0
ooh.. said:
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

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,232
4
19,195
Bodfish said:
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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

New member
Jun 25, 2009
16
0
0
chebby said:
Bodfish said:
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

New member
Jan 7, 2008
446
0
0
ooh.. said:
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fr0g said:
ooh.. said:
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

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
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?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
John Duncan said:
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

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
ooh.. said:
John Duncan said:
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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

New member
Jan 7, 2008
446
0
0
ooh.. said:
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 :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
John Duncan said:
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

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2008
2,027
13
19,695
fr0g said:
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.
 

bigblue235

New member
Aug 22, 2007
82
0
0
ooh.. said:
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?
 

chebby

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2008
1,232
4
19,195
Alec said:
John Duncan said:
(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

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
chebby said:
Alec said:
John Duncan said:
(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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts