Define SQ.

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

One question regarding the definition of SQ.
If "Sound Quality" is defined as "Accurate acoustic reproduction" then when do we have the term "Sound Accuracy"?

No idea. I honestly don't think I've ever heard someone use the term "sound accuracy".

At one point and time on this forum, there was a term that meant "How good the output of a given speaker or subwoofer sounds to the listener", and I can't for the life of me think what it was, because I thought that was "Sound Quality". Perhaps it's just "color" with some fitting adjectives. I don't know.

Someone may have mistakenly used "sound quality" to define a user's preference in sound.

But I've always called someone's preference in sound their...um, preference.

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

lmao people thought it was serious //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

u laff cause u know ud get beat up lol

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif yes

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

lolololol make a fake kung fu movie shaolin db drags lol.

common sense says if its not accurate then how is it quality?

 

[Raven 10+ year member]

Well, "relative" SQ wouldn't have to be accurate. How many people do you know that claim to have "SQ" setups with harsh highs, muddy mids, and subs crossed over at 200hz +? To them that is quality. Sound Accuracy would be inarguable, unless you get into the dB vs dBA discussion.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

in the old days (old sq scores were like ultimate pro now) they broke down everything with a description to what it was suppost to sound like too. in that form sq wasnt very subjective only to the point a score was given. people will argue that comps arent real world but as with anyone giving judgement as such they use material they are used too and are judging it with the same criteria as they do in a comp. usually where people got bent was were they would do good in tonality they get ramshacked in staging and imaging and vice versa. so the reasons to it which unhappiness with the format came from too much criteria rather than being more simplistic like they are getting now (out side of ultimate classes)

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Well, "relative" SQ wouldn't have to be accurate. How many people do you know that claim to have "SQ" setups with harsh highs, muddy mids, and subs crossed over at 200hz +? To them that is quality.

Yes, and I can say the sky is green and the grass is purple. Doesn't make my statement true.

Same for sound quality. Someone can say it's a "sound quality" install....doesn't mean it's true. It's setup for their preference in sound, but that surely doesn't make it sound quality.

 

[tRiGgEr 5,000+ posts]

lmao people thought it was serious //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Pu55y.