SQ Anyone? got my eclipse subs. pics.

[samson 10+ year member]

I can appreciate your thought process Buffalohed and agree with some of what you are saying. I think maybe your equipment's ability to reproduce tonal flatness or accuracy is measureable and therefore objective. I'd even agree with staging to a point.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

And right there is the proof for my "argumentative idiot" saying about you....how is it a cop out? what sounds "good" to me, may not sound "good" to you.. how is that objective? As far as what judges listen for- you are right. however, how many on these boards (especially ca.com) do you REALLY believe actually compete in sq?

Im getting tired of you nipping at my heels like some little dog. Shut up with the arguementative crap. If you disagree with something I have to ay on this board, anyhting I have to say on this board, address it then and there. Pulling this crap of Im arguementative is... well... arguementative. If I truely was what you keep accusing me of, Id verbally abuse you like a red-headed stepchild about now. But I wont, because I have better things to do than argue jsut for the sake of arguing. I expect that to end this issue.
To the 'idiot' comment, well I'll just let you try to put your money where your mouth is, smart guy. Im on this board regularly, think Im an idiot, prove it. I give plenty of ammunition.

Now on to the topic at hand. I dont give a rat's behind what you or I think sounds 'good'. that is not SQ. SQ is accuracy of the reproduction of the original recording. That's a simple concept, Im sure you can wrap your noodle around it. And guess what, that accuracy leaves zero room for yours or my opinion of it. My next door neighbor thinks four 12" Pyramids with an otherwise stock stereo sounds 'good'... hell he thinks it sounds 'great'. If we fall into your touchy-feely definition of sound quality, my neighbor is right. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif That makes it a cop-out.

I can't tell you how many times Ive known someone with a crap system, that he swore sounded perfect.... only to swear his later upgraded system sounded even more perfect. If you want to think that SQ = everyone's own opinion, knock yourself out. You'll be spending the rest of your time arguing with morons over personal opinions. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be working to make our reproductions of the original recording as accurate as possible.

SQ is not subjective, our means for measuring it IS. Understand the difference before you call me the idiot here pal.

Have a great day.

 

[samson 10+ year member]

I think terminology is a factor here. Wikepedia basically has two definitions:

1)Sound quality can be defined as the degree of accuracy with which a device records or emits the original sound waves. (objective)

2)Sound quality is the physical pleasure or fatigue experienced by a listener. (subjective)

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I think terminology is a factor here. Wikepedia basically has two definitions:
1)Sound quality can be defined as the degree of accuracy with which a device records or emits the original sound waves. (objective)

2)Sound quality is the physical pleasure or fatigue experienced by a listener. (subjective)

No denying sound preference has its place, and to each individual is very important. Im not gonna build my system to what someone else likes, or to what an RTA likes. But, why in the world does everyone think the discussions here about SQ always boil down to that? As said above, if we use the term subjectively, we really have nothing to discuss with each other. Im glad you like your music a certain way, but honestly, it means little or nothing to my personal preference, or to buffalo's, or parkave's.
So many times people try to discuss sound quality... accuracy, and yet people want to jump in and insist the topic is subjective. Well okay, lets just never discuss accuracy, tonality or imaging ever again around here.

Again, sound quality is not subjective, our means for measuring it is. That is the only reason Wikepedia has 2 definitions. If our ears worked like RTA's and computers, we'd all know exactly what SQ meant, and we'd all agree. But our ears dont, so people want to start talking about their feelings. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

If we cannot understand that sound quality can and is a subjective term, there is no hope for ever being 'accurate' with our reproductions.

 

[Buffalohed 10+ year member]

So many times people try to discuss sound quality... accuracy, and yet people want to jump in and insist the topic is subjective. Well okay, lets just never discuss accuracy, tonality or imaging ever again around here.

Christ it pisses me off when people do that. It happens all the time on the music forum I frequent as well. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/verymad.gif.3f39c5c2fd57527b671fad3efdfac756.gif

 

[02parkave 5,000+ posts]

Im getting tired of you nipping at my heels like some little dog. Shut up with the arguementative crap. If you disagree with something I have to ay on this board, anyhting I have to say on this board, address it then and there. Pulling this crap of Im arguementative is... well... arguementative. If I truely was what you keep accusing me of, Id verbally abuse you like a red-headed stepchild about now. But I wont, because I have better things to do than argue jsut for the sake of arguing. I expect that to end this issue..

i couldnt really care a whole lot less what you are tired of. fact is- every thread i see you post in (and their are alot of them) you are argueing... please- verbally abuse me- i personally dont think you are intelligent enough to give out any good insults- i'd like to see what you are capable of.... And apperently you DONT have anything better to do, as you are argueing with me right now...i hope you are good looking, as its obvious that your brains arent gonna get you anywhere in life.

 

[Buffalohed 10+ year member]

You can't seriously think that audioholic isn't intelligent. Are you purposely being naive or do you not understand english? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif

 

[02parkave 5,000+ posts]

You can't seriously think that audioholic isn't intelligent. Are you purposely being naive or do you not understand english? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif

actually, i just enjoy fucking with him... i dont know/care if he is intelligent or not.. every post i see where he "owns" people, is simply wikipedia crap...

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

actually, i just enjoy fucking with him... i dont know/care if he is intelligent or not.. every post i see where he "owns" people, is simply wikipedia crap...

Actually, I quoted "Wikepedia crap" once... uhm... today? Cant remember the last time. So? I guess quoting reference sources to back up facts is arguementative. lol The last time we had this discussion (you and me parkave), you accused me of the same thing (copy/pasting from text books) when in fact I was typing my own thoughts. So then, as now, Im wondering why, if you do not contradict the facts I present, do you accuse me of simply arguing? And then follow it up with you just like '****ing with me'. I dont need to insult you, you incriminate yourself with your own words.

As I said, if I were simply arguementative, as you accuse, I would insult you. Im not, hence I didn't. No amount of baiting will change my mind at this point. I merely wanted to point out the fact Im passing on the opportunity, but I guess you missed the point the first time.

i couldnt really care a whole lot less what you are tired of. fact is- every thread i see you post in (and their are alot of them) you are argueing... please- verbally abuse me- i personally dont think you are intelligent enough to give out any good insults- i'd like to see what you are capable of.... And apperently you DONT have anything better to do, as you are argueing with me right now...i hope you are good looking, as its obvious that your brains arent gonna get you anywhere in life.

Actually, as you accuse me of lacking intelligence, you are also missing the point that I was trying to avoid a flame war with you, and stay on topic. Now, if you are gonna nip at my heels about being arguementative, 1) dont practice it yourself, 2) dont try to bait me into it, and 3) what limited expereince you have with me, my replies and my motives here are... well... limited.
Lastly, Ive never 'owned' anyone. The term is childish and degrading. Dont put words in my mouth or wrap my replies in false pretenses. If you cant come up with a viable arguement (gee, my replies are text book, how dare me), dont argue at all. And certainly dont vail it in knockling me down a rung for being arguementative. lmao

Its too bad too parkave, I see you in other threads and you seem like a nice guy. But you jumped my crap in another thread out of the blue the other day, for disagreeing with someone (*gasp*), and you haven't let up since. Maybe you think I'll slink away under your pressure, but I wont. As I said before, dont like what I say, contradict it then and there. Otherwise... stfu.

Have a nice day.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You can't seriously think that audioholic isn't intelligent. Are you purposely being naive or do you not understand english? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/eyebrow.gif.fe2c18d8720fe8c7eaed347b21ea05a5.gif

Thankyou Buffalohed. Parkave and I have had a brief 'history' together the past week or so, and he's simply degenerated into trying to get a rise out of me any way he can, aparently. Its cool, he'll tire soon and move on. But I do appreciate the kind words. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Cheers.

 

[samson 10+ year member]

Again, sound quality is not subjective, our means for measuring it is. That is the only reason Wikepedia has 2 definitions. If our ears worked like RTA's and computers, we'd all know exactly what SQ meant, and we'd all agree. But our ears dont, so people want to start talking about their feelings. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Feelings, huh? lol! Well, I won't ask you to hold me or anything. You're safe. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

I think you make a good point about measuring it being subjective. But isn't judging SQ and making recommendations on equipment subjective? I mean it may very well be measurable with the right equipment but come on....who owns it??? 99% of us have to rely on our ears and experience.

BTW, I enjoy your opinion and have enjoyed this discussion. Guess I'm little argumentative too! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/naughty.gif.94359f346c0f1259df8038d60b41863e.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Feelings, huh? lol! Well, I won't ask you to hold me or anything. You're safe. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
I think you make a good point about measuring it being subjective. But isn't judging SQ and making recommendations on equipment subjective? I mean it may very well be measurable with the right equipment but come on....who owns it??? 99% of us have to rely on our ears and experience.

BTW, I enjoy your opinion and have enjoyed this discussion. Guess I'm little argumentative too! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/naughty.gif.94359f346c0f1259df8038d60b41863e.gif

Judging SQ must be subjective, because (again) our means of measuring it is subjective. That does not mean the subject, sound quality, must be subjective. Even when a judge judges 'subjectively', he is looking for objective cues he has trained his ears/brain to listen for.

Thanks, Ive enjoyed the discussion as well.