SQ..what is it?

[twistedchild420 5,000+ posts]

I got all the SQ....and it's not for sale...

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

You seem to want this to be some sort of competition. You continue to ignore my actual points to you and others here, and instead focus on my sarcasm. I dont need to feel like Ive won or lost here, maybe you should ask yourself why you do. If you want to discuss the topic, pick a side and have at it. If you want to continue to try and 'beat' me, then you've already beaten yourself. All I had to do was sit back and watch.
Cheers.

Let's try this another route.

Define "great music".

Let's survey a couple hypothetical characters as well.

First, we ask a classically trained conductor who defines "great music" based on it's level of technicality, design of the harmonies, timing, etc. He uses a more objective approach to defining the term.

Then we go and ask a random guy off the street. He defines "great music" as what music best fits his personal tastes. He may be a huge KISS fan, for example. So he gives them as an example of "great music".

You would come along and tell us that music quality is not subjective and no matter how much we like our favorite music it can never be great unless it follows the rules defined by the conductor.

I would say yes, in order to more objectively identify "great music" you would have to follow the definition given by the conductor. But, for example, not everybody likes the sound of that music, no matter how "great" it might be. Or, some people aren't worried about how technically "great" their music is as long as it fits their personal taste. So while I may not agree that we can call their preference for musical tastes "great" in the literal sense of the word I can understand why they are more concerned with "great to them" than the overall objective "greatness" of their music, and in turn consider their music "great music".

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

i still run a class a(ppi power class)

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif Your amp is not class A.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Let's try this another route.
Define "great music".

Let's survey a couple hypothetical characters as well.

First, we ask a classically trained conductor who defines "great music" based on it's level of technicality, design of the harmonies, timing, etc. He uses a more objective approach to defining the term.

Then we go and ask a random guy off the street. He defines "great music" as what music best fits his personal tastes. He may be a huge KISS fan, for example. So he gives them as an example of "great music".

You would come along and tell us that music quality is not subjective and no matter how much we like our favorite music it can never be great unless it follows the rules defined by the conductor.

I would say yes, in order to more objectively identify "great music" you would have to follow the definition given by the conductor. But, for example, not everybody likes the sound of that music, no matter how "great" it might be. Or, some people aren't worried about how technically "great" their music is as long as it fits their personal taste. So while I may not agree that we can call their preference for musical tastes "great" in the literal sense of the word I can understand why they are more concerned with "great to them" than the overall objective "greatness" of their music, and in turn consider their music "great music".

This is exactly where you do not understand my point. Im not here to say classical is 'greater' than KISS. Nor am I here to say personal preference has no place in this hobby. But I am saying the quality of the reproduction has a definition. And if we are to water down the term sound quality to say personal preference plays a role in this definition, we lose what would be defined as accuracy of the reproduction. Kiss or Beethoven, SQ doesn't care, its subjective, it has no moral, personal or racial preference, it only cares about accuracy to the original. If you want to define personal preference, what is wrong with using the term... personal preference? When you include personal preference in the definition of sound quality, accuracy no longer has a definition.
And to be honest, to call personal preference 'sound quality' is to, imo at least, diminish an important goal of many people who follow this same hobby as you and I. Accuracy to the original. Let people have their personal preference. As Ive already stated in this thread, Im a personal preference kind of guy with my own systems. By Im not so egotistical as to call that 'quality', its 'preference'. You call my attitude narcissism, I call someone who defines their personal preference as 'sound quality' narcissistic.

 

[atsaubrey 10+ year member]

it sounds like you have never heard a true SQ car...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

I offer my car sometime for you to demo...//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Take Dave up on this, your in Va and Dave is in NC.....your going to like what your hear, well from the amps that is....he dosnt run horns so you cant expect alot.

j/k Dave //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

A well set up horn system is absolutely amazing.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Thank you for proving my point //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif Nothing intelligent to say, so you come up with a witless, sarcastic remark to make yourself feel like you've still "won".

So I guess I should take your lack of an answer to my serious reply as you losing interest in this debate once it stopped being about you 'winning' by trying to make this a flame war.

 

[MegaloJntariac 10+ year member]

A well set up horn system is absolutely amazing.

I dont believe you

 

[spaceinvador]

An sq system is balanced, clean/clear, accurate and natural sounding. The more detail you hear in the music, the better the sq.

I once had a system where you could hear most singers breath. The highs didn't hurt my ears, even at louder volumes like most tweeters do. Freaking thieves!

I'm still looking for some AUDIA plate speakers. They'd probably fall apart they'd be so old though. I believe they were made by COUSTIC.

 

[spaceinvador]

Can horns play at really low volumes with really good accuracy? Or, does it take a certain volume for them to start to really come-alive? I always thought horns were made for getting loud.

 

[audiolife 5,000+ posts]

Can horns play at really low volumes with really good accuracy? Or, does it take a certain volume for them to start to really come-alive? I always thought horns were made for getting loud.

Yes horns can be very accurate at low volume

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

So I guess I should take your lack of an answer to my serious reply as you losing interest in this debate once it stopped being about you 'winning' by trying to make this a flame war.

I lost interest in this debate once I had to restate the exact same thing four times and yet it's still lost on you. And, amazingly, despite all of the other people in this thread you seem to be the only one who has taken a major issue with what I said. So, the problem is apparently not in my explanation but rather your comprehension. Thus, it wasn't worth my time or effort to continue.

But, if I must;

This is exactly where you do not understand my point.

I understand your point completely. And I've never said that SQ can be formally described as anything other than accuracy. The difference is I am openly expressing my empathy for the non-purist (also the "audiophile" who claims they are seeking completely accuracy, yet want their amps and wires to add "warmth and richness" to the reproduction).

And if we are to water down the term sound quality to say personal preference plays a role in this definition, we lose what would be defined as accuracy of the reproduction.

And many music purists would tell you that personal preference plays no role in a great musical composition.

If you want to define personal preference, what is wrong with using the term... personal preference?

How do you propose we identify what it is someone is looking for in a system if anything not stringently confined to complete accuracy is identified as personal preference? It would be nearly impossible to discuss these things without a base-line generality we can identify with. As such, people generalize their style into the two groups of "SQ" and "SPL" so there is a common understanding of their interests, even if those interests aren't confined to the literal definition. And this I can empathize with.

And to be honest, to call personal preference 'sound quality' is to, imo at least, diminish an important goal of many people who follow this same hobby as you and I. Accuracy to the original. Let people have their personal preference. As Ive already stated in this thread, Im a personal preference kind of guy with my own systems. By Im not so egotistical as to call that 'quality', its 'preference'. You call my attitude narcissism, I call someone who defines their personal preference as 'sound quality' narcissistic.

I bet you are a hoot to discuss your system with.

"So what kind of system do you have?"

A personal preference system.

"Yeah, but like what kind?"

The kind that I like.

"But like, is it more sound quality oriented or SPL oriented?"

It's oriented to sound good to me.

"Okay. And what would that be?"

My preference.

"But did you focus on SPL or sound quality?"

I focused on my preference.

"What's your preference, sound quality or SPL?"

My preference is what sounds good to me.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I lost interest in this debate once I had to restate the exact same thing four times and yet it's still lost on you. And, amazingly, despite all of the other people in this thread you seem to be the only one who has taken a major issue with what I said. So, the problem is apparently not in my explanation but rather your comprehension. Thus, it wasn't worth my time or effort to continue.

So since Im the only one who takes issues with your comments, you must be right. Nice logic. And the truth is you flamed me over and over for not taking you serious, to the point I did, and THEN you lost interest. Your goal, since your very first quote of me in this thread, stating "STFU", has been to flame me. So once I called you on having a serious discussion even when having being met with "stfu", you 'lose interest'. That speaks volumes to me. Yet here I am, still willing to engage you in this discussion. So please, drop the high-road attitude. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

I understand your point completely. And I've never said that SQ can be formally described as anything other than accuracy. The difference is I am openly expressing my empathy for the non-purist (also the "audiophile" who claims they are seeking completely accuracy, yet want their amps and wires to add "warmth and richness" to the reproduction).

Express your empathy for the non-purists all you want, so have I. The crux of our argument, which seems lost on you here, is trying to classify personal preference as "SQ". No, you dont understand my point. At all, apparently.

And many music purists would tell you that personal preference plays no role in a great musical composition.

Im not interested in defending the position of of these anonymous 'many music purists' you are now trying to interject into our discussion. My comments on personal preference people trying to define their preference as "SQ" are displayed in this very thread. Your example is just you pulling an example out of your ***.

How do you propose we identify what it is someone is looking for in a system if anything not stringently confined to complete accuracy is identified as personal preference? It would be nearly impossible to discuss these things without a base-line generality we can identify with. As such, people generalize their style into the two groups of "SQ" and "SPL" so there is a common understanding of their interests, even if those interests aren't confined to the literal definition. And this I can empathize with.

You are trying to corner me into specifics when Ive stated along simply that "personal preference is not SQ". You say you get my point completely, and then make statements like the quoted above that show you really dont follow my very simple and general point.

I bet you are a hoot to discuss your system with.
"So what kind of system do you have?"

A personal preference system.

"Yeah, but like what kind?"

The kind that I like.

"But like, is it more sound quality oriented or SPL oriented?"

It's oriented to sound good to me.

"Okay. And what would that be?"

My preference.

"But did you focus on SPL or sound quality?"

I focused on my preference.

"What's your preference, sound quality or SPL?"

My preference is what sounds good to me.

First you portray me as an egotistical narcissistic purist, now you portray me as a dim witted personal preference person. Yeah, you really got me figured out. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

And further more, your assumptive diatribe about me above only further shows your goal here is not to have a rational discussion about the topic, but instead try to use it as a platform to flame me. *yawn*

 

[Ctesibius 10+ year member]

So since Im the only one who takes issues with your comments, you must be right.

This isn't about being "right", remember //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

I didn't say it made me "right", I said my explanations were apparently sufficient to convey my point to everyone except you.

Your goal, since your very first quote of me in this thread, stating "STFU", has been to flame me.

OMFG are you kidding me? It wasn't blatantly obvious that my post there was sarcastic tongue-in-cheek comment? You either have some serious paranoia issues, or a very poor sarcasm detector.

http://www.caraudio.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6525867&postcount=85

But wait, let me save you the time. In an event reminiscent of Eminem in 8 Mile, let me disspell in advance some of the nonsense you are going to proclaim. You will probably come back and tell me that it was a serious comment portrayed as sarcasm to avoid overt confrontation. Which I would hope given my other postings one could see as being not my personality type. You might also try to say that it was not sarcasm at all, but rather my initiation of an argument with you as my entire goal is to flame you and am only now claiming sarcasm to avoid being detected as a flamer. Again, you might have noticed this does not fit my personality. So save the nonsense and take it for what it is......a tongue-in-cheek comment that I posted as I was sitting here bored and thought it would be an interesting play on words.

So once I called you on having a serious discussion even when having being met with "stfu", you 'lose interest'.

Yes, I did. Talking to a brick wall has never been something that kept me engaged in a topic.

That speaks volumes to me.

Oh, trust me, you're postings speak volumes to everyone aswell //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Yet here I am, still willing to engage you in this discussion. So please, drop the high-road attitude. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

I suppose I could make an exception in this case and instead take the road you have so often traveled.

Express your empathy for the non-purists all you want, so have I. The crux of our argument, which seems lost on you here, is trying to classify personal preference as "SQ". No, you dont understand my point. At all, apparently.

Yes, I do understand your point. You, however, do not understand mine as clearly stated in this thread in multiple different posts. I'm not restating it for the fifth time.

Im not interested in defending the position of of these anonymous 'many music purists' you are now trying to interject into our discussion. My comments on personal preference people trying to define their preference as "SQ" are displayed in this very thread. Your example is just you pulling an example out of your ***.

It was a metaphor which is apparently completely lost on you. I'm sorry it is apparently behind your ability to relate.

You are trying to corner me into specifics when Ive stated along simply that "personal preference is not SQ".

Yes, I am cornering you into specifics in order to display the flaw in your plan. If we can't use terms like "sound quality" to describe general preferences, how exactly do you propose we describe said personal preferences? If you can't offer any further guidance in this area, then your position has zero meaning or relevance.

You say you get my point completely, and then make statements like the quoted above that show you really dont follow my very simple and general point.

I just demonstrated that I am following with your point, as evidenced by the above question I posed that you are unable to answer.

First you portray me as an egotistical narcissistic purist,

I didn't say you were a purist, I said you have an egotistical, narcissistic personality.

now you portray me as a dim witted personal preference person.

While part of the adjectives there very well may be fitting, you didn't seem to comment on the point I was making.

And further more, your assumptive diatribe about me above only further shows your goal here is not to have a rational discussion about the topic, but instead try to use it as a platform to flame me. *yawn*

I've been yawning on this topic for the past few days, hence my lack of response. Yet now you try to come back and pretend that you are beyond the conversation and I'm lacking a rational discussion when I've already abandoned it once and you essentially begged me to continue it. Yeah, that is fantastically logical.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

This isn't about being "right", remember //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

So now you dont know the difference between the words "right" and "winning"?

I didn't say it made me "right", I said my explanations were apparently sufficient to convey my point to everyone except you.

Or, maybe, nobody else cares enough to comment/disagree with you. Or, they dont follow your logic to the point of not disagreeing. Or maybe they realize the level with which you apparently love to argue, and decided to exert their efforts otherwise. There are any number of reasons this is possible, yet you conclude it obviously means you 'conveyed your meaning properly' to everyone but me. A fancy way of saying you are right. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif And yes, you yet again trying to convince everyone Im just the most stupid person in this thread who doesn't get YOUR points only serves to show your goal here is not substance, but immature flaming.

OMFG are you kidding me? It wasn't blatantly obvious that my post there was sarcastic tongue-in-cheek comment? You either have some serious paranoia issues, or a very poor sarcasm detector.

Sarcastic oir not was hardly my point. My point was that since your very first comment here you have tried to do nothing but down me under the pretense of arguing my point. You would think someone who champions the idea of poor comprehension would be more careful than this.

But wait, let me save you the time. In an event reminiscent of Eminem in 8 Mile, let me disspell in advance some of the nonsense you are going to proclaim. You will probably come back and tell me that it was a serious comment portrayed as sarcasm to avoid overt confrontation. Which I would hope given my other postings one could see as being not my personality type. You might also try to say that it was not sarcasm at all, but rather my initiation of an argument with you as my entire goal is to flame you and am only now claiming sarcasm to avoid being detected as a flamer. Again, you might have noticed this does not fit my personality. So save the nonsense and take it for what it is......a tongue-in-cheek comment that I posted as I was sitting here bored and thought it would be an interesting play on words.

Translation: you think you know what Im going to say, yet you were quite wrong. And you call me narcissistic. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Yes, I did. Talking to a brick wall has never been something that kept me engaged in a topic.

Again, you only decided you were talking to a brick wall when I called you on getting serious about the topic. I wasn't a 'brick wall' when I was doing nothing but laying out sarcasm for you to portray as my inability to discuss this on a mature level with you.

I suppose I could make an exception in this case and instead take the road you have so often traveled.

More diatribe to imply you know me, or anything about me. Tell me, if you are so interested in a mature and rational debate, how does this comment fit into that? Again you met me with sarcasm, 'blatant' or not, that was less than friendly, rational, or respectful, from the very start. And yet here I am still willing to engage you on the topic. So you simply implying I am somehow the immature one here just because you say so, falls on deaf ears. I guess Im just flattered that Im apparently important enough to you to have been watching my comments enough to feel you can make such a general statement about me and my motives on this forum, while I really have no idea who you are. Or care. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wave.gif.002382ce7d7c19757ab945cc69819de1.gif

Oh, trust me, you're postings speak volumes to everyone aswell //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Regurgitating my comments with absolutely no evidence, or even personal opinion based comments, to back them up, only further shows your intent here appears not to be a rational discussion, but to turn this into a personal flame fest.

Yes, I do understand your point. You, however, do not understand mine as clearly stated in this thread in multiple different posts. I'm not restating it for the fifth time.

You stating you get my point over and over, does not diminish my examples that show you in fact do not. And again I find it amusing you did not decide I was not worth 'restating your point' only after you talked me into actually calling your bluff to have a reasonable discussion about the topic. Its worth your effort to come up with imaginary discussions with me based on your assumptions of what I know, how I feel, and what my motives are, in an attempt to make me look bad. But now all the sudden its no longer worth your effort to actually type out what you call your point one single solitary more time. I think this latest post from you shows you do feel this thread is worth putting effort into, based on the sheer size of your reply. but actually having a rational discussion on the topic is beneath you, your effort is only worth making sarcastic comments to try and defame me.

It was a metaphor which is apparently completely lost on you. I'm sorry it is apparently behind your ability to relate.

So you calling it a metaphor changes my point that you are now trying to get me to defend a position I never took? Argumentative, that's what it was.

Yes, I am cornering you into specifics in order to display the flaw in your plan. If we can't use terms like "sound quality" to describe general preferences, how exactly do you propose we describe said personal preferences? If you can't offer any further guidance in this area, then your position has zero meaning or relevance.

If you want to discuss specifics, why not address the specifics I brought up, rather than make up your own and try to claim they are mine? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
Again I stated that personal preference has its place, certainly. But to define it as "sound quality" is to remove accuracy, and render accuracy as undefined, while refusing to accept 'personal preference' as the proper term for a goal that revolves around a person's own desire to manipulate the sound to what they personally like. Any other made-up specifics you want to try and place in my words are simply you trying to dodge my real point, and replace it with one you feel you have a better chance of arguing against.

I just demonstrated that I am following with your point, as evidenced by the above question I posed that you are unable to answer.

For anyone who is following this 'debate', which nobody probably is at this point, you just demonstrated what i said above, that you are too scared, apparently, to address my actual points, so make up ones of your own, and claim they are mine.

I didn't say you were a purist, I said you have an egotistical, narcissistic personality.

I didn't say you said purist, I said you were trying to portray me as one. Here, let me give an example...

You would come along and tell us that music quality is not subjective and no matter how much we like our favorite music it can never be great unless it follows the rules defined by the conductor.

Again you are so willing to argue with me at any cost, that you will come at me from any angle you can, even two opposing ones like first Im a purist, now Im a personal preference person. Can you not form a coherent and concise argument for me? Try harder. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

While part of the adjectives there very well may be fitting, you didn't seem to comment on the point I was making.

Cast me in a negative light, no matter how nonsensical, right? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif You claim I ignored your point, when all you did was come up with some hypothetical discussion I had with... somebody... based on your assumptions of knowing me on a personal level. okay, here's me addressing your point... I wouldnt have said that, you were 100% wrong. Good enough for you now? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

I've been yawning on this topic for the past few days, hence my lack of response. Yet now you try to come back and pretend that you are beyond the conversation and I'm lacking a rational discussion when I've already abandoned it once and you essentially begged me to continue it. Yeah, that is fantastically logical.

I really have to question your ability to follow me now. I was only acting 'beyond the conversation' when I was only giving sarcastic replies, which you didn't like and complained about. Now that Im willing to address you on the actual topic of the thread, you claim Im NOW acting like Im above the discussion. As for 'begging' you to continue? lol Now who is the one acting narcissistic? Pointing out that once I was willing to address you on the topic, you decided to stop replying, and only came back when I called you out by pointing out your hypocritical action, would only be "begging" to a narcissist. I guess the old saying is really true, the one who smelt it, dealt it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif