Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ctesibius" data-source="post: 6294265" data-attributes="member: 564131">Well, I guess I didn&#039;t realize you were a complete dunce.&nbsp; But now that I know, I guess I could try to explain it in a little more detail for your simple mind.Words and phrases have different definitions to different people.&nbsp; For example, the same word can have two different meanings to two people in different disciplines.&nbsp; There can be a &quot;formal&quot; definition and an &quot;informal&quot; or &quot;slang&quot; definition.&nbsp; The only way to objectively, or formally, define &quot;SQ&quot; would be to define it as absolute accuracy to the source material.&nbsp; There are, however, those who informally define it simply as what sounds best to them with less regard to how accurate or true to the source it is.&nbsp; The original post asked, essentially, &quot;how some of you define SQ setup&quot;.&nbsp; This is the division that will never be reconciled.&nbsp; You will never get the two sides to agree on a single definition of &quot;SQ&quot;.&nbsp; Some want complete accuracy, others want it to sound good to them even if it&#039;s not entirely accurate.I didn&#039;t say I personally would define SQ as subjective.&nbsp; I said there are times when I&#039;m listening to my system and don&#039;t worry about the absolute accuracy because I would rather enjoy the music itself than worry about why a particular cord on the guitar doesn&#039;t sound exactly perfect.&nbsp; Although the accuracy isn&#039;t perfect, it&#039;s still enjoyable to listen to.&nbsp; That is all some people are looking for in an &quot;SQ system&quot;, something enjoyable to listen to.&nbsp; So I can somewhat relate to why they might prefer their ideals of what makes a good &quot;SQ&quot; system even if I don&#039;t share their definition.This is the internet, everyone is an expert.&nbsp; I would post a picture of my Phds is psychology, acoustics, linguistics and physics.....but I think I put them in a box I took to storage.&nbsp; In the mean time, just take my word for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ctesibius, post: 6294265, member: 564131"] Well, I guess I didn't realize you were a complete dunce. But now that I know, I guess I could try to explain it in a little more detail for your simple mind. Words and phrases have different definitions to different people. For example, the same word can have two different meanings to two people in different disciplines. There can be a "formal" definition and an "informal" or "slang" definition. The only way to [I]objectively[/I], or formally, define "SQ" would be to define it as absolute accuracy to the source material. There are, however, those who informally define it simply as what sounds best to them with less regard to how accurate or true to the source it is. The original post asked, essentially, "how some of you define SQ setup". This is the division that will never be reconciled. You will never get the two sides to agree on a single definition of "SQ". Some want complete accuracy, others want it to sound good to them even if it's not entirely accurate. I didn't say [I]I[/I] personally would define SQ as subjective. I said there are times when I'm listening to my system and don't worry about the absolute accuracy because I would rather enjoy the music itself than worry about why a particular cord on the guitar doesn't sound exactly perfect. Although the accuracy isn't perfect, it's still enjoyable to listen to. That is all [I]some people[/I] are looking for in an "SQ system", something enjoyable to listen to. So I can somewhat relate to [I]why[/I] they might prefer their ideals of what makes a good "SQ" system even if I don't share their definition. This is the internet, everyone [I]is[/I] an expert. I would post a picture of my Phds is psychology, acoustics, linguistics and physics.....but I think I put them in a box I took to storage. In the mean time, just take my word for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification