SQL: Does it exist?

[s Beatz]

Donpistos a idiot

/thread

 

[da box king 10+ year member]

I hate sh1t like this, seriously yur argueing with many owners, manufacturers, and consumers on the definition of the speaker that THEY produced

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

Not really. And yes, SQ can be measurable. You can notice whether one person's stage is centered as opposed to not centered.

Thats your definition of sq? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif C'mon now you have to come up with something better than that.

Also did you happen to look at the definition of sq?

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

ive never liked the term SQLto me you either have a SQ or SPL setup

But what defines a sq setup? Who decides what sounds good? If you say sq judges you will lose all credibility.

But since someone asked the definition of 'sq' to those that compete (the origination) it means to accurately reproduce an original recording. This is how it is measured but to me this is quite moot in real life. Thus my problem with the term sq.

 

[shaneb 10+ year member]

so a IDMAX?

this thread is fail?

I would consider SQL to be reproducing a artists intention with zero distortion and clean power at a certain spl level or higher.

And yes SQ is very measurable. Bed time though

 

[bones22 5,000+ posts]

But what defines a sq setup? Who decides what sounds good? If you say sq judges you will lose all credibility.
But since someone asked the definition of 'sq' to those that compete (the origination) it means to accurately reproduce an original recording. This is how it is measured but to me this is quite moot in real life. Thus my problem with the term sq.

who decides would be whoever owns it and likes how it sounds.

if they think the quality is great to listen to thats what matters

sure there are SQ comps but every judge will be different. one may way crystal clear highs the kill, the next may expect midbass with nice highs to complete it, of course there should be low end no matter.

hell a single judge may change their mind after its to late.

 

[PsychoTheRapist 5,000+ posts]

SQL is an anomaly.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

who decides would be whoever owns it and likes how it sounds.if they think the quality is great to listen to thats what matters

sure there are SQ comps but every judge will be different. one may way crystal clear highs the kill, the next may expect midbass with nice highs to complete it, of course there should be low end no matter.

hell a single judge may change their mind after its to late.

Exactly my point. The definition is so widely misused I vote we do away with it completely since its not measurable and everyone will have their own idea.

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

who decides would be whoever owns it and likes how it sounds.if they think the quality is great to listen to thats what matters

sure there are SQ comps but every judge will be different. one may way crystal clear highs the kill, the next may expect midbass with nice highs to complete it, of course there should be low end no matter.

hell a single judge may change their mind after its to late.

I AGREE!

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

And just how does one measure that???

Use your ears. It's not difficult to tell if the sound is coming from the center of the vehicle, in front of you, or from the sides.

It does NOT define SQ...

It doesn't define, but it states its acronym. Do you see an acronym for SQL in terms of audio?

So I manage to get my $10 Dual comps to provide a centered stage, do I now have SQ?

No, it's not only about a centered stage. There are many more aspects to sound quality. Driver choice makes a difference as well, and so does placement. Sure, you can buy $10 speakers, but does that mean it will be able to sound as good as some other drivers just because you can get it centered? Nope.

Some other aspects of sound quality are how well your setup blends. You have your tweeters/horns, mid range, midbass, sub bass. One of those should not drone the other and overpower it. If you have heard a true SQ setup, you would know what I'm talking about. It's easier to listen and understand than it is to describe. Along with a centered stage, it's good for it to be deep and wide as well.

Donpistos a idiot
/thread

Show me a single intelligent post of yours //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

But what defines a sq setup? Who decides what sounds good? If you say sq judges you will lose all credibility.
But since someone asked the definition of 'sq' to those that compete (the origination) it means to accurately reproduce an original recording. This is how it is measured but to me this is quite moot in real life. Thus my problem with the term sq.

Nope, not a judge, but yes, it's to reproduce the original recording. You may say it's quite moot, but it's not. See, we all hear things differently, but our ears are not too far off. If I hear something coming from the right side, it's not like someone is going to say, not it's from the center, or from the left.

My entire point here is that SQL does not exist. People think that a setup that can get loud and does not have the sound of a pure SPL setup, is SQL. They think that sounding is sufficient, but sound quality is exactly as you stated..."the means to accurately reproduce an original recording" and I don't think ANYONE who is stating about doing an SQL setup or using SQL subs is trying to accomplish the reproduction of the original recording.

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

I hate sh1t like this, seriously yur argueing with many owners, manufacturers, and consumers on the definition of the speaker that THEY produced

Tell me what manufacturers I'm arguing with? i'm only stating a point to those who misunderstand an audio concept, something that was coined that is non-existent. The term just caught on

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

Thats your definition of sq? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif C'mon now you have to come up with something better than that.
Also did you happen to look at the definition of sq?

That's not my entire definition and yes I did. I know what SQ is. I have heard numerous SQ setups, including one that has been an Amateur World Class champion.

If you haven't listened to a true SQ setup, tell me, how do you define what SQ use? It's like reviewing a sub you haven't heard or reviewing a car you haven't driven. That's not direct experience, that's just joining a bandwagon and/or using another's opinion.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

But if the original recording sounds like shit who is to say that is 'sq'? Its a bad definition and yes ears can interpret sound much differently from one person to the next.

I agree sql is worthless without question. But so is the term sq.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

That's not my entire definition and yes I did. I know what SQ is. I have heard numerous SQ setups, including one that has been an Amateur World Class champion.
If you haven't listened to a true SQ setup, tell me, how do you define what SQ use? It's like reviewing a sub you haven't heard or reviewing a car you haven't driven. That's not direct experience, that's just joining a bandwagon and/or using another's opinion.

Are you trying to tell me I havent heard an sq system or am I just supposed to be blown away by the fact you have heard an amateur world class champion?

Show me a true definition of the term sq without resorting to rule books and you may earn a little credibility.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

My entire point here is that SQL does not exist.

The RC/SW Grand National went undefeated in competition, and is still regarded as one of the best ever, during a time period when people actually cared about sound quality and there was actual competition in the lanes. Do we agree this setup would qualify as a sound quality setup? Yes, good.

That same car could also play, from what I've heard, at 140db full range. Even if we assume that's an overestimate, let's say it could play a consistent 126db+ full range. That's loud, right? Capable of getting loud enough to deafen you.

So, explain to me how "sound quality loud" doesn't exist? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Also, I utterly hate these discussions. They are pointless and semantics. When someone says they want "SQL", it means they want something that sounds good or is capable of sounding good but also capable of getting pretty loud. And throwing out the term "SQL" saves time and provides a general understanding as opposed to having to express, in detail, what I just typed every single time it's discussed. One term compared to an entire sentence, which in essence express the exact same desire.

Though one could pose the argument that there is no such thing as sound quality un-loud since one requirement for sound quality is to reproduce the sound at accurate output levels, which for even orchestral music can be quite excessive in the lower frequency register (i.e. feeling the sub-20hz organ) and even in the treble/midrange (i.e. dynamic range). But since most people associate "sound quality" with "not loud but sounds good", people toss the "L" on the back of "SQ" to better define what it is they are seeking.

Quit trolling and go back to your hole.