SQL: Does it exist?

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

The term "sound quality" has been defined. Now in terms of measurement, you are stating that just because there is no one single form of measurement, then it is not accurate and should not exist. So let's take that and apply it to something else. When we watch the olympics, such as diving, figure skating, gymnastics..don't all those sports have several judges and base their opinion on the performance of the athlete?

So just because different individuals judge the athlete, just like the an audio setup, does that mean it's not a form of measurement, or that it's not a good form of measurement? If that's the case, why do judges and those scorings exist in the olympics?

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

Im aware it was defined. I was the one that defined it.

The differences are in the definition of what is termed acceptable with the judges. Yes you can measure frequency response, staging, imaging, etc, but where will that tell you what sounds good? The main goal of most audiophiles is not to compete but to enjoy their music.

Thats like telling someone that because they figure skate for fun they have to do it according to how the sport itself is judged. That is retarded and beyond logic.

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

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 and 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.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif

I was disturbed by a post in another thread. I'm not trying to say that a setup can not get loud and sound great at the same time. It most certainly can.

Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that people state they want an SQL sub. They want something that can get loud and will sound good and the MAJORITY of the people interested in "SQL" are only in for the setup to sound "clean", which is not the ONLY factor of sound quality.

But you're right, this sort of discussion is the type that will go back and forth and no definite answer, agreement, conclusion, or whatever, will come out of it.

Crap, I just read the last paragraph of your post and realized that's sums up what I was trying to state.

 

[photocrazy8 10+ year member]

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.

so you only live my SPL because its the only term you can define based off a score on a meter?

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

so you only live my SPL because its the only term you can define based off a score on a meter?

Nope, never even cared to have my system metered.

But of the three it is the only one not left to interpretation.

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

I'm not saying this is a form of measurement necessarily to judge, but if you want to see how flat the setup is, there's an RTA.

Personally, even after using an RTA, I would fine tune to my own preference, because as you stated before Mokedaddy, it's user preference.

 

[00RedRT 10+ year member]

If you compete in MECA, you can compete in either....

or

or both. So when I hear the acronym "SQL", this is what I think of. Though some interpret it differently.

 

[MmatsDude 10+ year member]

The term "sound quality" has been defined. Now in terms of measurement, you are stating that just because there is no one single form of measurement, then it is not accurate and should not exist. So let's take that and apply it to something else. When we watch the olympics, such as diving, figure skating, gymnastics..don't all those sports have several judges and base their opinion on the performance of the athlete?
So just because different individuals judge the athlete, just like the an audio setup, does that mean it's not a form of measurement, or that it's not a good form of measurement? If that's the case, why do judges and those scorings exist in the olympics?

I disagree on that part. The judges might have there opinions on the athletes performance. But they don't choose the winner based on there opinion, they choose who executes the moves, flips, etc, better, wich ups the scoring of the athlete.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

Flat rta sounds like shit to just about anyone that I know so I would hardly use that as a determining factor to 'sound quality'.

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

I disagree on that part. The judges might have there opinions on the athletes performance. But they don't choose the winner based on there opinion, they choose who executes the moves, flips, etc, better.

That judging IS their opinion. Otherwise, who's opinion are they going off of?

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

Flat rta sounds like shit to just about anyone that I know so I would hardly use that as a determining factor to 'sound quality'.

Agreed, I can't stand it myself.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Put it this way, if someone said they were interested in a SQL sub, would you be more inclined to recommend an IDQ, an older gen Mag, or an L7?

 

[donpisto 5,000+ posts]

Depends on what loud is considered to that person. I've heard IDQ's getting fairly loud. So I would say either the IDQ or the Mag, though I know most people here off the bat will say the Mag.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

Put it this way, if someone said they were interested in a SQL sub, would you be more inclined to recommend an IDQ, an older gen Mag, or an L7?

We just call them idiots, recommend the forum boner and proceed as far off topic as possible.

If they really knew what they were looking for they would know that the box is much more a factor than the speaker itself.

 

[bdawson72 5,000+ posts]

In the words of my fav mod.

SQL doesnt exist.