Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="squeak9798" data-source="post: 5240927" data-attributes="member: 555320">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.&nbsp; Do we agree this setup would qualify as a sound quality setup?&nbsp; Yes, good.That same car could also play, from what I&#039;ve heard, at 140db full range.&nbsp; Even if we assume that&#039;s an overestimate, let&#039;s say it could play a consistent 126db+ full range.&nbsp; That&#039;s loud, right?&nbsp; Capable of getting loud enough to deafen you.So, explain to me how &quot;sound quality loud&quot; doesn&#039;t exist? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gifAlso, I utterly hate these discussions.&nbsp; They are pointless and semantics.&nbsp; When someone says they want &quot;SQL&quot;, it means they want something that sounds good or is capable of sounding good but also capable of getting pretty loud.&nbsp; And throwing out the term &quot;SQL&quot; saves time and provides a general understanding as opposed to having to express, in detail, what I just typed every single time it&#039;s discussed.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; But since most people associate &quot;sound quality&quot; with &quot;not loud but sounds good&quot;, people toss the &quot;L&quot; on the back of &quot;SQ&quot; to better define what it is they are seeking.Quit trolling and go back to your hole.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="squeak9798, post: 5240927, member: 555320"] 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 [I]full range[/I]. Even if we assume that's an overestimate, let's say it could play a consistent 126db+ [I]full range[/I]. That's loud, right? Capable of getting loud enough to [I]deafen[/I] you. So, explain to me how "sound quality loud" doesn't exist? [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif[/IMG] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification