SQL Monte

Got into quite the debate on this topic, figured I'd run it by you guys and see what you think.

It started when someone said they disliked people using the acronym "SQL" so my response to that was that the acronym meant different things to different people, there is no one definition of it so it can't be used improperly since it's subjective just like the term "loud."

The response back was SQ is not subjective, I don't know what i'm talking about, blah, blah, blah.

I then asked, well if it's not subjective then explain to me how SQ is measured and/or determined without the need for human interpretation that helps come to such a determination. The response to that was "you're incoherent."

So I ask you, do you think the determination on if your system is "SQ" is subjective or is there a completely non-subjective way to determine that?

Lord Huggington

iTrader: (1)

Musical reproduction so it's the artists' opinion. I think the best SQ is having a 20-20hz range at equal volumes with the tweeters pointed away or under so they don't make my ears distort. Punchy mids for Korn songs, lots of low end. There is no SQL, your SQ stereo might get loud and your SPL stereo might sound good. If you aim for 50/50 than you'll have neither. Either make your SQ loud with more subs or SPL musical with a 35hz tune.

fresh1

iTrader: (2)

There was another thread on this which proved that it was, but all the SQ guys got mad.

I guess on the one hand there is a marking sheet that IASCA uses with specific criteria, so in that context it isn't subjective.

On the other hand, it is subjective, because it is. Not all judges are gonna score things exactly the same, so unless there is a machine to grade a system and show absolutely no bias or preference to certain aspects whatsoever (like a TL does for SPL), then it is safe to say that SQ is subjective, SPL is finite.

As far as I'm concerned I have the best sounding setup in the world, which is why I have it, but I'm sure a million people would say the same thing.

SQL Monte

I hope I don't **** off the SQ guys cause i'm not knocking it at all, I actually prefer SQ over SPL. But that doesn't change the fact that SPL can be quantified, SQ can't.

MTT

iTrader: (17)

it's true what you say. Won't **** anyone off.
SQ is subjective to a degree, which is why IASCA tries to have the same judge judge a whole class for sound, although it may not be perfect that way, at least they get consistency.

I think SQL should exist as a separate category than SPL or SQ and I think it does in some of the other organizations.

Although I compete in SQ, I want my SQ to be as loud as possible yet still sound great, tougher in a car than either SPL or pure SQ (IMO)

Denonite

iTrader: (1)

For anything to be objective, it has to be quantifiable, measurable. The adjective definition as it pertains to this topic reads as follows..." not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion." Hence the opposite is true of SQ in the general sense. If the reference is to an Iasca or other sound competition, then it may be more objective in that there are specific details and measurements that may need be met, but in the end it still requires a judge or judges to come to a consensus on which vehicle sounded best.

RomanticMoments

SQ is all about perception not a number on a screen. As much respect as I have for SPL competitors, I can't see myself competing at a level where I can't even sit in my car to listen to it.... Once there is equipment that can percieve where instruments are, and how high and wide the sound stage "appears" then maybe you can have your hard data to make it measurable by SPL comparison. I suppose the major difference is that SQ guys can listen to a well balanced, clean system all day everyday, where an SPL competitor's vehicle is muuuuuuch less likely to have anything other than sub woofers, amps, and batteries in it.

zoomer

iTrader: (3)

First let me say that I am a Snake Oil Exorcist...I do not believe that there is ANYTHING in the audio world that cannot be measured if we chose to do so. Having said that, the question then becomes what do you measure, and then how do you weigh those measurements to get a final single quality measure of SQ. How you weight it then becomes subjective. So you can measure frequency response but how do you say that a 2 db dip at 5 khz is better or worse than a 2 db peak at 200hz? Same goes for distortion, phase response, time allignment, transient response(just another way to quantify frequency/phase response etc) etc etc.

So in strict terms SQ can be unbiased in what you measure, but how you rate the importance of each measurement is subjective.

RomanticMoments

@Zoomer:
Well, the freq response should be flat, agreed? A points based system could be developed. Whoever returns the flattest response would have the most points. Mathematics could determine if time alignment is correct, again make it point based, distortion could be linked to dB's. Higher the SPL without distortion, the more points you recieve. These could be done with a mic and ocilliscope. Food for thought, no?

zoomer

iTrader: (3)

I it is still subjective. Is a 1 db bump over 200Hz at 1 Khz the same as a 2 db bump over 100hz at 10Khz?
It would take much more than a scope. But it can be done.. with a dummy with earmikes in the drivers seat. This would be a PHD research project.. Not much fun for an Iasca meet..
And of course... if someone developed measurements that the HIFI industry agreed upon. then no body would be able to sell $1000 power cords.