JohnVroom

This is a significant oversimplification of reality. BUT it is a great stepping off point where the subjectivist and the objectivist need to agree on what is important and what isn't important otherwise opinions and measurements are unimportant.

Subjective measurements are flawed because the human is flawed, our ears are physically shaped differently so we hear differently but there is a subjective but relative 'truth', the key is can the ears measurements be properly and accurately relayed to others. Using standardized testing methods (like ASTM) produces relevant objective measurements. But what is it that needs to be measured, this is where the subjective and the objective need to coincide. Now we fall into a trap, the trap is what is "good" SQ?

As Yuli has pointed out, SQ is not a measurable thing as illustrated from previous threads there is no consensus as to what the term SQ means (the accepted definitions from the dictionary are even disagreed with). If you cant tell me what SQ is, then you cant measure it ever. All the measurements currently available do not explain the sound we perceive. One line of thought is we are measuring the wrong things... but until the "thing" we need to measure is identified the "goodness" of a system is left in subjective hands.

As mentioned above we can measure many acoustic things: distortion, frequency response, impulse response, time decay plots, but these measurements never provide a window to what the product under test sounds like (in other word the objective test must be verifiable to the end user (blue must be blue)). In fact a measurement device cant tell me if I am listening to a Concert Steinway or a player piano. I think that one of the key elements here is the subtle things we use our hearing for to identify direction, distance, and instrument timbre, our ears do not directly measure distortion, phase angle, or frequency response yet they do interpret them with our brain. That is the infuriating point where art and science meet, some say every electrical device sounds the same and others will say they sound different and the problem is neither can validate their point (as in a law) they can only imply or predict truth (which is not truth, merely a trend). So welcome to music, engineering, statistics, and most importantly philosophy which is another painful path because truth is relative in many philosophies.

JohnVroom

this is what RTA does more or less for MECA, IASCA, USACi, and dBDrag and it is not about music or good sound and certainly not SQ. IMO it simply measures the control you have over your systems tonal behavior at a particular volume. I am not trivializing it (since it is important) but that doesn't mean a system that performs well under the microphone sounds vaguely good. There is distortion but it is not measured with an RTA nor is it an implied result and I am not sure in a multi speaker environment that distortion can be measured except from a single tone (not the pink noise you are suggesting). And after all is said and done does a low distortion result mean SQ? Is that a goal?

I am having a little fun here as these are retorical questions meant to stimulate thought.

JohnVroom

While being incoherent is a goal in and of itself (it explains our fondness of alcohol, philosophy and drugs) I have to say SQ is subjective... not completely unmeasurable but it is unquestionably subjective.

420guy

iTrader: (5)

This is the main reason I don't think I will be doing IASCA this year. At one of the shows last year another competitor gave me some advice that turned me right off the whole SQ scene. I was told if judge "A" is going to judge your car turn the subs down as he hates a lot of bass. If judge "B" is doing your car turn your subs up a bit as he likes a little thump in a car. Etc, Etc. Those comments and the fact that my scores varied wildly depending on who judged my car, has unmotivated me to do SQ this year. I am also realizing that you can't do both SQ and SPL with the same setup and do well in both. Therefore I have made the decision to have one of the best sounding SPL cars around.

SQL Monte

Thanks guys, I appreciate all the feedback. I don't know why some people are so thick headed, especially the guy who himself stated there is no real way to measure SQ.

He later attempted to mock me for citing SQ competitions as an example of the subjective nature of SQ by saying something to the effect of "so I guess the engineers who make the speakers call on a SQ judge to determine if their speakers reproduce accurate sound instead of relying on acoustical measurements and data."

To which I responded, "the engineers can take all the measurements they want while that speaker is on the bench but as soon as you put that speaker in the automobile environment the whole game changes. You can put that same speaker in two different places in the same car and the resulting sound will be different." He seems to have forgotten that the shapes and materials of the various things inside a vehicle have a profound effect on the sound being reproduced.

420guy

iTrader: (5)

This is exactly the reason why everybody says you don't buy speakers by looking at the spec sheet.

JohnVroom

Well as an SQL judge (MECA not IASCA) our goal is to try to accurately describe how the system deviates from neutrality, and to sit in a car and judge it is difficult, to describe what you hear is difficult, to critique (not criticize) your system design and sound in a constructive way to get you closer to the goal of accurate sound ... is not too easy. Add in that some judges are more experienced than others, some competitors are more advanced, some cars just sound good, sometime the judge says the right thing the absolute wrong way... it is not good for noob egos but it is good for getting criticism on how to get closer to the musical truth from someone who does not stand to profit by selling you stuff, it is a good challenge.

SQ competition can be great fun, and winning is fun but as a competitor I didn't learn zip point s*&t by winning I learned by loosing! Put the ego on the shelf and see what each judge can teach you. Sometimes it is just tuning, other times it is equipment, other times it is frustrating. I loved being a competitor but being judged is always a ego crusher.

It is fairly common in MECA to have good SQ and SPL cars as that is part of our competition, the big trophy goes to the best Of the Best (the competitor who does the best in SQL and SPL at that show)

surround sound

iTrader: (3)

if you do a full season your scoresheets will have a predominant skew to reveal what your system is good at and bad at. i have yet to feel that someone won unfairly.

i have been showing for the last 5 years, so for someone who never competes to run with a comment is dumb or scared and not dedicated to prove it.

your first year is for learning and to sit in everyones ride to hear for yourself what you need to measure up to. crying about what a certain judge likes is silly when all the competitors know where you rate. most of us can tell if your on track and happy to give advice.

i gave a competitor in my class tuning software, he ended up beating me by 0.5 at the end of the year

zoomer

iTrader: (3)

John Great debate by the way.
An old family friend once said:
Arguing is the shareing of ignorance
Discussing is the sharing of intelligence

so we are discussing things here right?

I would beg to disagree on this. What audiophiles describe as *airy* *open* *transparent* *Muddy* *punchy* etc can all be measured as differences in frequncy, phase, distortion etc.
Long time ago Bob Carver challenged Sterophile magazine that he could make his cheap amp sound the same as their expensive reference amp
http://www.stereophile.com/features/the_carver_challenge/
What I am saying is that if we hear a difference, it is because their is something different in the signals. We can measure and quantify this difference.

your statement can be interpreted 2 ways. First, I think that we can using sophistocated measurement techniques and and understanding of the recording/sampling process and acoustics of a grand piano vs speakers to tell the difference.. Or if we cannot then we have just proven that technology can prefectly reproduce a steinway and we have achieved perfect SQ!


Again I disagree. There have been A-B testing of cheap zip cord vs expensive speaker cable with the result that the *audiophiles* where not able to tell the difference. THere have been proper measurments. Just go to http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/pear-cable-science to see for yourself the kind of science based testing that can be done. If it sounds different under A-B testing then it is changing the signal in a way that can be measured and quantified

The problem with your science vs art is that the snake oil salepeople make too much money. No audio magazine that gets its revenue from advertising will make any effort to squash the stupid unbelievable claims of some of the products that are advertised. *there is no money in disproving the false claims* (same goes for many alternative medical treatments, Weight loss and fitness miracle products and cosmetics.. but that is another story about the scientific illiteracy of our society)
So the hilarious claims go on, wether it is $20,000 speakers that use off the shelf Scan Speak drivers costing $500 wholesale or Capacitors used in car audio etc. BTW on car caps.. I have been trying for a long time to get technical specs on alternators, batteries and caps in order to do some calculations or simulations but it is next to impossible to get... One day I may actually make the measuremnts myself.

Have a good day!

Dukk

This is the basis of the RTA testing portion of the judging, which may or may not exist anymore. And the goal was/is to be smoooooth in the transitions from one frequency to the next. Flat tends to sound bad.