SQLMonte

Major props to ya, I don't have the balls to even attempt to do a project like that.

beautiful looking dog indeed!

There isn't an SAZ-1200D. I think he might have been thinking of the SAZ-1000D. Yep, that's what it was!

If you're looking to buy online from a place you haven't heard of before, another source to see what their track record is like is www.resellerratings.com It's not the end all, be all, but it'll give you another resource you can use to help you decide if you want to do business with them.

That deck is sexy! Can it be used to run a 3 way active setup?

Personal opinion, pay it no mind. Can't please everybody.

that's some serious flex with the door open on only off the 125.2 Can't wait to see what it does off the sae1200

What's the difference between the SAE1200 and the SAZ1200?

Yeah man, I don't really care to do business with DC Power for this exact reason. 3 of my buddies ordered alts from them, neither one got their product in less than a month and all of them were strung along, misled and flat out lied to numerous times along the way. As a result, only one of them paid for his alt but he was also given a freebie on top of it. I thought these were isolated incidents but i'm quickly learning situations like these are standard operating practices for DC Power.

damn, I thought I was gonna see a video

Yep, I have my sub xover set at 80Hz too.

Yes, I completely sealed off the trunk, including the rear deck with 1/2" mdf where the stock Bose subwoofer mounted and deadened the rest. I used 1/2" mdf to make the initial flush mounts for the box and then used expanding foam for the small gaps around the box from the trunk. The subs were recessed in the first box. The second box just has a double baffle with no countersink for the subs. Nice! I'm planning on doing subs/port forward in my car too and initially wanted to flush mount them in the opening behind the seat but that's proven to be more of a hassle than it's worth so it's looking like i'm gonna end up doing it pretty much like you did.

Good info! I might have to give the mli-65's a try, the price is definitely right!!

Did you seal off your rear deck as well? It looks like your subs aren't recessed anymore but in a previous picture they were, did you redo the baffle or something?

Wow, looks pretty good guys!

Yeah, I think i'm going with 2 DD 2512's. I'm gonna build a custom box, although I could get away with putting the 2512's in my current box. I might just do that for shits and giggles to see how differenty they sound compared to my ID's

It's supposed to adjust the volume of the song in the event it's below the 89db, or whatever db you decide you want it adjusted to. This is only necessary if you have some mp3's that are noticeably lower in volume than others.

Anybody ever use this program? I just stumbled on to it and wondering if it's worth downloading/installing and doing the work to "normalize" my mp3 collection. http://mp3gain.sourceforge.net/

If either one of us isn't coherent it would be you seeing as how you clearly stated earlier that "there is no true way to measure SQ", but now you're trying to argue to me that SQ is not subjective????? How is that logically consistent? I have not waivered one bit, you seem to have short term memory loss or something So you see, you said the same thing then that i'm saying now so why do you insist on arguing with me when in reality we agree? If there is no real way to measure SQ then that means there is a human element that plays a part in determining how accurate the reproduction is so to tell me SQ is not subjective, when you've clearly stated as much as indicated by your quote above, is just plain silly! And just to make it clear one last time, I agree that the goal of SQ is accurate reproduction of the source, nothing subjective about that. But the fact remains that until there is a device that can measure SQ there will always be a subjective element to it, be it a SQ comp judge, the installer, the end user, whomever! An engineer can take all the acoustical measurements they want and dial things in until they're blue in the face while that speaker is on the bench, but as soon as that speaker is placed into the automobile environment the whole game changes and we all know that so why would you even begin to blabber about such nonsense? You can take that same speaker and put it in two different cars and get two different results, hell you can even put that same speaker in two different locations in the same car and get two different results! So many things come in to play in the automobile environment that effect the SQ of your system that simply having speakers that are 100% accurate (if that's even possible) isn't nearly enough to dictate the accuracy of the reproduction of your system. How's that for a rebuttal?My use of SQ competitions as an example of the subjective nature of SQ is just that, an example! The same holds true no matter if you compete or not because at the end of the day 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.

Point of the thread is why we don't like it when people use terms they don't understand. SQLMonte is just proving he doesn't at all understand the terms either. Simple really. SQ is not subjective as accurate reproduction is finite, judging an SQ competition however is. I understand the terms clearly, no problem there, and I know the goal of SQ. My whole point is this, the acronym """SQL""" is subjective in definition as there have been a few different definitions given in this thread alone. It means something different to each person who uses it to nobody can say it's being used wrong. The acronym "SQ", in my opinion, is also subjective not in it's goal but in how it's determined that the goal has or hasn't been met. There's no machine you can hook up in your car so the final say in determining that is a person and his/her interpretation of any measurements that can be done to help lead you towards that goal. But I've stated my stance on the topic, it's not going to change until someone can show me how SQ can or is determined without any human interpretation that contributes to that determination, and obviously i'm not changing anyone else's opinion on it so I'll end this argument on that note.

Huge post filled with nothing but verbal diarreah.Not too sure how you can consider yourself exposing a flaw in my argument when all you did is state the goal of SQ and totally ignored the manner in which SQ is determined which is exactly where the subjective element comes in to play seeing as how there is no defined or set standard for SQ. There are various competition bodies rules and regulations for SQ, but they all vary in some way, shape or form so what works in one may or may not work in another. With no set standard (singular tense) for SQ, the definition of it lies in the various competition bodies and/or the end user. Aka, subjective. And the determination on exactly how closely your SQ system meets the accurate reproduction of the source is, yet again, not defined by placing a mic in your car and running your system and having those results compared to the source for accuracy. That would be a non-subjective measure on the SQ of a given system, but we all know that's not how it's done. Just imagine if SPL comps were judged the same as SQ comps I'd imagine SPL comps would quickly become as popular as SQ comps are. At least in SPL comps they can place a mic in the car that takes a reading of how loud the system is, totally eliminating the possibility that the result is subjective. I bet if there were a way to do the same thing for SQ systems there would be far more competitors but the fact of the matter is that alot of people are turned off by the subjective nature of it. But I guess you have an ability the SQ competing bodies don't, the ability to use a machine or machines to measure the SQ of a given system. But seeing as how you'd much rather hurl insults over the internet instead of arguing facts, it seems clear that it's a concept not within your realm of comprehension.

I'm going to assume you switched the speakers (hooked up the muffled speaker to the speaker wire the good speaker was connected to) after you noticed the problem, right? To see if you have a blown speaker just set your dmm to ohms and put your leads on the speaker wire connectors, you should get a reading that's very close to the ohm rating of the speaker, generally at least within a half ohm.

So who's to say if the reproduction of the source is accurate, a machine or a person? Therein lies the subjective nature of SQ so my point is stated correctly, EVERYTHING subjective about that! Your point is incorrectly stated. There are certain practical methods that can be used to objectively gauge accuracy to the source, and other less practical methods that could be employed. But our ability or inability to quantify every aspect of a system doesn't alter the definition of the terms. Sound quality is accuracy to the source. Personal preference is what you are describing. For example, someone might personally like a system with exaggerated low end response and higher 2nd order distortion as this generally sounds pleasing to the ear.....but that doesn't make it accurate to the source, and it doesn't make it anymore "sound quality" just because they like it more. Yet again, you fail. And to answer your question, a machine or quantity of measurements would be best used to identify accuracy to the source. Humans ears are actually pretty lousy, and we are inherently biased and preference based. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with setting up your system based on your personal preference. It's designed for you, and should sound how you want it to sound. But don't confuse your (or anyone else's) personal preference for "sound quality", which is accuracy to the source. They are two different and distinct entities. What sounds best to you may not be the most accurate reproduction of the source. Cute! I love the use of the comment "you fail" so often but you did nothing to refute the FACT that SQ is subjective no matter if you compete or not. All you did is repeat common knowledge, that SQ is the accurate reproduction of the source and "you fail". So how about this? How about instead of overusing a catch phrase, why don't you explain to me how SQ is not subjective? Don't make this a battle on the definition of SQ, that's not what the topic of discussion is so you emphasizing that so much and changing the discussion only weakens your stance on it....especially when you're offering nothing in the way of a true rebuttal to mine.Knowing that SQ is the accurate reproduction of the source, how is it determined that what's being reproduced is accurate? Please enlighten me o' wise one.

So who's to say if the reproduction of the source is accurate, a machine or a person? Therein lies the subjective nature of SQ so my point is stated correctly, EVERYTHING subjective about that!