why is "SQL" looked down upon, so much?

[Gioia69 30]

exactly what it says. why is the term ""SQL"" looked down upon, so much? theres plenty of sq drivers out there that are capable of getting decently loud...

[Adrian_D 520]

Because it is not an accurate description. Most of the people use it to describe systems that are not fart cannons, which is very far from sound quality.

Sound Quality Loud ? Does that make sense ?

[///M5 2,833]

exactly what it says. why is the term "SQL" looked down upon, so much? theres plenty of sq drivers out there that are capable of getting decently loud...

Because a bunch of nooblets use the term and then never discuss their front stage, which anything with the two letters SQ has to be focused on. The sub comes second as that is the easy part. Even your question forgets that this is the critical part of any musical setup.

The word isn't hated, the gross misuse of it is. All derivations of acronyms are so grossly misused every thread is better if they are never in it.

And as Adrian said, if I wanted an SQ setup and I wanted to play loud then wouldn't that be a Loud Sound Quality setup? LSQ ftw, but then indeed 99.9999% of the discussion would be on how the hell to get the fronts loud enough to do that.

[jcarter1885 995]

Sound Quality and loud just dont go together, not saying you cant get some great output from a sound quality setup. You dont focus on the loud when making a Sound Quality install, you focus on having Sound Quality which is hard to have when worrying about being loud.

[keetykush 34]

Because a bunch of nooblets use the term

Well its not as stupid as using the term "nooblets" which makes just as much since as mashing acronyms like ""SQL"".

[jcarter1885 995]

Because a bunch of nooblets use the term

Well its not as stupid as using the term "nooblets" which makes just as much since as mashing acronyms like "SQL".

Its just a word to describe new members in any field out there, not just car audio. SQL is not a good term for the way people use it at all, they dont even go together. If the word newb, , nooblet or whatever else you can make from the word upset your or get to you then you have more in life to be worried about, such as why do words bother you.

[SQLMonte 0]

I don't understand why people get so up in arms when something doesn't fit it a nice neat little box.

My take on the issue is that it's subjective, just like the term "loud." To me, ""SQL"" means the mesh of a more SPL focused sub stage with a more SQ focused front stage, hence my username. In my car i'm running a 3 way active setup with my mids/highs all time aligned and balanced out for optimal soundstage and imaging. The only thing SQ about my sub stage is the driver itself, beyond that it's more geared towards spl than sq. From being in car audio for so long I have realized that I don't fit either of the "boxes", spl or sq, I like the sq side of things when it comes to mids and highs, but the spl side of things when it comes to bass. Why can't people just accept that, why does it have to be either a or b?

[keetykush 34]

It does not bother me, I'm saying they're rather stupid terms in general.

[Impious 1,476]

Sound Quality and loud just dont go together, not saying you cant get some great output from a sound quality setup. You dont focus on the loud when making a Sound Quality install, you focus on having Sound Quality which is hard to have when worrying about being loud.

Keep in mind part of "sound quality" is accurate reproduction of the material, which includes sound level. It can require a good bit of output to properly reproduce an organ or piano, and having sufficient output capabilities to handle dynamic peaks that occur in well recorded source material is also required. For example, it takes a fair amount of displacement to accurately reproduce the 18hz organ in Planet Kryptonite. "Sound quality" and "loud" go hand in hand as an inability to reproduce the material at realistic levels would be a failure to achieve the initial goal of sound quality. Too many people (not necessarily you, just in general) equate "sound quality" with "quiet".

That said, there is a large difference between designing a system with sufficient capabilities to reproduce the source material at realistic levels, and the typical use of the term SQL which is all too often supposed to mean "Hey guys I'd like to be able to hit 145db on music without it sounding like total crap"....which has no semblance of sound quality, hence the problem with the term "Sound Quality Loud".

[jcarter1885 995]

Sound Quality and loud just dont go together, not saying you cant get some great output from a sound quality setup. You dont focus on the loud when making a Sound Quality install, you focus on having Sound Quality which is hard to have when worrying about being loud.

Keep in mind part of "sound quality" is accurate reproduction of the material, which includes sound level. It can require a good bit of output to properly reproduce an organ or piano, and having sufficient output capabilities to handle dynamic peaks that occur in well recorded source material is also required. For example, it takes a fair amount of displacement to accurately reproduce the 18hz organ in Planet Kryptonite. "Sound quality" and "loud" go hand in hand as an inability to reproduce the material at realistic levels would be a failure to achieve the initial goal of sound quality. Too many people (not necessarily you, just in general) equate "sound quality" with "quiet".

That said, there is a large difference between designing a system with sufficient capabilities to reproduce the source material at realistic levels, and the typical use of the term SQL which is all too often supposed to mean "Hey guys I'd like to be able to hit 145db on music without it sounding like total crap"....which has no semblance of sound quality, hence the problem with the term "Sound Quality Loud".

I agree with you on that one, there are to many people who feel as though that you can only get 145dbs or more by sounding like crap so they say they want SQL when SQL has nothing to do with it. In all actuality you will get 145 dbs on music and louder while sounding good if you make your enclosure correctly and from recommended specs and so forth. Its not that the term cant be used or is just banned, it is the fact people are not using it right at all.

To me it is just an understanding of how people get mixed up in saying they are running there system active and include the subs as part of there system, when in reality you only have a two-way active setup with a sub stage and not a three-way active system all together.

[Impious 1,476]

To me it is just an understanding of how people get mixed up in saying they are running there system active and include the subs as part of there system, when in reality you only have a two-way active setup with a sub stage and not a three-way active system all together.

Getting sort of off topic.....but no, running a 2-way active front stage + subwoofer is a 3-way active system.

A 3-way active front stage + subwoofer is a 4-way active system.

Majority of people are already running their substage "active" by using the amplifier's or headunit's onboard crossover as the filter.

[jcarter1885 995]

To me it is just an understanding of how people get mixed up in saying they are running there system active and include the subs as part of there system, when in reality you only have a two-way active setup with a sub stage and not a three-way active system all together.

Getting sort of off topic.....but no, running a 2-way active front stage + subwoofer is a 3-way active system.

A 3-way active front stage + subwoofer is a 4-way active system.

Majority of people are already running their substage "active" by using the amplifier's or headunit's onboard amplifiers for the crossover.

So when I was having this same argument and including the sub in my setup and claiming to have a three-way active system everyone on this forum was like no you dont have one, dont include the sub stage. Why was that? (not arguing just looking for some clarification).

**I do understand how people are using there subwoofers with there headunits and amps to make it active and all that stuff. I cant remember when the thread was made but Ill search for it.

[Impious 1,476]

So when I was having this same argument and including the sub in my setup and claiming to have a three-way active system everyone on this forum was like no you dont have one, dont include the sub stage. Why was that? (not arguing just looking for some clarification).

No idea. I'd have to read the thread.

[SPL_Man 20]

not a accurate term but its what some ppl are referring to when describing their system

[SQLMonte 0]

To me it is just an understanding of how people get mixed up in saying they are running there system active and include the subs as part of there system, when in reality you only have a two-way active setup with a sub stage and not a three-way active system all together.

Getting sort of off topic.....but no, running a 2-way active front stage + subwoofer is a 3-way active system.

Edited December 26, 2009 by SQLMonte

[jcarter1885 995]

Haha, real cute this one has me laughing.

[Gioia69 30]

Because a bunch of nooblets use the term

Well its not as stupid as using the term "nooblets" which makes just as much since as mashing acronyms like """SQL""".

real men use the term "noob". dont hate.

[Gioia69 30]

I don't understand why people get so up in arms when something doesn't fit it a nice neat little box.

My take on the issue is that it's subjective, just like the term "loud." To me, """"SQL"""" means the mesh of a more SPL focused sub stage with a more SQ focused front stage, hence my username. In my car i'm running a 3 way active setup with my mids/highs all time aligned and balanced out for optimal soundstage and imaging. The only thing SQ about my sub stage is the driver itself, beyond that it's more geared towards spl than sq. From being in car audio for so long I have realized that I don't fit either of the "boxes", spl or sq, I like the sq side of things when it comes to mids and highs, but the spl side of things when it comes to bass. Why can't people just accept that, why does it have to be either a or b?

i agree. it shouldnt have to be black and white. everyone looks at it like there should be no shades of grey. i prefer spl subs, with sq mids and highs... and i feel like whenever i mention this, people think im committing a crime.

EDIT: and when i say sound quality, i dont mean the rediculous measures some people on these forums go to just to make the sound quality a tiny bit better. i mean mids and highs that were designed for sq. im not really that educated on mids and highs, nor have i been exposed to much in person, but the mids and highs that i heard that just get really loud, that have similar sound quality to a stock door speaker, i cant stand those.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Gioia69

[slim2fattycake 85]

sound quality is what you want it to be. There are those that can tell the difference to tweet little things to get a flatter response but most people cannot tell. To me 140dB on music sounds like shit.

[Duran 387]

I don't understand why people get so up in arms when something doesn't fit it a nice neat little box.

My take on the issue is that it's subjective, just like the term "loud." To me, """SQL""" means the mesh of a more SPL focused sub stage with a more SQ focused front stage, hence my username. In my car i'm running a 3 way active setup with my mids/highs all time aligned and balanced out for optimal soundstage and imaging. The only thing SQ about my sub stage is the driver itself, beyond that it's more geared towards spl than sq. From being in car audio for so long I have realized that I don't fit either of the "boxes", spl or sq, I like the sq side of things when it comes to mids and highs, but the spl side of things when it comes to bass. Why can't people just accept that, why does it have to be either a or b?

i agree. it shouldnt have to be black and white. everyone looks at it like there should be no shades of grey. i prefer spl subs, with sq mids and highs... and i feel like whenever i mention this, people think im committing a crime.

EDIT: and when i say sound quality, i dont mean the rediculous measures some people on these forums go to just to make the sound quality a tiny bit better. i mean mids and highs that were designed for sq. im not really that educated on mids and highs, nor have i been exposed to much in person, but the mids and highs that i heard that just get really loud, that have similar sound quality to a stock door speaker, i cant stand those.

That still isn't "Sound Quality" that is attempting to sound good.

[shizzzon 461]

what? sound quality regardless of how good or bad it is to the ear shouldnt be measured by how loud it can get.

There was a guy i at the last show i was at that competes only in the SQ division and he told me that they use 2-3 different cds that everybody must play and multiple judges score your setup by their own ear. Different judges have different tastes but one thing that he did point out was that the tracks that are played will score you higher the less bass that is put out!

I am assuming that these tracks he is referring to must have higher notes in the sub range because it wouldnt make any sense if that isn't true. He said SQ judges pretty much hate audible bass so i am assuming that's based upon the tracks being played. The measure of pressure is irrelovant in what makes someone suggest one's install sounds better than another.

Now, i am no SQ guy, i just like it clean and deafening.

Maybe that's the word peopel should be using, not sound quality, but CLEAN.

People need to start using this term when requesting "SQL" in the future- CnL = Clean n Loud. I might have just started somethin

[SQLMonte 0]

I don't understand why people get so up in arms when something doesn't fit it a nice neat little box.

My take on the issue is that it's subjective, just like the term "loud." To me, """""SQL""""" means the mesh of a more SPL focused sub stage with a more SQ focused front stage, hence my username. In my car i'm running a 3 way active setup with my mids/highs all time aligned and balanced out for optimal soundstage and imaging. The only thing SQ about my sub stage is the driver itself, beyond that it's more geared towards spl than sq. From being in car audio for so long I have realized that I don't fit either of the "boxes", spl or sq, I like the sq side of things when it comes to mids and highs, but the spl side of things when it comes to bass. Why can't people just accept that, why does it have to be either a or b?

i agree. it shouldnt have to be black and white. everyone looks at it like there should be no shades of grey. i prefer spl subs, with sq mids and highs... and i feel like whenever i mention this, people think im committing a crime.

It just falls back to people wanting everything to fit into a neat little box and when it doesn't they try to make it. I'm right there with you though, I'm not SQ, i'm not SPL, i'm a mixture of both!

I like that guys idea though, Clean n' Loud! Although i'm not very loud ATM and likely won't be until I get both of my 2512's

[8adk1d 0]

To me a loud system that can play music without sluuring the bass together along with no MAJOR dips in frequency response and not missing out different instruments in the song AND no distortion / very little distortion is """"SQL"""".

I think its subjective and we have different perspectives on what it means and there are many different intentions behind using the term...but yea ok its not technically correct

Edited December 27, 2009 by 8adk1d_18y0

[Duran 387]

To me a loud system that can play music without sluuring the bass together along with no MAJOR dips in frequency response and not missing out different instruments in the song AND no distortion / very little distortion is """SQL""".

I think its subjective and we have different perspectives on what it means and there are many different intentions behind using the term...but yea ok its not technically correct

That's exactly why it shouldn't be used.

[///M5 2,833]

Because a bunch of nooblets use the term

Well its not as stupid as using the term "nooblets" which makes just as much since as mashing acronyms like ""SQL"".

real men use the term "noob". dont hate.

What if you are a bigger noob than a noob? Cause these people are worse.