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

[///M5 2,833]

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.

This isn't about what you like it is about mis-using a term.

I think you are also misapplying SPL as well though as I'd bet you wouldn't (and couldn't) have an SPL bass setup with your "SQ" front stage. I'd also bet that what you call and SQ front stage isn't anywhere near the category. You are trying to fit into some ideal parameters to make yourself feel like you fit. Don't, instead just like what you like and describe how it is.

BTW an SQ front stage by definition has midbass that is of the same level as the subs...

[Gioia69 30]

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

define clean

[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.

This isn't about what you like it is about mis-using a term.

I think you are also misapplying SPL as well though as I'd bet you wouldn't (and couldn't) have an SPL bass setup with your "SQ" front stage. I'd also bet that what you call and SQ front stage isn't anywhere near the category. You are trying to fit into some ideal parameters to make yourself feel like you fit. Don't, instead just like what you like and describe how it is.

BTW an SQ front stage by definition has midbass that is of the same level as the subs...

lol im not trying to "fit in"... i dont really care what anyone on here thinks of me. but apparently i havent heard a true sq system then, and i guess i really dont understand what everyone on these forums would consider to be SQ, because i have definitly not heard midbass that matches the loudness the lows, nor did i even know that thats what sound quality is. I had always thought it simply just ment clarity and flat response on the lows. i didnt realize how in depth my question was going to end up. i have close to no exposure other than youtube videos and these forums. I havent met a single person that went to my high school thats even heard of Fi, or sundown or audioque, dc, etc. im the only one that runs a sub that isnt mainstream, everyone where i live is stuck on kicker cvr's and jl w3s, lol.

[///M5 2,833]

Exactly why you shouldn't use a term when you don't even know the definition Everyone else also misuses it equally which is why we really don't like the term.

[Gioia69 30]

Exactly why you shouldn't use a term when you don't even know the definition Everyone else also misuses it equally which is why we really don't like the term.

fair enough. although i dont really use it, i just wondered why it was frowned upon so much. but since i dont know the definition, would you or someone mind listing or describing everything that makes a SQ system?

[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

define clean

Who are you Bill Clinton? lol

My definition is simple, no audible distortion while keeping the level high enough to hear what song I am listening to regardless of how loud the bass is.

It takes lots of money to get a front stage to output in the same ratio as a stock setup(highs:lows) when using subs that can easily break 145db+

I personally do not like the ratio i guess because i've been around the competition scene for so long, i'm more of a bass guy. I still got to be able to hear what i'm listening to though or that's retarded, lol.

[Gioia69 30]

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

define clean

Who are you Bill Clinton? lol

well i dont get caught when im nailing random bitches while im on the job

Edited December 27, 2009 by Gioia69

[johnecon2001 82]

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.

Because subwoofers are generally a mono source. Your front stage uses a stereo source. 3-way + sub is accurate.

[Duran 387]

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

define clean

Who are you Bill Clinton? lol

well i dont get caught when im nailing random bitches while im on the job

It was just a BLOWJOB!

[bigrank916 72]

Thats what my uncle said when caught by his wife with a pro. "Its only a $60 blowjob, honey. Its not like Im fuckin her."

Classic.

[Duran 387]

Thats what my uncle said when caught by his wife with a pro. "Its only a $60 blowjob, honey. Its not like Im fuckin her."

Classic.

Ahhh...The good ole days

[SQLMonte 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

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

Well by that logic neither should loud. What's loud to me may not be loud to you. Can you answer me this please, why does it bother you so much how somebody chooses to describe their system, be it loud, sq, spl or ""SQL""? If SQ was so cut and dry, there would be no need to have multiple judges at SQ shows, but obviously what sounds good to one guy doesn't sound good to the next. I think there are more things to lose sleep over compared to whether or not somebody is using the SUBJECTIVE term ""SQL"" properly. Keyword: SUBJECTIVE

[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.

Well by that logic neither should loud. What's loud to me may not be loud to you. Can you answer me this please, why does it bother you so much how somebody chooses to describe their system, be it loud, sq, spl or "SQL"? If SQ was so cut and dry, there would be no need to have multiple judges at SQ shows, but obviously what sounds good to one guy doesn't sound good to the next. I think there are more things to lose sleep over compared to whether or not somebody is using the SUBJECTIVE term "SQL" properly. Keyword: SUBJECTIVE

Loud is a subjective term as well, people that say they want something loud get the same treatment as people that say they want "SQL". No one is picking on you. SQ is NOT cut and dry, it does however have standards and rules that need to be followed to achieve a sound quality competition worthy vehicle.

[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 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.

Because subwoofers are generally a mono source. Your front stage uses a stereo source. 3-way + sub is accurate.

It's all a part of the same system.

[SQLMonte 0]

Loud is a subjective term as well, people that say they want something loud get the same treatment as people that say they want """SQL""". No one is picking on you. SQ is NOT cut and dry, it does however have standards and rules that need to be followed to achieve a sound quality competition worthy vehicle.

It's just a term guys, no matter how you feel about it, it's just a term.

[emperorjj1 2]

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.

Because subwoofers are generally a mono source. Your front stage uses a stereo source. 3-way + sub is accurate.

It's all a part of the same system.

just to throw this in there... someone could very well have 3 active drivers in the front channel 2 active drivers in the rear and an active mono what would that be called 6 way active?

same reason you cant call a coax speaker with broken tweeters in the doors and a set of random tweeters added into the mix a component set. technically it would be a component set but no one would agree to call it that because it doesnt make sense

[Gioia69 30]

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.

Well by that logic neither should loud. What's loud to me may not be loud to you. Can you answer me this please, why does it bother you so much how somebody chooses to describe their system, be it loud, sq, spl or """SQL"""? If SQ was so cut and dry, there would be no need to have multiple judges at SQ shows, but obviously what sounds good to one guy doesn't sound good to the next. I think there are more things to lose sleep over compared to whether or not somebody is using the SUBJECTIVE term """SQL""" properly. Keyword: SUBJECTIVE

Yes, "loud" is subjective, but it can be a quantitative measurement (decibels). sq is completely subjective. im sure somewhere across the earth, someone would like their stock door speakers over some $1000 focal components.

[Gioia69 30]

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

define clean

Who are you Bill Clinton? lol

well i dont get caught when im nailing random bitches while im on the job

It was just a BLOWJOB!

nah. i know my boi Bill was hittin it. they just said it was a BJ so his wife wouldnt dump him

[shizzzon 461]

to the guy that said loud can be measured but sound quality can't... yes it can.That's what an RTA is for.

[smullen 1]

I've been guilty of this too I guess...

I assumed (yes I know what happens when you assume) from reading some posts that when you mix SPL and SQ, you get ""SQL""...Which is really where I like my systems to be...

A Mix of really nice sounding music (that gets really loud) and a sh!t ton of low end to go with it...

When I go to a ""High End" Stereo shop be it home or Car Audio and they demo their systems I like where they are going but they just don't seem to have anough bass...

When I mention I want more Bass, they say, Sounds like you want an SPL system... Aaarrggghhh!!!!!!!

Maybe we should have another official term... I've heard the term ""Street Beats" thrown around abit too... Would this be more accurate???

I say we purpose several new names or terms, vote, ratifiy it, then stamp it... Done... New term Coined!!! No more b!tchin...

[SQLMonte 0]

I say we purpose several new names or terms, vote, ratifiy it, then stamp it... Done... New term Coined!!! No more b!tchin...

They'll just find something else to bitch about

[ABXX49 20]

I hate the idea, but what bothers me more is the acronym.

SQL = Sound Quality Loud?

How about:

LSQ: Loud Sound Quality

Regardless I like to pretend it doesn't exist.

[Duran 387]

I hate the idea, but what bothers me more is the acronym.

SQL = Sound Quality Loud?

How about:

LSQ: Loud Sound Quality

Regardless I like to pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm with you Ryan. It's a fucktarded acronym

[///M5 2,833]

to the guy that said loud can be measured but sound quality can't... yes it can.That's what an RTA is for.

More verbal diarrhea Stop it. An RTA can't do jack shit for SQ and IMO aren't even useful for setting up your system. Amusing since through work I have access to one of the best ones in the world, but no interest in "using" it to tune my cars FR.

[///M5 2,833]

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.

Well by that logic neither should loud. What's loud to me may not be loud to you. Can you answer me this please, why does it bother you so much how somebody chooses to describe their system, be it loud, sq, spl or "SQL"? If SQ was so cut and dry, there would be no need to have multiple judges at SQ shows, but obviously what sounds good to one guy doesn't sound good to the next. I think there are more things to lose sleep over compared to whether or not somebody is using the SUBJECTIVE term "SQL" properly. Keyword: SUBJECTIVE

Stop being thick.

The problem is VERY simple. Poster A says, I need a sub and some components I want an SQL system. This gives us NO information to help him as his definition is different than what everyone else would define it as. You can apply this to SQ as well. And even though SPL is NOT subjective it gets screwed up in usage as well. Someone wants a loud setup and says, I want an SPL setup but I won't compete. Obviously to maximize your output you are going to end up with a one note wonder tuned to an area that will suck for music. 99.9% of people who ask for that on a forum don't want it.

If a full description of what a poster wants is included then the terms could be used, but since they never add anything of value to a thread we look down upon them being in a thread.