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

[jcarter1885 995]

Very well put ///M5

[SQLMonte 0]

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.

I think we agree more than we don't because if you were to remove the acronym """SQL""" from the above and put "loud" in it's place the same would hold true. That being said, the issue is with the omission of necessary info, not necessarily with the terms.

[emperorjj1 2]

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.

lol... just as i had the rare oportunity to use an rta, Im on the fence about the rta. Flat was much different then i was expecting I think it helped me in some ways but i sorta see where your coming from. Mind if i ask your option of "flat" vs what sounds good to you?

For me flat made me loose a good amount of midbass (lol i have a peak at 100hz like no other) and to be flat all the way to 20k was way way way too much tweeter then i like. Before i started the 10 16 and 20k weren't even measuring on the rta at all and while i did agree i needed a little more its just a little much for my preference

[kjones 2]

when i see ""SQL"" or LSQ im thinking clean and loud. cause new people on the forum are use to being loud but not clean. so they feel they have to throw in the SQ to get it sounding clean. i say if ppl just said they wanted it clean and loud it will help out a lot. remember newbies, sounding clean to them means hearing music with the loud bass, not just really loud bass on stock speakers. just my .02

[Impious 1,476]

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.

lol... just as i had the rare oportunity to use an rta, Im on the fence about the rta. Flat was much different then i was expecting I think it helped me in some ways but i sorta see where your coming from. Mind if i ask your option of "flat" vs what sounds good to you?

For me flat made me loose a good amount of midbass (lol i have a peak at 100hz like no other) and to be flat all the way to 20k was way way way too much tweeter then i like. Before i started the 10 16 and 20k weren't even measuring on the rta at all and while i did agree i needed a little more its just a little much for my preference

The topic of proper frequency response measurements, interpretation of those measurements, adjustment of the system based on those measurements and of the relevant theories for doing so is actually an extremely involved and lengthy subject.

The short of it is, a standard RTA is generally the wrong tool for the job. Taking one or two measurements with a standard RTA is the wrong method. As a consequence, the adjustments based on those measurements will be of little usefulness or accuracy......and we would also need to explain the various ideologies related to "target" frequency response, etc.

[Impious 1,476]

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.

Sound quality is accurate reproduction of the source. That's not subjective.

Your personal preference is subjective. Is it possible to quantify all aspects of a systems sound quality? Well, theoretically it's probably possible however practically it's pretty difficult. But that doesn't mean you can substitute your personal preference of "sounds good" for accuracy to the source and still call it "sound quality", especially if the measurable properties do not coincide with an accurate reproduction of the source.

[Impious 1,476]

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

[shizzzon 461]

i speak behind competition. That's what they use in SQ battles just like a t-lab is what's used to measure pressure or.. "loud" so when it comes to personal preference, i bring nothing to the table.. just what i've been around and seen in comp. I'm more of an SPL and bassrace guy, sq in your guys eyes is not as important to me.

[Impious 1,476]

I'm well aware SQ competitions include an RTA measurement. But the main portion of their "sound quality" scoring comes from judges listening to the vehicles. SQ competitions also used to (still might, I don't know) measure maximum peak SPL. But we wouldn't call a singular measurement of peak SPL a measure of "SQ" just because it's used in an SQ competition, would we?

An RTA isn't a singular measure of sound quality, nor is it a particularly useful measurement.

If you don't know much about a particular topic, it's typically best to stay silent.

[SQLMonte 0]

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.

Sound quality is accurate reproduction of the source. That's not subjective.

Your personal preference is subjective. Is it possible to quantify all aspects of a systems sound quality? Well, theoretically it's probably possible however practically it's pretty difficult. But that doesn't mean you can substitute your personal preference of "sounds good" for accuracy to the source and still call it "sound quality", especially if the measurable properties do not coincide with an accurate reproduction of the source.

So judges listening to a system and scoring it based on what they hear is not subjective? Maybe you're the one who should be quiet instead of making such ridiculous and clearly contradicting statements.

[///M5 2,833]

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.

Sound quality is accurate reproduction of the source. That's not subjective.

Your personal preference is subjective. Is it possible to quantify all aspects of a systems sound quality? Well, theoretically it's probably possible however practically it's pretty difficult. But that doesn't mean you can substitute your personal preference of "sounds good" for accuracy to the source and still call it "sound quality", especially if the measurable properties do not coincide with an accurate reproduction of the source.

So judges listening to a system and scoring it based on what they hear is not subjective? Maybe you're the one who should be quiet instead of making such ridiculous and clearly contradicting statements.

He stated it correctly. Sound Quality is the accurate reproduction of a source. Nothing subjective about that.

The judging however is completely subjective based on the fact that there is no real way to measure SQ.

[///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.

lol... just as i had the rare oportunity to use an rta, Im on the fence about the rta. Flat was much different then i was expecting I think it helped me in some ways but i sorta see where your coming from. Mind if i ask your option of "flat" vs what sounds good to you?

For me flat made me loose a good amount of midbass (lol i have a peak at 100hz like no other) and to be flat all the way to 20k was way way way too much tweeter then i like. Before i started the 10 16 and 20k weren't even measuring on the rta at all and while i did agree i needed a little more its just a little much for my preference

Flat NEVER makes sense. For a rudimentary understanding of why Google "Equal Loudness Contours" or do some reading on the works of Fletcher and Munson. Do realize that these curves are based on averages and that every human is completely different and will have a different response. Now if you add personal preferences to it, you can see how little use the RTA is in tuning. I will say there is one logical use for a spectrum analyzer and that is for finding anomalies that your ears might miss. I always do this in narrow band though which isn't really an RTA, but an FFT analyzer at that point. Simulation with tighter 1/nth octaves would be okay, but not as easy to come up with a solution. And yes I realize that our ears here in 1/3 octaves approximately but tuning with more resolution when it is to reduce particular anomalies I have found beneficial.

[///M5 2,833]

i speak behind competition. That's what they use in SQ battles just like a t-lab is what's used to measure pressure or.. "loud" so when it comes to personal preference, i bring nothing to the table.. just what i've been around and seen in comp. I'm more of an SPL and bassrace guy, sq in your guys eyes is not as important to me.

You speak behind something you read on the web and have no experience with. It seems every time you do this we have to correct you. Really amazing to me how you can read some things and understand them and others you completely misinterpret.

[SQLMonte 0]

He stated it correctly. Sound Quality is the accurate reproduction of a source. Nothing subjective about that.

The judging however is completely subjective based on the fact that there is no real way to measure SQ.

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!

[Impious 1,476]

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.

Sound quality is accurate reproduction of the source. That's not subjective.

Your personal preference is subjective. Is it possible to quantify all aspects of a systems sound quality? Well, theoretically it's probably possible however practically it's pretty difficult. But that doesn't mean you can substitute your personal preference of "sounds good" for accuracy to the source and still call it "sound quality", especially if the measurable properties do not coincide with an accurate reproduction of the source.

So judges listening to a system and scoring it based on what they hear is not subjective? Maybe you're the one who should be quiet instead of making such ridiculous and clearly contradicting statements.

Good try noobie. But you fail completely.

You are incorrectly assuming that sound quality competitions are the epitome of the definition of sound quality. Ideally that would be the case, however it is not. Yes, the judging is left open to the judge's own preference and this is one of the inherent flaws to this competition format. That fact doesn't alter the proper definition of the term "sound quality", it only makes the "competitions" subject to personal preference rather than accuracy to the source. This is a flaw in the format and style of the competition, not in the correct definition of the term "sound quality".

The idea of "sound quality" being accuracy to the source extends beyond the arena of car audio. Home audio enthusiasts aren't sitting around biting their nails waiting for the outcome of a car audio SQ competition so they can define the sound quality of their home systems. Most of them scoff at car audio in general given the harsh environment and poor results without major modifications to a vehicle. It doesn't take much more than a modest bookshelf system and subwoofer to surpass high-level car audio systems in most regards.

So, to think that car audio SQ competitions define and epitomize the term sound quality is laughable at best. If anything, the term "sound quality" may be a misnomer when being used to describe those competition formats.

Your post does nothing but demonstrate your complete ignorance and complete lack of understanding while simultaneously making yourself look like a buffoon. You did however do a great job of inserting your foot in your mouth.....

He stated it correctly. Sound Quality is the accurate reproduction of a source. Nothing subjective about that.

The judging however is completely subjective based on the fact that there is no real way to measure SQ.

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.

[SQLMonte 0]

Good try noobie. But you fail completely.

You are incorrectly assuming that sound quality competitions are the epitome of the definition of sound quality. Ideally that would be the case, however it is not. Yes, the judging is left open to the judge's own preference and this is one of the inherent flaws to this competition format. That fact doesn't alter the proper definition of the term "sound quality", it only makes the "competitions" subject to personal preference rather than accuracy to the source. This is a flaw in the format and style of the competition, not in the correct definition of the term "sound quality".

The idea of "sound quality" being accuracy to the source extends beyond the arena of car audio. Home audio enthusiasts aren't sitting around biting their nails waiting for the outcome of a car audio SQ competition so they can define the sound quality of their home systems. Most of them scoff at car audio in general given the harsh environment and poor results without major modifications to a vehicle. It doesn't take much more than a modest bookshelf system and subwoofer to surpass high-level car audio systems in most regards.

So, to think that car audio SQ competitions define and epitomize the term sound quality is laughable at best. If anything, the term "sound quality" may be a misnomer when being used to describe those competition formats.

Your post does nothing but demonstrate your complete ignorance and complete lack of understanding while simultaneously making yourself look like a buffoon. You did however do a great job of inserting your foot in your mouth.....

He stated it correctly. Sound Quality is the accurate reproduction of a source. Nothing subjective about that.

The judging however is completely subjective based on the fact that there is no real way to measure SQ.

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.

[Impious 1,476]

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.

You really just don't get it, do you?

All you did is repeat common knowledge,

It apparently isn't that common as you obviously still lack the knowledge.

You argued that SQ is subjective since SQ competitions rely on a subjective judge. I exposed the flaw in your premise, which completely dismantled your entire argument. How was this "common knowledge" when you obviously lacked it?

If the rest of my post was "common knowledge" then you wouldn't still be posting as the "knowledge" that SQ is not subjective but personal preference is would be something you possessed.

How about instead of overusing a catch phrase, why don't you explain to me how SQ is not subjective?

So far your best defense has been to complain about my use of the word "fail", which I hate to say was in the english language long before the internet came to be.

There are a fairly wide array of measurements which can indicate how "true to the source" a system will be. The further these measurements stray from ideal, the further from accuracy the system will fall. I even gave a specific example in my previous post of a situation that might sound "pleasing" on a preference level but would lack accuracy. Perhaps you should brush up on reading comprehension?

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.

What the fuck are you talking about? That's exactly what this portion of the discussion is revolving around. The definition is completely different if you allow SQ to be subjective rather than objective. If sound quality is subjective then the only way to define sound quality is by what sounds good to each individual personally, which means sound quality will be defined differently for each individual. Someone could define "sound quality" as having 150db of bass with no importance placed on the other 7 octaves of audible sound. How does this make any sense to you? This is what you are arguing in favor of. If you fail (OMG, I said it again) to understand this, then there's no point in continuing the discussion.

Someone else said "SQ is completely subjective"

I said, "No it's not"

You said "Yes it is! But don't make this about the definition of SQ or you're straying off topic!"

How does that make any sense to you either?

Knowing that SQ is the accurate reproduction of the source, how is it determined that what's being reproduced is accurate?

The standard suite of properly conducted audio measurements is a good place to start. Anomalies being indicative of inaccuracies, the larger the anomaly and/or greater quantity of anomalies the further from accurate the system is. It's not perfect, but it's far better than calling everything subjective and allowing anyone's own personal preference to suffice as a definition of "sound quality".

[SQLMonte 0]

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.

Edited January 3, 2010 by SQLMonte

[emperorjj1 2]

lol i can not only imagine it but ive been there. drove a few hours to some comp that was supposed to be something important. come to find out it was judged by the crowd clapping

turns out a prefab double 12 sealed box with 2 MTX 5500 in a vw bug beats: 1 DD 9518 in a silverado, 2 SX 15 in a malibu, 2 XXX 15 in a cobalt, 1 MT 15 in a accent hatchback and 1 MT 12 in a civic (there were a few other random cars too)

little did we know that mexican music > rap or tones and the bug went last

Edited January 3, 2010 by EmperorJJ1

[emperorjj1 2]

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.

lol... just as i had the rare oportunity to use an rta, Im on the fence about the rta. Flat was much different then i was expecting I think it helped me in some ways but i sorta see where your coming from. Mind if i ask your option of "flat" vs what sounds good to you?

For me flat made me loose a good amount of midbass (lol i have a peak at 100hz like no other) and to be flat all the way to 20k was way way way too much tweeter then i like. Before i started the 10 16 and 20k weren't even measuring on the rta at all and while i did agree i needed a little more its just a little much for my preference

Flat NEVER makes sense. For a rudimentary understanding of why Google "Equal Loudness Contours" or do some reading on the works of Fletcher and Munson. Do realize that these curves are based on averages and that every human is completely different and will have a different response. Now if you add personal preferences to it, you can see how little use the RTA is in tuning. I will say there is one logical use for a spectrum analyzer and that is for finding anomalies that your ears might miss. I always do this in narrow band though which isn't really an RTA, but an FFT analyzer at that point. Simulation with tighter 1/nth octaves would be okay, but not as easy to come up with a solution. And yes I realize that our ears here in 1/3 octaves approximately but tuning with more resolution when it is to reduce particular anomalies I have found beneficial.

cool... that really makes alot of sense. but it also sorta means im fucked... I mean i honestly have no idea what im doing sq wise in my car. i've just purchased the best sounding equipment i could play with and the only sort of tuning ive done is playing with the crossover slopes. I haven't really even touched the EQ before. Its not the best sounding car ive herd but it sounds pretty damn good IMO. Ive just been looking to take it a step further if i can

[Impious 1,476]

Huge post filled with nothing but verbal diarreah.

Only because you either completely lack reading comprehension or are unable to see just how ignorant you are.

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

You apparently failed to comprehend my first response which demonstrated your idiocy in gauging sound quality based on a competition format.

You also apparently missed the following two direct quotes from the above post;

"There are a fairly wide array of measurements which can indicate how "true to the source" a system will be. The further these measurements stray from ideal, the further from accuracy the system will fall. I even gave a specific example in my previous post of a situation that might sound "pleasing" on a preference level but would lack accuracy. Perhaps you should brush up on reading comprehension?"

"The standard suite of properly conducted audio measurements is a good place to start. Anomalies being indicative of inaccuracies, the larger the anomaly and/or greater quantity of anomalies the further from accurate the system is. It's not perfect, but it's far better than calling everything subjective and allowing anyone's own personal preference to suffice as a definition of "sound quality"."

I'm not going to detail every individual measurement available and what they mean as this is research you are fully capable of conducting on your own. The fact that measurements exist is sufficient for the purposes of this thread to establish that it's possible to objectively express accuracy or lack there-of in a system to the extent possible. However, you clearly lack the mental fortitude to see past your own erroneous viewpoint, so I can fully understand why this concept eludes you.

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.

YOU ARE STILL COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT COMPETITION FORMAT DOES NOT DEFINE SOUND QUALITY.

There is nothing else to say. No explanation can apparently convey this to you as I have already covered it. You are an idiot if you can't see past this simple point. Go back and read my very first response.

I guess all of these speaker engineers forgo any acoustical measurements and just call in SQ competition judges in order to evaluate their speakers prior to production. Because acoustical measurements don't tell us anything about the performance of a speaker. It's these judges that define sound quality. It's the format of a car audio competition that happens to have the term "sound quality" in their title that provides the definition of sound quality to the rest of the world.

And sadly, for whatever reason, this makes sense to you and is what you are arguing in support of. What's pathetic is you have no actual rebuttal to this. All you can do is pretend that nothing important was said when every point you made was shown to be ignorant, and then cling to this moronic idea that sound quality is defined by a car audio competition format. You either haven't read this thread, or haven't understood it.

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.

LOL.

[emperorjj1 2]

maybe im missing the point because im just skimming over you guys fighting but isn't the original point of the thread that all these acronyms everyone is making up completely bunk? You are right in the actual definition of sound quality but at the same point you understand what people mean when they say it. Ultimately no one really knows what the artist actually ment by the music without being there when it was recorded. Even live cant be 100% since its different from the recording

but keep on fighting because deep down i can tell this thread is going to be monumental and completely change how everyone says and does things from now on.... so continue

[///M5 2,833]

maybe im missing the point because im just skimming over you guys fighting but isn't the original point of the thread that all these acronyms everyone is making up completely bunk?

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.

[SQLMonte 0]

maybe im missing the point because im just skimming over you guys fighting but isn't the original point of the thread that all these acronyms everyone is making up completely bunk?

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.

[///M5 2,833]

You aren't coherent.

Two different things. Judging and reality are NOT the same.