best sql vehicle

[tsealsut2010 0]

alright i have a 2001 honda accord coupe, and am looking into buying a new ride. im not sure whether to be looking into another trunk installation, SUV, or hatch. I have a diamond audio d915d2, a us amps AX1000de amp, alphasonik components with a us amp merlin md41 powering them. i am looking for basically a realiable wehicle that will be the best for a LSQ system. looking to pay around $20k or less, or if i should stick with the car i have now. dont have an enclosure yet, but will build for respective car. (if keeping the accord i will be making a fiberglass corner enclosure), and i may also be doing this for any other car i may purchase. something sporty, and that looks good, i was looking at a supra, but knows. thanks

[CBFryman 2]

most mercedies and BMW medium-large 4 door sedans.

[JimJ 11]

I hate the term ""SQL""...just a peeve of mine.

Buy a vehicle you like to drive, build the system accordingly...

[dave_Edwards 1]

Jim----you took the words right out of my mouth

[ramos 2]

If it's not an all out SPL monster, solely for the purpose of competing. I wouldn't let my system dictate what I drive. If I like the car. I can always make the system fit.

[mrray13 30]

I hate the term "SQL"...just a peeve of mine.

Buy a vehicle you like to drive, build the system accordingly...

but sql is so acceptable now. and it's a fairly accurate term. so why the peeve?

and x2 and the second part!

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[ragnaroksq 0]

I hate the term "LSQ"...just a peeve of mine.

Buy a vehicle you like to drive, build the system accordingly...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

x300

[Chevy350TPI 12]

To be completely honest, when I first seen the thread title ... "newer Accord" came to mind.

Test drive a whole bunch of vehicles in your price range and see what you like best. Build the stereo around it - there are plenty of creative minds out there that'll get stuff to fit and sound good.

[ramos 2]

I'm with ya captn. Half the fun is making chit fit and sound good where others think it won't or can't

[JimJ 11]

I hate the term "&quot;SQL&quot;"...just a peeve of mine.

Buy a vehicle you like to drive, build the system accordingly...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but &quot;SQL&quot; is so acceptable now. and it's a fairly accurate term. so why the peeve?

and x2 and the second part!

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The peeve comes from the fact that I think n00bs come to think that having 140+dB of substage is somehow "SQ"...when it fact it's just noise. You can strive for both, but you're going to compromise on both ends of the spectrum to meet somewhere in the middle. The term also implies that SQ setups have no output potential - which is obviously false.

Just IMHO.

[Beat_Dominator 2]

The peeve comes from the fact that I think n00bs come to think that having 140+dB of substage is somehow "SQ"...when it fact it's just noise. You can strive for both, but you're going to compromise on both ends of the spectrum to meet somewhere in the middle. The term also implies that SQ setups have no output potential - which is obviously false.

Just IMHO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok we'll settle this here.

In terms of output:

SQ (substage is all in the front) <SQ+S (sub in the trunk/back) < SQL (loud but sounds "ok") < SPL (just loud)

[ramos 2]

I'm with the jim in the fact that I can't stand the term anymore because of what it has become.

But Let's hop in the way back machine for a minute When the shop I worked at first started doing what I considered &quot;SQL&quot; installs. SQ was the major focus driving them. He's gonna kill me for saying it. But Daves car is a prime example of what I was considering &quot;SQL&quot;. Excellent soundstage and imaging and plenty of power to back it up. I think it's backwards. It should be LSQ

Edited April 12, 2006 by ramos

[dave_Edwards 1]

no----not mad at all---thanks for the feedback Ramos--(you liked the chants huh?)----I believe "&quot;SQL&quot;" is a word came up because of the "uber-woofers" out now----as for 140dB SQ cars-----come on---let's all get real---from 90 to maybe 110dB would be enough-----but at ask about hitting a 150 and having great SQ----it is just a term that is over-used----and Ramos---I like that,LSQ

[ramos 2]

Yep, pass the peace pipe kemosabe

[///M5 2,833]

LSQ indeed. Most people throwing SQL around really just want boom and it drives me nuts as well.

[Acidburn 10]

this is what i think of when i think of the "SQL" crowd:

this kid was talking to me about his set up (2 12" ported L7s, some aftermarket HU - dont remember what kind, and stock GM speakers from 1993) and upgrading his subs, and he told me he's still "interested in SQ"

and surprise, surprise, he has a couple thousand posts on CA.com

[CBFryman 2]

whoops, misread the title. Everyone was like "WTF!! MOFO, SQL, WF WF, buy what you like" and im all like "WTF"

yeah. buy what you like/need.

[CBFryman 2]

lmao acid...

stock speakers are teh suck....especailly GM/Ford speakers.

[mrray13 30]

I hate the term "SQL"...just a peeve of mine.

Buy a vehicle you like to drive, build the system accordingly...

but sql is so acceptable now. and it's a fairly accurate term. so why the peeve?

and x2 and the second part!

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

The peeve comes from the fact that I think n00bs come to think that having 140+dB of substage is somehow "SQ"...when it fact it's just noise. You can strive for both, but you're going to compromise on both ends of the spectrum to meet somewhere in the middle. The term also implies that SQ setups have no output potential - which is obviously false.

Just IMHO.

aww, understood. and actually, agreed. however, i do disagree that a 140+ system is just noise. one awesome example comes to mid..

1995 or so accord, loaded with jl's best equipment, including the w7. easily took first at QOTR 2004 in the rookie (i can't remember the exact term, but basicly no0b) class. did a 137 legal. yeah, 137 isn't 140, but had he ran outlaw, he'd been over 140...and had he ran ported..well, you get the idea.

i mean, 140+sql is possible. but i beileve, like just about everything, it's the internet "experts" who actually give sql a bad rap. all boom and no actually staging isn't sql, i'll agree. and i'll quit here...time to start a new thread perhaps?

anyway, i agree with ramos too...most of the pleasure, at least for me, comes from teh building process. to prove someone wrong, or like the 71 impala build, to make someone happy. buy the car you want, we'll help ya build the soundstage for it.

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[azbass 0]

sql for the mega win

[jntar 15]

I personaly dont descriminate between the terms SQ and SQL. 99% of the cars I heard at finals and 99% of all of the other "SQ" cars I have heard/judged, have the ability to get loud. Now 140+ on music is insane, but 140+ on tones doesnt automatically throw the vehicle into the SPL side. My vehicle sounds damn good for what it is. It is also capable of 140+ on tones and screaming clean levels of 138ish on music. I never turned it up past that level.

IMO, SQ is the ability to accuratly reproduce the original reference material. That doesnt mean that I always have to cruise with the sub level on -15...

[Aaron Clinton 2,372]

LSQ FTW mate

FPDQ

[CBFryman 2]

im 140+ dB and my sub stage is clean and reletively flat. working on my mids and all but it, by no means, sounds bad.

[///M5 2,833]

Edit: oops wrong topic

[tsealsut2010 0]

do any of you all like this car its one that i found at a local dealer in my city. heres the link.

new car on autotrader