Leaderboard

I see snow on the subwoofer pages but not the homepage, Im loving the new store. Keep the updates coming

They are two different drivers. The BTL's suspension is stiffer than the BL by 17.9 l, that means the BL's suspension will move a lot more and make it prone to mechanical failure if put in a common chamber enclosure. If they are separate you won't have a problem, but it's possible they have a diffferent "sound".

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.

Man, THANK YOU guys for checking this stuff out. I got a ton more pics from other systems I have done, check it out...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very well put ///M5

They'll just find something else to bitch about

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

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

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

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.

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.

You dont need top of the line electrical system for 1 btl, u might need a strong capacitor possibly an extra battery but u dont need to get all that stuff for it, i have a 15" btl fully loaded on a hifonics brutus 20100, 2000rms, and no extras and my battery gage is fine, i am getting an extra battery just so it takes strain off the alternator but u dont NEED it.

"""SQL""" actually does make more since then using the term ""SQL"".... which really a senseless acronymn where to is """SQL""" in quotes refers to a reference of the term but the acronym still doesn't make sense, but has meaning to some.