"SQ" System has no rear component?

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

Lets get a little perspective here. Foxpro did not open up the door for us to walk thru, he said "If you think you can properly reproduce stereo in a car, you're cracked. The best you can hope for is a really good illusion."

I made a bold statement that I felt was apt for the thread, so sue me. Look at what others have said in this thread as well, if you need perspective. If you took what I said personally, then the internet is not for you.

I then gave a clue to back it. NO, I didn't explain what I meant in extreme detail and I don't have to. You can interpret this as me being full of myself if you want. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

You claimed it has been done before. I replied with essentially "where, in a McLaren F1 at 120*??" I dunno, I thought that was pretty relevent.

How about this "

Next time, ask that salesman how many channels the music was recorded in."

What's that supposed to mean?? Stereo is not even a recording method, it's a playback method.

Or this: " A proper front stage will immerse you in the sound.

Again, it was only recorded in 2 channels, trying to reproduce it in 4 channels cannot be considered "SQ"

 

Where in the definition of sound quality is playback mentioned? Reference? Or is this just your own personal interpretation?

How come I don't see audioholic posting any links or references?

 

[Immacomputer 10+ year member]

Quite the contrary, Ive offered to show proof of my 'claims' about eD plenty of times.

Ok, I don't follow all of your posts (I don't want your e-dick that bad). But this is what I was referring to as I always thought it was a dick move:

Its not my fault you are ignorant on the subject, nor is it my job to inform you.
You are now aware of them, you simply refuse to believe even so far as to hit the little search button at the top of your screen. That's all it would take, the only real question left is... will you hit that button, or wont you.

That sounds very similar to this:

How about you stop and think for a second about the examples I posted. You stated "it's been done plenty." I said, no, it has not...but it sure SOUNDS like it.
I never claimed to be a search engine. I just engaged you on something you felt pretty adamant about, that's all. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Great reading for you or anyone trying to crate a space for proper stereo in a car (bring a bottle of aspirin): http://www.elitecaraudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=146585

I just felt that this post and that post fit each other pretty well and I'm not a fan of either attitudes.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

I made a bold statement that I felt was apt for the thread, so sue me. Look at what others have said in this thread as well, if you need perspective. If you took what I said personally, then the internet is not for you.
I then gave a clue to back it. NO, I didn't explain what I meant in extreme detail and I don't have to. You can interpret this as me being full of myself if you want. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

You claimed it has been done before. I replied with essentially "where, in a McLaren F1 at 120*??" I dunno, I thought that was pretty relevent.

How about this "

Next time, ask that salesman how many channels the music was recorded in."

What's that supposed to mean?? Stereo is not even a recording method, it's a playback method.

Or this: " A proper front stage will immerse you in the sound.

Again, it was only recorded in 2 channels, trying to reproduce it in 4 channels cannot be considered "SQ"

 

Where in the definition of sound quality is playback mentioned? Reference? Or is this just your own personal interpretation?

How come I don't see audioholic posting any links or references?

The big difference you are missing betwen my one liner, and yours, is I would have been glad to explain it further had someone asked. I would not have replied that you were just lucky I replied in this thread at all. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif
You are trying to twist this into being about one liners now. I know you are smart enough to stay on topic, please do so.

"Where in the definition of sound quality is playback mentioned? Reference? Or is this just your own personal interpretation?"

Now you are just trying to argue any topic you can with me. We are discussing stereo systems, 'playback' is exactly the topic at hand. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

If you know where the globally recognized definition of "sound quality" is printed, id be glad to read it.

Imma, I'll respond to you later, when I have more time.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Okay, Ive got some time to respond Imma.

That comment was said to grampi out of frustration. It seems almost every time I mention an eD scandal, some sympathizer comes along to deny it. There are plenty of eD scandals that are hard to prove, I dont mention those. I only mention the 3 easy to prove scandals. The 3 scandals nobody even denies are true, unless they simply do not have any knowledge of the situation and refuse to believe because 'no company could be guilty of what audioholic claims and still be in business'. Even with me being careful to only state situations/scandals KNOWN to be fact, people still claim Im lying to smear eD. Yes, after a while of repeating the same links to pics showing eD's website where it claimed eDead V1 was rubber based, and links to Ben's own public announcement of the situation with ****ing facts contained within (the JL W7 letter)... after a while of being called a liar and having to re-prove myself, all the while half the board is yelling at me to quit piling on poor eD, I get frusterated and tell people to use the search. I have even had offers to web host the info to these 'proofs' so I do not have bicker and/or re-search for the info every time someone denies looking for themselves.

I did, at least, spell out the scandals for him to look up, if he so desired to. My anger there stemmed from him 1) refusing the believe what I say without proof, and 2) refusing to search for the easy-to-find information himself. Had Foxpro at least provided a good foundation of info to search from, my initial response to him would have been much different (if at all). He has since provided info to help people better understand his comment, but he initially did not. That is why I asked. *shrug* Contrary to what he believes, Im here not just to give my input on the subject, but to learn about the topic as well. And had grampi given me the impression he was actually interested in learning about the scandals, I would have been much more obliging to go do the footwork for him.

All that being said, being somewhat on the other side of the coin here, yes I do regret that choice of words with grampi. While I do feel he was just trying to be difficult because he didnt WANT to learn/believe/understand what I had said, easily proven facts like the ones I bring up like eD should then also be easy for me to provide a link for, each and every time. No matter how many mind-numb lemmings want to refuse what is otherwise common knowledge. Point taken.

 

[Maven 10+ year member]

So youre saying the the music that I listen to that was recorded in a sound treated 3200 cubic foot room, one instrument at a time , each with its own different microphone setup, and the vocalist encased in an anechoic chamber singing into yet another microphone, and all mixed together by a sound board with more processing power than was used to land men on the moon isnt going to be reproduced accurately in my 85 cubic foot car cabin??? Really....come on.....

People talk about being able to hear XXXX instrumnet come in quietly from the left front soundstage and hear the vocalist move across the stage, or whatever....you know what I am referring to(an accurate soundstage, some may say), BUt when was the last time you closed your eyes at a concert and experienced the sound in that type of detail??? It doesnt happen, sound comes from seemingly everywhere at once, and you are immersed in it....Isnt that why one attends a live show? To be immersed in sound, to be part of the performance?

Come on....It appears as though a lot of us need to calm down and listen to some music, why is there even an argument(discussion) over this topic or whatever is happening here now?? If you truly believe that ANY recording that wasnt made in your car can be accurately reproduced in your car, If you feel that virtually ANY musical recording reproduction through speakers isnt merely an illusion then you are deluding yourself. The existence of electronic audio playback systems is almost solely to create an illusion. If you are listening to a recording the entire point of the playback of that recording is to TRICK your mind into processing what its hearing as though you were experiencing the original event. Since people are binaural, and every sound I listen to(hopefully you too) is a localized source(or monophonic) and we hear this single source through both ears simultaneously by the benefit(or due to the detriment) of reflections its actually kind of pointless to, ............ Oh Jesus, I dont want to talk about that kind of sh!t. We are all trying to fool ourselves and other into believing that whatever system we have or reference is what real life sounds like. All I wanted to know was if you guys felt rear fill was an important part of a system designed to sound natural. My bad.//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

All I wanted to know was if you guys felt rear fill was an important part of a system designed to sound natural.

No.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif