[Bilavideo]

I hate the word, SQ. I can't think of a more worthless, pretentious, deceptively empty term. I used to think it actually referred to something, like SPL or Qts, etc. It just means "sound quality."

Every time you turn around, some bimbo/himbo/mimbo is saying, "Why, these earphones are better because they have better SQ." Yes, they sound better because they have better sound quality. I realize that the world of hi-fi is drenched in hype, but can we not aim a little higher than this? Are we really such sheep that we would invent a term that sounds like an actual, measurable, performance-based quality when it's really just empty wagons popping off as if they knew something?

Do any engineers actually use the term SQ? Does anybody who does math? It just seems like this term was invented to give some people something to say when their head felt as empty as a dry well.

 

[shigzeo]

Sound quality has no meaning, you are right. Unfortunately, we straddle hollow language in all parts of life. Even here in HF, the word Sound Quality is hardly applicable to actual Sound Quality. Or perhaps, the word can mean sound characteristic which is likely closer to the real meaning.

 

[San7a]

Posting from University... Woooo... Professor's mic keeps squeaking! SQ FTW!

 

[virometal]

I have grown weary of the term resolution and have become convinced, there is no upgrade available that won't increase it. One could put a bag over their head, but as long as it has a recognized moniker and cost a significant sum, resolution will improve.

 

[shigzeo]

I learn so much from a few page refreshes!

 

[acidbasement]

Maybe I haven't done enough reading on here, but usually when I see a reference to 'SQ', it's made in an informal way. What's wrong with informal discussion? Not everyone has time, capacity, or inclination to sit down and run a bunch of tests on equipment so that later that night they can post the results on head-fi. To many of us, if we're enjoying the music, we have found good SQ. Sure, measurements are important, but not in every discussion.

The important thing to keep in mind when reading any discussion about SQ is that what constitutes good SQ for one person is not going to be the same for everyone, so while we can learn from one person's opinion of what piece of gear has good SQ, we should never trust their ears more than our own. If that is too difficult to manage, then yes, we should probably get rid of the term.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Agreed, colloquial abbreviations such as SQ are "stupid"; Give me the nuance details, like i like it ... YMMV

 

[ecclesand]

I jus bot me da bestest hedfonies evar! Dey has da bestest sowndz kwalatee EVAR!!! MOAR SQ!!!!

 

[Currawong]

My personal beef is the hi-fi mag-type: "I listened to the X..." where X is anything other than the music. You can't listen to a CD player, cables, amp or headphones, you listen with those things. "The cd player/amp/cable/whatever sounded..." No, it didn't unless you hit it with something or dropped it. "The music sounded.." is correct.

/rant.

 

[wuwhere]

My portable rig's SQ has increased significantly.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuwhere /img/forum/go_quote.gif My portable rig's SQ has increased significantly.

BUT, does the SQ "Blow you outa the wata" "Night AND Day" Hmmm

 

[wuwhere]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif BUT, does the SQ "Blow you outa the wata" "Night AND Day" Hmmm

All the time.

 

[Benaiir]

SQ isn't a measurable term, it's comparative... For instance, the HD800's SQ is much higher than the Apple earbuds.

I don't believe people should use the word SQ without another comparative object.

 

[FallenAngel]

Not nearly as bad as "oomph". I've actually heard that used TWICE!

Once when I stupidly asked a clerk at a nutrition store about two lines in of the same brand, he actually answered that "well this one is like the other one, but just has move oomph", I was ready to deck him.

Second time was on this forum where somebody posted a thread with something like "I want MOAR POWA, my headphones need more OOMPH". Similar reaction as above.

EDIT: It's crazy to see the sheer number of results when searching for "oomph" on this forum.

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilavideo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hate the word, SQ. I can't think of a more worthless, pretentious, deceptively empty term. I used to think it actually referred to something, like SPL or Qts, etc. It just means "sound quality." Every time you turn around, some bimbo/himbo/mimbo is saying, "Why, these earphones are better because they have better SQ." Yes, they sound better because they have better sound quality. I realize that the world of hi-fi is drenched in hype, but can we not aim a little higher than this? Are we really such sheep that we would invent a term that sounds like an actual, measurable, performance-based quality when it's really just empty wagons popping off as if they knew something? Do any engineers actually use the term SQ? Does anybody who does math? It just seems like this term was invented to give some people something to say when their head felt as empty as a dry well.

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sound quality has no meaning, you are right. Unfortunately, we straddle hollow language in all parts of life. Even here in HF, the word Sound Quality is hardly applicable to actual Sound Quality. Or perhaps, the word can mean sound characteristic which is likely closer to the real meaning.

meh


Quote:

Originally Posted by San7a /img/forum/go_quote.gif Posting from University... Woooo... Professor's mic keeps squeaking! SQ FTW!

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have grown weary of the term resolution and have become convinced, there is no upgrade available that won't increase it. One could put a bag over their head, but as long as it has a recognized moniker and cost a significant sum, resolution will improve.

meh


Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif I learn so much from a few page refreshes!

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidbasement /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe I haven't done enough reading on here, but usually when I see a reference to 'SQ', it's made in an informal way. What's wrong with informal discussion? Not everyone has time, capacity, or inclination to sit down and run a bunch of tests on equipment so that later that night they can post the results on head-fi. To many of us, if we're enjoying the music, we have found good SQ. Sure, measurements are important, but not in every discussion. The important thing to keep in mind when reading any discussion about SQ is that what constitutes good SQ for one person is not going to be the same for everyone, so while we can learn from one person's opinion of what piece of gear has good SQ, we should never trust their ears more than our own. If that is too difficult to manage, then yes, we should probably get rid of the term.

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agreed, colloquial abbreviations such as SQ are "stupid"; Give me the nuance details, like i like it ... YMMV

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecclesand /img/forum/go_quote.gif I jus bot me da bestest hedfonies evar! Dey has da bestest sowndz kwalatee EVAR!!! MOAR SQ!!!!

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif My personal beef is the hi-fi mag-type: "I listened to the X..." where X is anything other than the music. You can't listen to a CD player, cables, amp or headphones, you listen with those things. "The cd player/amp/cable/whatever sounded..." No, it didn't unless you hit it with something or dropped it. "The music sounded.." is correct. /rant.

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuwhere /img/forum/go_quote.gif My portable rig's SQ has increased significantly.

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif yeah? well you know what word i hate? SCRUMPTIOUS. ugh. that screw!ng word gets my knickers all in a twist. screw!ng SCRUMPTIOUS. screw that.

meh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benaiir /img/forum/go_quote.gif SQ isn't a measurable term, it's comparative... For instance, the HD800's SQ is much higher than the Apple earbuds. I don't believe people should use the word SQ without another comparative object.

meh


I'll give you three guesses what thoughtless tweenage grunt of passive-aggressive disapproval I hate the most. The first two don't count. Take your nondescript "meh" and shove in your unimaginative ass.