> GG>      Not quite?  Do you realize how *loud* 140dB is and you say
 > GG> *not quite* !?!? 
 >
 >Read what I wrote, Spanky.  Tom said, "Competition car audio, for the most
 >part, is ONLY concerned with loud," to which I replied "Not quite."  As in,
 >there's a lot more to it than that.  Which is exactly what the rest of what
 >you quoted of my reply to him says.
     So what's your point?  You seemed to have missed my point
completely.  You're saying a 140dB cap is a good thing so people just
pumping more and more power don't get extra points, but I'm saying
140dB is already a *ridiculously loud* level and is too high a cap in
my opinion.  I said 120dB is a much better cap since it actually
*means* something, since it's the average limit to human dynamic
hearing.  Personally, I think that's too loud as well, but if you're
going to have a SPL event included, that's the number I'd put a cap
at.
 > GG> Why 140dB?  Is that the level your ear drums instantly explode at
 > GG> or something?  Human hearing is incapable of even realizing dynamic
 > GG> levels beyond 120dB (it just becomes distortion after that). 
 >
 >Maybe YOUR ears.  My ears are not your ears.  Mine might top out at 117dB. 
 >They might handle 122dB.  You don't know.
     I was making a generalization.  I don't know what you're getting
all defensive about.  I simply disagree with their point system for
the SPL event.  If they're going to judge a car on SPL, fine, but if
they want to judge quality sound, 140dB for max. points in that area
is sending the wrong message.
 > GG> I just can't understand why they would award maximum points for
 > GG> 140dB if *loud* wasn't high in their minds. 
 >
 >As far as IASCA's rating system was concerned, they had to put a cap on the
 >SPL
 >somewhere.  People were just dumping more power into their systems to try 
o
 >crank a few more points out on SPL, so they picked a glass ceiling for it. 
 >Your system could produce 180dB SPL, but nothing about 140 counts for
     I'm not arguing about putting a cap on the levels.  My point is
that 140dB is the wrong level.  140dB might be the right level if your
goal is to imitate a jet engine.  There's nothing wrong with having
the headroom to reach that level, but there's also nothing wrong with
a system that can only reach 120dB.  Heck, even less as far as I'm
concerned.  A comfortable listening level is all that's required in my
opinion.  Do you think people that buy Martin Logan Electrostatics or
Magnepan planar are concerned with reaching those levels?  No, they
want *quality* not *loud*.  You'd be lucky to hit 100dB with a top of
the line Magnepan (Class A Stereophile).  I, personally, would rather
see a competition judged by subjective listening by a large number of
people than awarding any points for SPL.  That's just me, however.
Your mileage may vary.
 >anything.
 > Rather than just adding one more point for every dB SPL over a certain 
level,
 >they instead picked an upper limit, assigned it a given number of points, 
and
 >deducted them for levels below that.
     My point was that if they thought loud wasn't nearly as important
as quality sound, they would have picked a lower number or left out
SPL altogether.  Why should a 140dB system get *more* points than a
120dB system when *no one* should be playing over 120dB in the first
place?  I think we both know 140dB is too loud for anyone under *any*
conditions.  It's pointless so why award the most points for something
that's pointless?  I don't care if you disagree, but this attitude
you're cutting (i.e. the "Spanky" bit) does little to make your point.
 > GG>      These sound more reasonable.  Actually, it's a shame a person
 > GG> has to be penalized for having a stereo that can't do 140dB.  
 >
 >Get a grip, and think about how this scoring system actually works for a
 >moment.  
     You get a grip.  I understood how it worked.  And that's *why* I
disagreed in the first place.  I'm saying a system that's *incapable*
of producing 140dB might very well sound *much* better than one that
can.  Why should the 140dB car get 20 extra points in SPL, when 140dB
is completely irrelevant in the first place unless that's all your
after?  Like I said, it sends the wrong message to a person who's
planning on entering in competition.  They won't want to lose 20
points if they don't have to.
 >Since raw SPL can be had by simply adding more power, more sensitive 
drivers,
 >or specific sub-enclosure designs, without concern for sound quality (which 
is
 >the primary focus of all *major* autosound competitions) this is, at some
 >point
 >or another, an unfair comparison, in addition to being harzardous to the
 >hearing.
     And you don't think that maybe that "point" is well below 140dB?
 >The less powerful system doesn't lose anything (ie. is not "penalized"), 
nd
 >the guy with the system on steroids has no reason to crush his own head 
ith
 >bass.
     Obviously, your idea of a "less powerful" system *is* the 140dB
system since a 120dB system *would* be penalized (it gets 20 less
points.  Or don't you call that a penalty?)
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------