>I suppose you don't believe in dynamic headroom either?
     Gee, I only mentioned it in the same message....
 >Well then, feel free to start your own autosound competition sactioning 
body.
     Why do you need to use this senseless sarcasm? 
 >Just a little aside here, I'm really sick of this "sending a message" PC
 >bullsh*t catchphrase.  
     It's too bad you you can't seem to grasp the concept of
responsibility for high profile people, events, etc.  It's like the
world class athlete who's always getting arrested for something.  "I
didn't ask to be a role model...."  Yeah, well it comes with the job
sometimes.
     Know this.  I don't care if a sound competition wants to use
"Loud" as an event.  The only thing I took issue with was your claim
to Tom that "loud" wasn't the focus.  Whether you like it or not, you
can't be hypocrites in this world and expect people to believe you.
Quality (be it in sound, installation, electronics, whatever) and LOUD
have *nothing* to do with each other.  A rifle is *loud*, but that
does not mean I'd want to use one as a stereo!!!
     
     It's funny how I've gotten nothing but agreements from everyone
but you on this matter.  I don't care if you disagree, but you don't
need to act like a child in the process.
 > Maybe the "message" in this case was to find a happy medium that wouldn't
 >simply send everyone with a marginally powerful system packing. 
     Why would the "marginally powerful systems" go *packing* unless
they were only interested in volume to begin with?  If my car can win
a race, does that mean I shouldn't enter it in a car show because it's
got a big motor and it should be on the race track going FAST just
because it CAN?  Do I have to prove it can go 180mph to show that it's
a nice car?  Will it get extra points for having a larger
motor?  Fortunately, at many car shows, *no*.
     Like I said, if the goal is *loud*, fine.  If the goal is
*quality*, fine.  If you can get quality AND loud, fine.  But I don't
think they should be judged together, since they have no direct
relation.  
 >especially in a major "standards-setting" organization like IASCA, is not a
 >whimsical thing.  "Let's put a bunch of numbers in a hat and pick out
 > a new top level for the SPL category!"  
     If they're so darn standard setting, they're setting a pretty low
one by giving mixed messages.  You may not like it, but if they're
*really major*, then they are sending messages and setting standards,
whether you like the term or not.  
     Maybe instead of sarcasm above, the answer is remove one or the
other.  You can't judge quality at 140dB.  Your goal is either loud or
quality.  You can't have both *at the same time* so why judge both in
the same contest? 
 > GG> if your goal is to imitate a jet engine.  There's nothing wrong with
 > GG> having the headroom to reach that level, but there's also nothing
 > GG> wrong with a system that can only reach 120dB.  
 >Nobody ever said there was. 
     First of all, there's that word "headroom."  Does that answer
your first question?
     Secondly, (and I've said this before) it is *implied* that there
is something wrong with 120dB in that contest because you lose points
for "only" reaching that level.  Therefore, they can't just
concentrate on getting top quality if they want to win, they have to
consider volume.  And like I said, they're water and oil.
 > But why should your definition of "comfortable" have ANYTHING to do
 > with people wanting to see who goes the loudest (to a certain point)?
     It shouldn't.  I never said it should.  I said if loud is the
goal, fine.  If sound quality is the goal, loud has nothing to do with
it.
 > GG>      My point was that if they thought loud wasn't nearly
 > GG> as important as quality sound, they would have picked a lower
 > GG> number or left out SPL altogether.  
 >Why?  Why can't it be a PART of the whole?  Just because they want to leave 
it
 >as PART of the 
 >experience means that they think quantity is MORE important than quality? 
     They are largely mutually exclusive of each other.  You may
achieve both in a car, just as you may like to drink wine and beer at
the same sitting, but they're two different *types* of drinks and
should be judged separately as different contests, not mixed together
into Buddy's Beer-Wine in a can.  Yet this competition does just that,
although it's more like sewage water and Perrier in this case.
 >Your logic is quite beyond me here, Gordon.
     Sorry.  Can't make it any simpler for you than this.
 >Installation quality counts for just as many, if not more, points in an 
IASCA
 >competition -- 
 >by your definition this means that how tight the wire connections are is 
also
 >more important than sound quality.
     I note the word *quality* there.  So it fits.  What does *loud*
have to do with quality?  An aircraft is loud.  It doesn't mean I want
to listen to one instead of music.  If the goal of a contest is to
sound like an aircraft, fine.  I don't see how this correlates to
trying to sound like a world class symphony orchestra, however.
 >Why should 120 get more points than 100 then, since 100dB is plenty
 >"comfortable" for ANYone.
     Personally, I don't think *loud* should be an issue, except maybe
to reach a minimum of conversation level on the road or something.  I
said, if there *had* to be a loud part, it should be based on
something that makes sense (like the average dynamic limit to human
hearing or the current dynamic limit to CDs), not just pull a number
out of a hat.  What significace does 140dB have?
 >Look, Gordon... you obviously aren't at all involved or interested in the
 >world of car audio competition, so any reasoning that may be brought
     I could be very interested if I believed in their judging
methods.
 >as my wife does.  That doesn't mean I'm qualified to debate the intricacies 
of
     I may not know the specfic rules of a given contest, but I know a
bit about stereo and electronics (if you call a degree a bit).
 >You also clearly have very little concept of the workings of the world
 >of car audio competition, and as such it's probably best for you to
 > not try to debate it.  The same debate
     I'm not debating *what* the rules are or anything.  I'm debating
the principles, which is what Tom originally addressed.  Think of it
as generic discussion for any kind of audio competition (this could
apply as much to home audio as car audio).
 >over the need for engines that produce over 1000hp and propel vehicles to
     You're saying because I've never made a Big Mac, I don't know how
to cook.  And you want talk about bullsh*t?
 >Now go away before you hurt yourself.
     Professionalism at its finest.
 | AmiQWK 2.9 - FREEWARE |
... Great Bass is like icing on the cake, but icing without cake is 
ckening!
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------