# Define "SQ" music...



## AWC

I think we all look for a little less on the compression side. Little details are the bomb. These qualities may help choose an album, but how do we define what the Quality in the SQ should be like?

As a musician, this is all a helluva lot harder than a lot of people think. So...


----------



## SaturnSL1

As long as the music is clean and clear I'm cool with it. I don't like music that sounds like it was downloaded off of Limewire, bass boosted by a 15 year old on VirtualDJ, and then posted onto youtube. You know what I mean.

Simply put, CD quality.


----------



## splaudiohz

SaturnSL1 said:


> As long as the music is clean and clear I'm cool with it. I don't like music that sounds like it was downloaded off of Limewire, bass boosted by a 15 year old on VirtualDJ, and then posted onto youtube. You know what I mean.
> 
> Simply put, CD quality.


Is analog quality a far fetch? Remember when phonographs were used in car audio? You heard everything the artist intended to be heard.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

splaudiohz said:


> Is analog quality a far fetch? Remember when phonographs were used in car audio? You heard everything the artist intended to be heard.


Both of Donald Fagan's solo albums are very well produced and recorded. He's my tuning material and reference. He sets the bar for what I consider "SQ music".


----------



## splaudiohz

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Both of Donald Fagan's solo albums are very well produced and recorded. He's my tuning material and reference. He sets the bar for what I consider "SQ music".


This comment + your signature makes me want to drive to Arkansas and chill in the truck for a few hours. 

I am a Floyd junkie for Studio recorded, Elton John has some pretty accurate live recording that I have heard over a Esotar 2 3-way and McIntosh. Amazing. 

I think it has a lot to with how much effort/passion the recording artist want to put into their work. I would comment on Steely Dan, but Don Fagan pretty much made him who he is, so that would be contradicting the quoted comment. Another great artist. But then again the technology had to catch up to the musician. 

There were undoubtedly great artist in the early 20th century, however the quality of the sound reproduced was lacking greatly. Once things began to get purified and filtered thus capturing the artist, not the artifact that comes with sound fq, it became amazing. 

When that actually happened I think is debatable. I am back and forth on the whole digital era although it is getting better now.


----------



## Topdown

I like to use full symphony/large band music as my SQ reference material... its hard to find mainstream music that is tolerable that will hit everything between the 20's. Not that I often have vehicles or resources to HEAR everything, but when I do... being able to hear the wind musicians suck in a breath or hear/feel the strings on a stand up bass vibrate is just amazing


----------



## stochastic

In my opinion it comes down to the record mixer. A well recorded album is usually a SQ album. Has little to do with the actual musical content of the songs, has a lot more to do with the gear used to record, the cleanliness of the signal during the recording process, and the ability to include these details during the mixdown. Compression - particularly in abundance - tends to kill many SQ artifacts.

The recording chain is very much like the reproduction chain. There's a lot to consider for every small placement decision, fader tweak, or microphone selection. It's easy to record sound, it's hard to record sound quality.


----------



## JT34237

High bitrate. :laugh:


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

splaudiohz said:


> This comment + your signature makes me want to drive to Arkansas and chill in the truck for a few hours.
> 
> I am a Floyd junkie for Studio recorded, Elton John has some pretty accurate live recording that I have heard over a Esotar 2 3-way and McIntosh. Amazing.
> 
> I think it has a lot to with how much effort/passion the recording artist want to put into their work. I would comment on Steely Dan, but Don Fagan pretty much made him who he is, so that would be contradicting the quoted comment. Another great artist. But then again the technology had to catch up to the musician.


I'm always up for sharing what I've created with anyone wanting to listen. Still dailing in the fronts since the Arians havn't been installed long. 

"Steely Dan" is actually the name of a dildo from back in the day. Walter Becker and Donald Fagan along with the rest of the musicians they use at any given time are STEELY DAN. It's not an actual person. I've listened to them all my life and my dad has listened to them since the 70's. Fagan and Becker are both extra passionate about the quality of their music. Speaking of live Elton John, I need to blow the dust off my "Live in Australia" cd.


----------



## n_olympios

Wrong thread, sorry.


----------



## chad

Sometimes I believe that SQ music is music that sucks so bad and is so obscure that nobody will ever listen to it on a normal basis.

Without a reference... ever... everything sounds good right?


----------



## MarkZ

stochastic said:


> In my opinion it comes down to the record mixer. A well recorded album is usually a SQ album. Has little to do with the actual musical content of the songs, has a lot more to do with the gear used to record, the cleanliness of the signal during the recording process, and the ability to include these details during the mixdown.


Disagree completely. 

Some music is just easier to put together and reproduce than others. Different genres have inherently different dynamics and different energy distributions, and the percept of "clarity" is strongly correlated with these two factors. "Good SQ" can become pretty biased.

You guys are right about using the right amount of compression. But this is usually dictated by the music as well. Dialing in the right amount of compression is an art form, usually left to the artists that we call engineers.  [if you want to hear vocals with _less_ compression than what you typically find, listen to Beach House's latest album... most people don't like the effect, btw.]


----------



## req

sq music = well recorded


----------



## RNBRAD

Let see.. Pink Floyd The Wall on German Vinyl playing on a Rockport Sirius III, using 2 Halcro dm58's powering a pair of Kharma exquisites.


----------



## splaudiohz

RNBRAD said:


> Let see.. Pink Floyd The Wall on German Vinyl playing on a Rockport Sirius III, using 2 Halcro dm58's powering a pair of Kharma exquisites.


Awe come the fu** on! Why you guys have to live so far away! We dont have anything that nice in the midwest. I might have to start a trend.


----------



## tima4h

chad said:


> Sometimes I believe that SQ music is music that sucks so bad and is so obscure that nobody will ever listen to it on a normal basis.
> 
> Without a reference... ever... everything sounds good right?


Hehehe this made me giggle. I agree - apart from a few tracks, I haven't been able to find much music in my own tastes that is recorded well. Although Rage Against the Machine, and Faith No More are pretty well recorded. Also, the Focal discs have some reasonable RnB tracks, and 'doof doof' tracks for those that are into it


----------



## stochastic

tima4h said:


> Also, the Focal discs have some reasonable RnB tracks, and 'doof doof' tracks for those that are into it


Oh yes, I forgot about those 'doof doof' tracks. Those are really SQ, so much so that they epitomize SQ. Above all other elements of SQ such as timbre, spectral clarity, realistic acoustic space, and dynamics, I consider the doof quality to be the highest perceivable measure of SQ. :toff:

In all seriousness though, drums can be a very telling section to listen to for good SQ. It's a challenge to record good drums or create clean and realistic synthetic rhythms.


----------



## chad

splaudiohz said:


> Awe come the fu** on! Why you guys have to live so far away! We dont have anything that nice in the midwest. I might have to start a trend.


sure we do.


----------



## chad

stochastic said:


> Oh yes, I forgot about those 'doof doof' tracks. Those are really SQ, so much so that they epitomize SQ. Above all other elements of SQ such as timbre, spectral clarity, realistic acoustic space, and dynamics, I consider the doof quality to be the highest perceivable measure of SQ. :toff:
> 
> In all seriousness though, drums can be a very telling section to listen to for good SQ. It's a challenge to record good drums or create clean and realistic synthetic rhythms.


Rage was well MIXED where the kick is kick and the bass is bass.

I use it as an example in class a bunch.


----------



## n_olympios

req said:


> sq music = well recorded


And then comes another, equally (if not more) important question: ok, so let's say that we have found well recorded music. Is it worth listening to, just for the sake of its good sound quality, or does it need to have a certain musical quality as well? 

What I mean is, I don't care if Bieber sounds great, I'd never listen to _it_. But I'll gladly listen to certain Queen albums even though they're badly recorded.


----------



## SaturnSL1

If you're sitting around listening to music you dislike just because it's beautifully recorded you've got bigger issues that need to be addressed


----------



## chad

SaturnSL1 said:


> If you're sitting around listening to music you dislike just because it's beautifully recorded you've got bigger issues that need to be addressed


winning comment


----------



## n_olympios

SaturnSL1 said:


> If you're sitting around listening to music you dislike just because it's beautifully recorded you've got bigger issues that need to be addressed


Thank you, this is exactly my point. Unfortunately it's also one of the reasons I hate going to "hi-end shows", where they usually play the dullest music around, but baptise it as "sq music" and all's well. Or not?


----------



## LovesMusic

Cant remember the guys name that mixed a bunch of live albums at the filmore, ie the allman brothers...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

n_olympios said:


> Thank you, this is exactly my point. Unfortunately it's also one of the reasons I hate going to "hi-end shows", where they usually play the dullest music around, but baptise it as "sq music" and all's well. Or not?


My whole truck will blow up with the listener in it if "Spanish Harlem" gets playedI swear, that's gotta be THE WORST song I've ever heard and all for pointing out whether or not I got my sub-midbass transition right or whatever the hell people use it for. Bad music is bad music and the forbidden song is poorly recorded imo as well.

Oh, I like the way System Of A Down is recorded. Certain bands just wouldn't sound right without that raw sound in the recording. And SOAD seems to stage fairly well for me too.


----------



## ChrisB

What's the point of SQ music if it is something I will NEVER, and I mean NEVER listen to?

I've come to the conclusion that anyone who wants to play something that I don't normally listen to on my system can do it under one condition.... I get to play something that they normally don't listen to on THEIR system.


----------



## SaturnSL1

ChrisB said:


> What's the point of SQ music if it is something I will NEVER, and I mean NEVER listen to?
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that anyone who wants to play something that I don't normally listen to on my system can do it under one condition.... I get to play something that they normally don't listen to on THEIR system.


What do you normally listen to?


----------



## MarkZ

SaturnSL1 said:


> What do you normally listen to?


His mom yelling at him to get his own place.


----------



## ChrisB

MarkZ said:


> His mom yelling at him to get his own place.


And that is NOT SQ either.


----------



## SaturnSL1

:rimshot:


----------



## brett

fromt the time the pick hits the string, the voice leaves the mouth and the stick hits the head there are so many variables to the point the sound finds its way, via recording, to your ears. i have many albums that i can't listen to anymore, not because of the content, but how it was recorded. most recent example was coheed and cambria's new album. it has some compression on it, but was recorded hot. i can't tell if it's on guitar, vocal or drum tracks specifically but you can hear it. i listened on my car and home systems and it's congruent with either. you can hear a 'sizzle' or 'crackly' sound like the mic's were pushed into clipping.

now, i listen to alot of rock-type music, not techno, not rap not country, and i believe that this genre is the hardest to faithfully record into something that is faithful to the original sound and can sound great on any system. that being said, a few albums come to mind for good recording/playback, like the cranberries 'no need to argue' and 'to the faithful departed' and saves the day 'sound the alarm' and 'under the boards'. those last two albums, regardless of the style, make guitars, drums and bass sound so true and warm


----------



## Comp-U-Geek

Nightwish - Imaginaerum

Epica - The Phantom Agony

Its stuff that I usually listen to, but since both of these CDs have such a wide range of stuff going on it can bring out any and all flaws in a system. Both male and female vocals, heavy guitars, orchestra with string, woodwind, and brass, and plenty of percussion.

Plus, the music is just awesome. :laugh:


----------



## SaturnSL1

cajunner said:


> SQ music?
> 
> is it music that makes you find fault with your system, revealing shortcomings?
> 
> or is it music that makes your system sound wonderful, despite it being questionable on other music?
> 
> 
> kind of an existential exercise, you got there.
> 
> for me, SQ music is something my system can play with a lot of realism, that the distortion we call "art" is temporarily lifted and extending for several moments, the veil of reproduction disintegrates into a listening window where everything makes sense and is time well-spent.


Beautifully put :laugh:


----------



## MarkZ

cajunner said:


> SQ music?
> 
> is it music that makes you find fault with your system, revealing shortcomings?
> 
> or is it music that makes your system sound wonderful, despite it being questionable on other music?


This.


----------



## Hanatsu

Comp-U-Geek said:


> Nightwish - Imaginaerum
> 
> Epica - The Phantom Agony
> 
> Its stuff that I usually listen to, but since both of these CDs have such a wide range of stuff going on it can bring out any and all flaws in a system. Both male and female vocals, heavy guitars, orchestra with string, woodwind, and brass, and plenty of percussion.
> 
> Plus, the music is just awesome. :laugh:


Indeed, those albums are nice


----------



## stochastic

cajunner said:


> SQ music?
> 
> is it music that makes you find fault with your system, revealing shortcomings?
> 
> or is it music that makes your system sound wonderful, despite it being questionable on other music?
> 
> 
> kind of an existential exercise, you got there.
> 
> for me, SQ music is something my system can play with a lot of realism, that the distortion we call "art" is temporarily lifted and extending for several moments, the veil of reproduction disintegrates into a listening window where everything makes sense and is time well-spent.
> 
> It happens for some people when it's an orchestral performance and the symphonic synergistic, overwhelms.
> 
> Others, can find it in a solitary voice, unamplified.
> 
> I like the five piece rock group format, maybe because it's the most common so you get more chances in the lottery, or maybe because it has just been what I've become accustomed to hearing.
> 
> Bass guitar, lead guitar, vocals, drums, and keys.


I would argue that somehow the playback system has inappropriately been added to the definition of SQ music here. 

I think SQ music exists before it touches the sound playback system(s) of your choice. It has nothing to do with which system it's played back on or how it sounds on that particular system. It should not be required to reveal flaws on, or sound great on any given system. It's SQ music because it is a clear beautiful recording (not necessarily musically beautiful, it could be a beautiful recording of a Tuvan throat signer covering Gagnam Style on top of a backing track of a homeless crackhead playing the spoons). It's then up to our given stereo systems and listening environments (kinda part of the playback system, but often forgotten) to attempt to reproduce the SQ music as best as possible.

Edit: Also, I don't think you have to like it for it to be SQ music. You probably shouldn't listen to anything just because it's SQ music, listen to what you like - but that's a side argument that has nothing to do with what is or isn't SQ music.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

brett said:


> you can hear a 'sizzle' or 'crackly' sound like the mic's were pushed into clipping.


I started noticing this when I switched from a PG x100.4 to the amp I'm running now. Bought it from Zuki but it's not a Zuki board inside. This amp reproduces what is sent to it more faithful than anything I've ever run. This comes at a price though. On one hand it made bad recordings less fatiguing. On the other hand it caused the issue in the quote to happen. I love Godsmack but the sizzly crackly noise is terrible. Other bands make it happen too but can't think of them. Must be spitting out every last detail in the recording. To be honest the amp I'm running on my fronts sounds like some people have described the old LP amps to sound. If a somewhat "dirty" amp is what it takes to give my system the magic I want on those "SQ" recordings I can live with it. Just switching amps make a big difference whether the "all amps sound the same" people believe it or not. They'll never change my mind about it.


----------



## asawendo

cajunner said:


> .....Some music needs to be played on equipment that extracts so much detail as to require equipment that is perhaps, one stone throw away from low-budget mass market, big box bought gear. Otherwise, it loses it's captive, or special design/uniqueness, and falls into the pop category.
> 
> I think SQ music, falls into the slot of being able to come through on any playback system, that it has something that connects whether it's played back on 5 dollar earbuds or 3500 ribbons.
> 
> so, it's got to do with the playback system, but perhaps not in the way that first comes to mind.
> 
> I think that's why the Eagles' Hotel California is used so much as an example of SQ, because no matter what you listen to it on, it retains it's uniqueness, and ability to transpose the feeling in it in any playback system, mostly.


Well said, could not agree more....


----------

