93 replies to this topic

[br85]

~Spyne~, on 19 May 2010 - 04:24 PM, said:

and how did u go at the last measq comp? what's that, you don't compete?
well how would you know enough about the judging process to criticise the system?

I competed last year, I just so happen to be flat broke and halfway through a system this year, not that I have to explain myself to you.
I came 2nd each time I competed (intermediate division since I had no intention of building a 2 seater as was almost "required" for expert at that time) bar 1 when I had some alternator whine.


I don't criticise a system I know nothing about. I see what I understand is a gaping hole in the written judging criteria and I point it out for those who maybe simply haven't thought about it.


To you AND Marc, I have no desire to put down MEASQ and the great work it DOES do, nor will I stop supporting events by telling people about them, nor will I ever NOT compete when I have a complete system in my car. This is a thread about having a reference, and I merely pointed out that there is no written criteria in the MEASQ format for one of the major contributors to replicating said reference. Obviously I've hit a soft spot and I won't do so again.

[Marc ♫]

Not the case br85. As I mentioned, we're always open to feedback - although you did come across more like you were attacking the format rather than offering up suggestions or feedback.

As said previously, Dynamics existed before, was removed for a reason but I feel we're not far off having a more educated competitor base in which case it can be returned to the format at some future point.

[br85]

I should add, to be fair, that this "schizophrenia" I mentioned (regarding whether we want systems to "sound good" (sonically accurate and beautiful on our ears all of the time) or "sound real" (dynamic and sometimes unpleasant)) is not an attack on the MEASQ format, I should imagine that all SQ judging in any format will run into this problem for one reason or another, and I don't know that a whole lot can be done about it, since it's VERY much personal preference.

I might offer a suggestion, though, to simplify the matter for competitors. "Transient Response" can be googled by just about anyone, and if you're still worried about competitors not getting it, maybe limit it to advanced 1 & 2? Those guys AT LEAST should know what transients are and what it means to have a good transient response.

[Marc ♫]

That was exactly what I had in mind also mate, introducing it into the higher classes first.