Setonaudio, What is in your personal system besides the QOL? |
Ozzy, Thanks for that very interesting review. Now that you have changed room treatments and the positions of your speakers, how do you know that the result is from the Qol? What do you hear when you toggle the Qol in and out of the system? When it is out of the signal, is the sound better than it was before you made all of the changes? Or is all of this improvement only when you have the Qol in the loop? Do you also notice a volume change when you toggle it on and off? |
Lrsky, you may be right in the sense that it will find its way into MP3 players, car radios, TVs etc., and could be described as "the next phase of audio as we've known it." But how do you explain the decidedly mixed reports from users in these forums?
Could you elaborate on how you tried this device and exactly what you heard? Did you buy one for your system? |
Ozzy, At least one user did not like it enough to keep it. Read Madfloyd's comments above. He writes "Ultimately I found....the effect too distracting for me." I spoke to him at length about it. He returned it after the trial period and I had the impression that some others have also. Maybe I just read that somewhere else. I'm glad you like yours.
I did ask some specific questions of you in my post dated 2/4/12 above. Could you please elaborate? I once owned Eggleston speakers and got them to disappear quite nicely. How do you know the improved sound you are getting is from the Qol unit and not all the changes you made with your set up? Have you toggled it in and out of your system like Madfloyd did to hear the difference. I'm just curios, thanks. |
Ozzy, It had nothing to do with price.
When you toggle the unit in and out of the signal path, what do you hear other than a change in volume? Does the soundstage collapse? Is part of the signal missing? |
Thanks Ozzy. I had a similar response when I added isolation (Vibraplane under TT and Townshend Sinks under rack components). Everything improved and sounded more real. |
Seton, that's a great endorsement. I agree the only way to know is to order one and hear for oneself in a known system.
What you describe is pretty much the improvement I experienced when Jim Smith came to voice my system. He added nothing, but the sound became much more real with careful and deliberate positioning of speakers, listening seat and treatments. Tone, dynamics and presence all improved dramatically. Then adding isolation to my front end components took it to the next level.
The total was about the same as the $4K for the Qol.
I guess the Qol is an active approach while what I did was passive. Interesting that the results seem similar.
Do you think that the major electronics companies will start to license the technology and insert it in their products? Pass, ARC, Krell, Atmosphere, VAC etc? |
Ozzy, The device is in the signal path and adds gain. How is that not active?
Room treatments, speaker and listener locations are certainly passive. Adding isolation, racks, cones, feet etc is also passive, IMO. |
If the qol solves these inherent problems with the signal, revealed what has been forever omitted, why then have some people bought the device, inserted it in their systems and listened and then decided to return it? |
Boy, after reading this entire thread, I sure wish I had made the effort to listen to my friend's Qol during his "in-home trial period". Unfortunately, I couldn't make it in time and he returned the unit before I could hear it or borrow it for my own system. |
My guess is that over time, this device will fade in the high end specialty arena but may become ubiquitous in mobile MP3 devices, HT processors and even TV's, phones and car radios. It might appeal more to the masses than to the high end purists. Time will tell. |
Wow. Thank you for taking the time to write that review. Was your audition in your own system? I've heard some of the things you describe, like the much larger than life vocal presentation, in poorly set up systems with very good components. I leave thinking the owner or dealer should really spend more time to properly place the speakers and listener in the room. They also usually need to consider room treatments. What you describe is very distracting if the goal is to capture what is on the recording. Of course, that is not always the goal.
This thread is a year old now. Do the early adopters still own their devices? |
Milpai, by "low-fi", I mean precisely, low fidelity to the source. I was not trying to make a statement about affordability. There are plenty of inexpensive audio products that sound remarkably real. Just read recommended component lists and listen to well designed inexpensive gear at dealerships. I don't think this is the ultimate environment for this QOL device. By low-fi I'm talking about Bose wave radios, car stereos, flat screen TVs. I read somewhere that this is where this device will hit the mass-market. Devices that do not reproduce sound very accurately, but would benefit from some spacial enhancements. |
I think the QOL will find a happy home in car stereos, TVs, telephones and radios. In other words, in mid-to-low-fi environments. Isn't that the eventual plan of the designer? |
Hello Ozzy,
No, I have not actually heard the Qol Unit. I don't believe that I have commented on its sound. The benefits that you and others have written about do not seem to be lacking in my system, so I have no desire to audition the device. There are very divergent opinions about the Qol in this thread, and I find the whole topic quite interesting, as I do most topics in audio. |
Has this technology shown up yet in car and TV audio? I thought that was an intended market segment. |
