V.curious about this thread. I've just installed a Black Hole (see my thread in 'loudspeakers') unit by SpatialComputer which has opened up the ambience and lowered the noise floor in my room, increasing dimensionality akin to surround sound, and this unit threatens to do more of the same.
On 6Moons a unit called NeutralAudio X-Drei seems to promise the same benefits as the BSG.
Any opinions on this unit? |
So what is going on here? In Europe, we're not easily able to access a unit for trial so are observing others' experiences.
I get the feeling that the equivalent of a change in soundstaging, increase in presence (akin to increase in volume/gain) and revealing/emphasis on ambient cues is leading to most listeners' enjoyment of the unit. Whether this is an alteration of the signal is a matter of opinion, as is whether it is an actual improvement over plain unaltered stereo.
I've just installed a SpatialComputer Black Hole bass attenuator which has integrated bass from my Zu Definitions 2's. This has also opened up my soundstage leading to more ambient cues becoming apparent etc. I would call this an improvement, although unlike the QOL, it isn't in the chain of the signal before it gets to the speakers.
The interesting quetion is whether this perceivable change is an improvement still over a period of time. Time will tell, I guess. |
Douglas, in Europe we can't easily get an audition so I am sifting thru people's opinions to get a flavour of how this unit works. I can see where you are coming from in deciding against the unit if it improves presentation in some ways, but at the expense of overall detail/fidelity.
On a related theme, could you check a processor that also works in the analog domain called the NeutralAudio X-DREI which aims to reduce anomalies in ultra HF range reducing load on power amp/speakers and improving intelligibility. There is a review on 6moons, but no other info other than my thread elsewhere on the amps forum here. |
Douglas, I completely concur with your principle that the more components you add (and, hence interconnects added) the more signal degradation must occur. Also I agree that there should be a wow factor reasonably immediately apparent, esp. if one is to be paying big bucks for a so-called improvement, although burn in can complicate matters since a lot of components do sound significantly better after 100-200 hours continuous use.
Douglas, and all others on this thread, how would you consider two components; firstly, the Spatial Computer Black Hole anti-wave generator (bass attenuator) . It does not sit in the amp chain, but at the back of the room, and generates ultrasonic frequencies into the room in response to what emerges from the loudspeakers, to cancel standing waves/bass nodes. The effect on my listening was subtle to start, but after a few days listening, I would now not do without it.
Second: changing to balanced power has removed a conditioner in the chain that components used to fit into, and has really improved power at source. Again, immediate improvement. |
To disagree with Dev, it is one thing to change the performance (good or bad) of a component with a power cord/interconnect/tweak, and another to alter the actual signal with a whole new black box between pre amp and power amp. Indeed, the makers of the QOL say it is of a whole magnitude beyond a simple component tweak.
I repeat, Doug says he has heard it, praises certain attributes that it brings to musical presentation, but feels on reflection that it alters (reduces?) enough of the detail presented to make these changes not significant enough to counter the positives in signal changes.
I feel he's been balanced in stating it's pros, further input on it's cons would be illuminating. |
All the QOL proponents out there ought not to take our cooler, skeptical thoughts about it to heart too deeply, like all components, if it works for you in your system, that's great.
The rest of us can muse as to it's technical merit, and in my opinion there has to be something more substantial revealed about it's method than the claim of a quantum leap fwd over stereo in the revealing of hitherto hidden information in the signal.
Too many contributors to varying forums incl. those involved in record mastering where mid-side processing is common, relay the QOL's uncanny similarity to this process, for this to be irrelevant. |
Douglas says he has heard the unit, and we should all take that as read Ozzy, as with all statements on A'gon. He's listened to it on multiple systems, so his opinions have as much validity as those also who've auditioned it, but like it in their system.
His point that any additional components in the audio chain will have a tendency to adulterate the signal, and the listener has to decide whether the alteration in sound produced balances out the adulteration, surely is a statement of fact.
What Ozzy needs to consider is that this unit (together with a unit called the NeutralAudio X-DREI that I've initiated a thread on, but has had few replies) is the first in a long while that fits between pre and pow and hence directly affects the signal getting to the loudspeakers, hence has more facility for radical change in sound than mere interconnects/tweaks that improve/deteriorate individual component sound.
Douglas, you say you auditioned it, heard some improvements to sound produced, but ultimately returned it; can you describe the downsides in sound that fit in with your hesitation on the grounds of signal altered negatively above and beyond any improvements produced.
Regards, Marc |
I'm finding the principle/effects of this device more obtuse the more it is being discussed, partially because without a dealer in uk/europe, free trial is inconvenient (no blame ascribed to BSGT), so I can only go along with opposing comments and interesting references on this thread.
I understand that many here gain real benefits in their systems, and the following is in no way a criticism of them. But it appears that the unit may well simply be a mid-side processor. This is borne out by contributors to another forum (Audionervosa) who have experience of record mastering and find they can duplicate the effects of the QOL with other equipment like the $1500 Rupert Neve Portico 5014, and feel that it adds an unwanted 'phasey' Q-sound type character to the signal (in effect after the record has been mastered).
So if the effects of the QOL can be duplicated by existing mid-side processors (at much lower cost than the QOL), can we not safely assume the QOL simply does this and nothing original otherwise. I'll bet 99% of A'goners weren't even aware of mid-side stereo processing ( I certainly wasn't). My tentative conclusion is that listeners with possible problem rooms (which would be good environments for Rives-type treatments otherwise), and systems that may sound a little flat and shallow in soundstaging, and maybe a little hard in the way of many high powered solid state/low efficiency speakers with complicated crossovers would benefit from the warmth/'wet' ambience that the QOL 'phaseyness' provides. Rooms/systems that are less problematic/livelier, with warmer/more effusive sound quality (poss. vinyl/tube based/full range crossoverless spkrs) may find this 'phaseyness' detrimental.
This final conclusion is borne out by a speaker designer who felt the QOL in a room benefited solid state amps, but not tubes, with the rest of the system/room identical.
I want to reiterate again this is NOT a criticism of those listeners with systems/rooms the QOL has benefitted, but at moment I feel the QOL is not likely to be the quantum leap beyond stereo it is being promoted as, and will be VERY system/room dependent.
I'm looking at a parallel unit (NeutralAudio X-DREI) that again fits between pre and pow, and aims to convert spurious square and triangle waves (detrimentally created by power supplies/dacs etc) to sine waves to declutter signal to spkrs and reduce load/improve 'intelligibility' (my take). I feel this may be a more interesting way to go.
Marc |
213Cobra. Phil, I hear exactly what you're saying re the QOL. I know you've commented on the NeutralAudio X-DREI, but this unit is getting v.little discussion. Any further thoughts on it's possible effects, and how it might stack up wrt the QOL? |
Stephaen on the 6Moons site has written an extensive review trying the QOL between a variety of systems and listeners with fairly non-conclusive, and frankly, underwhelming results.
It seems that it's effects are subtle, but my biggest issues with the QOL arise in his conclusions. One is that it is VERY system dependent, album dependent and even song/recording technique dependent. How can one have long term consistent enjoyment if the effects are going to be dramatic one moment and possibly detrimental the next?
Additionally, I really have issues with the presence variation when the system is switched in and out. I fully understand the makers state there is no increase gain built in but such a spike in presence does not allow a true a-b comparison to be made.
Last of all I have philisophical issues with such bold claims of the groundbreaking revealing of hidden info being made but with such restricted discourse, so that the claim must be accepted at face value. My criticism applies not only to the QOL but other tweaks such as the Lessloss Blackbody which also claim much but deliberately eschew some explanation. |
I've been running thru various audio sites/forum boards discussing ongoing tweaks. What I'm finding is they can be divided into 2 camps: those that have a reasonable physical and psycho-acoustical basis, not dressed up in overbold claims, and esp. with reasonable discourse of methodology involved; they also seem to have consistency of positive comments. I would place units like the SpatialComputer Black Hole bass attenuator, and balanced power transformers in this category, with defined measured data stacking up with positive user consensus (and at a reasonable price for good measure).
In the other camp, we have the items that have limited discourse, resort to new age explanations not rooted in the physical world. Of course these units promise more than any other unit, as far as rewriting the whole rulebook on audio reproduction. Additionally, and coincidentally (?) these always seem to be the most expensive. In this camp I would place items such as Shakti Stones/Hallograph, ASI resonators, Lessloss Blackbody, Neutralaudio X-DREI, exotic cables predicated on unsupportable concepts, and my current favourite, and the subject of this thread: BSGT QOL.
Please, let's have a proper discussion on how this unit works, primarily from the manufacturer. Surely a decision to use an item long term has to be based in real world principles, and if the QOL qualifies, let's hear about it. I'm sure fuller discussion of how it achieves it's effects can be made without breaking commercial confidences etc.
I'm convinced that the bold, unquantifiable claims made by these items leads to such a divergence of opinions: some listeners will like the sound, become proponents for it and go with the quantum leap premise. Cooler heads will find variability in it's effects, some good, some not so, as a result move away from it, and then find the obtuse explanations and overbold claims even more queationable.
For me at least the growing consensus between early adopters, some of which have become dealers, and specialist reviews seem to be pulling in different directions, the only consensus being that the unit is v.system and even recording/individual song dependent. This just couldn't add to the sense of ease I need my system to provide me.
Looks like I may have 'put the cat amongst the pigeons'! |
