Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

My question is directed to those who claim to have some idea what the QOL is doing: Is it something that could be done during the recording and mastering process? If so, then it would seem to qualify as a distortion device; i.e., something that changes what was originally intended.

It is not a distortion device, it is a signal processor. This is a signal processor that's a distortion device.

It is neither a distortion device nor a processor. It's "revealer" of information that has been stuck inside all signals. That information is natural and part of every live sound we hear. It's the distortion BY OMISSION in all other equipment that is the problem qol solves. Why do you persist in thinking that the old signals had and have nothing wrong? That they are complete and perfect? After all, they have the same limitations they've had since the days of Edison, Bell and Tesla, when they were invented, as they've never been been rendered in a better way since then. Until NOW, with qol.
Happy listening,
Larry Kay
CEO-BSG Technologies

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?

03-30-12: Psag
My question is directed to those who claim to have some idea what the QOL is doing: Is it something that could be done during the recording and mastering process? If so, then it would seem to qualify as a distortion device; i.e., something that changes what was originally intended.

03-31-12: Larryakay
It is neither a distortion device nor a processor. It's "revealer" of information that has been stuck inside all signals. That information is natural and part of every live sound we hear. It's the distortion BY OMISSION in all other equipment that is the problem qol solves.

I suppose it depends on how you define 'distortion.' If 'distortion' is any alteration to the musical information of the RECORDING, then QOL certainly seems like it introduces distortion, though it may very well be pleasing distortion.

If 'distortion' is any alteration to the musical information of the EVENT the recording represents, then an argument can be made that QOL does not introduce distortion, but rather corrects it, the rationale being something like... Although QOL "distorts" the signal, the signal itself is a distortion. QOL alters the musical information of the RECORDING so that it more closely resembles the musical information of the EVENT. In other words, QOL distorts distortion, making it sound less, uhm, distorted. Whether or not distortion that corrects distortion should itself be considered distortion is a philosophical question I will leave the reader to ponder at his leisure.

In all seriousness, the idea of correcting distortion with distortion is, IMO, perfectly valid, at least as an abstraction. A good analogy would be the anamorphic film format, in which the image distortion on the film negative introduced by the camera lens during capture is "corrected" by the image distortion of the projector lens during playback. Without the anamorphic lens on the projector, you wouldn't want to watch the movie. QOL is like the projector lens, at least according to the manufacturer. I haven't heard it. Which brings me to...

Larry - I've read the information on your website, and on 2/27 I posted some comments on this thread in which I said that QOL seemed a little like Trifield, though of course Trifield is 3 channel and typically implemented digitally, whereas QOL is 2 channel and implemented analog. What QOL and Trifield seem to have in common is (1) the manipulation of the perception of width, by deriving the difference between the L/R channels and amplifying it, and (2) the manipulation of the perception of depth, by adding some kind of frequency specific phase delay. Of course my comments about the methods by which QOL manipulates the perception of width and depth are purely speculative.

I understand that QOL may involve some proprietary technologies, but I'd be very interested to hear anything you are willing to share about HOW it manipulates the perception of width and depth. If you are reluctant to share the specifics of implementation, perhaps you would be willing to share the generalities of design, beyond the metaphors already discussed.

Bryon

P.S. Whether QOL's soundstage manipulation should be considered a form of 'processing' is, I submit, a philosophical question with the same chance of being answered as the question of whether distortion that corrects distortion is itself distortion.