Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Koestner, creative thinking; I like that. I suggest you do that experiment. Let us know if you fry out anything in the signal path! :)

I don't have one, let alone two of them. I would think one of these dealers could do this. I also don't see the risk of "frying" anything by hooking up two line level devices, that reportably have no gain, in series. But, you never know, so whoever does this should wear a fire suit.

I will be posting my impression of the Qol this weekend.

Kclone those are all options for placement of qol unit. Just choose the one that works for you best. For me after the pre-amp was better. If you put it before amp you will only have qol working for that one source. after pre-amp all sources have option for qol.

I finally took some time and listened to the mono set of the Beatles on cd through the qol unit. I set ARC pre-amp to mono and qol to mono. The improvement is just as profound as with stereo. You have to hear it to believe it.

I've been reading this thread with some interest; especially after reading Robert Harley's review recently. I've been curious about adding room 'tweaks', either the Syergistic Research ART system of bowls on wood blocks; the Stein music harmonizer system, or this product...seems like they all have supporters, but only have funds for one of them. How sensitive is this device to interconnect cables? In other words; have you used identical quality cables from pre-amp to amp; and added identical set for the qol device? Does it reflect different quality or brands of IC's, or is it pretty immune to cable influence? Same with power cords? I'm just thinking about the total price of admission to this dance; $4k for the device; $500-$800 for quality balanced 1 m IC's; and $400 for a power cord; makes it as much as a new DAC, or component. If I jump; I'll probably place it between preamp(tubed VAC) and solid state mono blocks...any issues with impediance matching? Thanks. Looking forward to hear from other people's experience...as I have problems in my room itself; that this might help solve.

On the BSGT website there is an oscilloscope reading of a mono audio signal before and after the QOL process. Clearly the after picture is no longer a mono signal. Could somebody please explain.

Mribob, I have the Stein system which, per tweek geek, is better than Art system. I have the Bybee speaker bullets and 2 of the quantum qx-4s by QRT. From my seat the qol by far made biggest improvement. As far as cables there is some improvement nothing big. Was told by Larry Kay cables were not big on list. Lastly the qol seems to take the room very much out of equation.

Mribob, meant to say i have only listened with balanced ICs, no experience on single-ended.

I have a Lyngdorf room correction device. It certainly helped my room situation for sure. However, the amount of components and power cords, ect... is really busy in and around my rack. I have my TV hooked into my 2 channel system as well. So I don't want to add a component to an already busy system, but if it is true this device kind of takes the room out of the equation, then I can keep things even without having to add more. Can anyone else verify what Marc77 says about the QOL with the room? I'm sure the results are room or system dependent. I know the best way to find out, is to just try one my self. Wonder if I can get my wife to go along with yet another audio purchase? :)

I posted in another thread about my experience, but in case you haven't seen it, here it is:

So I was lucky enough to play around with a QOL in my system and here are my subjective impressions:

The build quality looks very good - along the lines of, say, Pass. It's designed to be flexible - e.g. if you have an integrated amp, you could put this between all your sources and the pre, but I believe the best way to use it is inbetween the pre and the amps, which is what I did.

As mentioned in reviews, there is a bypass button which you can toggle via remote but with the QOL enaged the perceived volume is louder so it's hard to A/B without the usual volume bias.

Listening impressions: I'm going to approach this from the standpoint of what my (amateur audio engineer) brain tells me is being changed by the QOL. First of all, the bass is pretty much unchanged. If I remember correctly, it only affects 125hz upwards. Everything above that frequency is louder - which changes the overall tonal balance to some degree. I found this mostly for the better in my system - at least at low to moderate volumes. I have plenty of bass, so more mids and highs (at least the degree to which it's augmented) seems good. It feels like it makes copies of all the information and mixes it back in with the original signal resulting in a presence/volume boost. Almost akin to 'double tracking' vocals and instruments (common recording practice to make a more palpable image) however in this case its doing it to the entire mix, not just an instrument. That means the ambience (or plain old reverb) is getting a boost as well.

The main effect to my ears is a more 'wetter' presentation. It adds 'space', as if the image was being projected in multiple directions instead of one. I suspect this is what people refer to as 'more like live music'. It IS engaging - no doubt about it, but it does come at a price: not all recordings suit this effect. For example, one of my test tracks is a Carpenters tune (yes, I do admit to listening to the Carpenters) where Karen's voice has plenty of reverb. With the QOL her voice is swimming in it and suffers from some intelligibility loss. It may still appeal to some folks - not like it sounds bad in any way, but imo it changes the character of the mix. Some track that had reverb did sound good - a Patricia Barber tune that has finger snapping sounded excellent and Patricia's voice, which already has gobs of reverb still sounded good. It varies. Classical music sounded good, as did jazz and rock (although I would still say this depends on the material). What I did find that some busy songs with instrument solos resulted in the solos being more buried in the mix (as if the engineer added reverb to it) where I prefer the more dry presentation.

Keep in ming that my Wilson speakers are very 'dry' sounding, especially in the upper frequencies. The QOL was never edgey and sounded quite smooth, despite the highs being more pronounced. I don't think I'd like this device in a very 'live' room.

The bypass switch is mandatory imo - and I think also in the manufacturer's. They warn that when playing vinyl, if an LP is noisy one may want to disengage QOL because it will emphasize the surface noise. While I haven't tried vinyl yet, I believe this to be true because with QOL engaged I can hear tube rush from my preamp at my listening position (where normally I cannot). It's truly being 'loudened' (and of course the frequencies for tube rush is midrange).

Ultimately I found that more and more I preferred my system with the unit in bypass mode as the effect was too distracting for me.

I have also posted my review of the BSG Qol after 7 days of continuous use in the Audiogon section under Preamps.

BSG Qol Review February 2012.

I received my Qol unit late in the day last Saturday via Fed Ex. The Qol unit was very cold when I unpackaged it so I let it rest. Still, I was curious as heck so I did manage to play it for about 30 minutes that night.
I installed the Qol between My Pass XP-10 Preamp and Pass Labs X350.5 Amp. I was fortunate because I had another set of balanced interconnects just like my others and a Synergistic Tesla Power cord just like my others and I even had a 1A spare HIFI Tuning fuse available.

First impression, I thought it sounded kind of bright and with limited, if any, sound quality improvement.
The next day on Sunday, I played the Qol for a while, but again, I thought it was kind of bright sounding. I attributed it to needing some break in time. I then hooked the Qol up to a tuner and continuously played music 24/7 even when I was not actually listening to my music.

Well, I am a little embarrassed to post this but what the heck.
My earlier thoughts about the Qol sounding a little bright and the sound quality lacking turned out to be because I am using way too many speaker tweaks.
I found that the spades of my AudioPrism ground controls were touching the copper body of my Walker HDL Links, (On both L and R sides). In essence it was shorting out. It must have occurred when I was rerouting some of the cabling. Once I separated them the brightness went away, the sound quality greatly improved and the soundstage expanded every which way. I could actually hear that change occur when I was behind my speakers.
I wonder if I should just remove all of my speaker tweaks? Maybe later.

Since then, I have continued to break in the Qol by continually playing music through it. I believe the sound quality is still improving. So, anyone who says it is plug and play is not getting the full potential of the unit. Not sure how long the break in should take but 200 hours seems to work best for most electronic components.

Well my room also has problems that were preventing me from fully enjoying the Qol.
The Qol is certainly a different animal than what I have been used to. The Qol needs open area to do its magic.

So first off, I have had in my room for about a decade Argent Room Lenses.
For those unfamiliar to this room correction item, they are made with 3 pipes attached to a stand called dark matter. Anyway, the pipes are designed to work as a Helmholtz Resonator. There are 3 of these units in the room. Two were flanking the outer side of the speakers and one in the center of the room. These units worked fantastic, especially before my basement dedicated room was finished and I installed defined walls.
The Room Lens captured the side reflections and defined the soundstage.

Anyway, the Qol unit works almost the opposite by expanding the soundstage. So, I removed the Argent Room Lens from the room and played some music, and yes, the soundstage opened up.

The other problem I had was my Eggleston Andra 2 speakers were extremely toed in. The Toe in angle was so much that the image was directed to the center of my head. The music sounded like Olivia Newton John had her tongue in my ear. Not necessary a bad thing, but not correct for the recorded soundstage.
Well these speakers weigh 215 lbs and have 2” Audio Point spikes on them making it very difficult to just change the toe in angle.

I found that Herbie Labs sells a glider designed for Speaker spikes and with this glider I could move the speakers. So I ordered a set of them.

I received the Speaker spike Gliders a few days later and I went about reducing the amount of toe in. After the change, the soundstage became enormous.
I now have my speakers just about at a 90 degree angle and 36” from the side walls. But I will continue to experiment with placement further.

Well now it is almost 7 days later, how does the Qol sound? One of the big benefits of the Qol is the change in dynamics. I mean it is actually hard to find a volume set point to just leave alone. The music can go from soft to loud in a heartbeat. Funny, that even though the music appears to be quite louder, my Pass Labs Amp meter moves very little. This indicates to me that the increased dynamics is not pulling anymore current from my Amp.

With the Qol engaged, the music takes on a natural sound and image. The soundstage becomes very wide and deep. My speakers virtually disappear. I know that is said all the time, and before the Qol I thought my set up was awesome, but with the Qol you can hear deep into the recordings. The center image is the best I have ever heard. I can now hear background singers clearer and my toe tapping has increased.
The frequency extremes are heard with an authority. What I mean by that is that they are no longer buried in the mix but sound like they were part of the intended sound, if that makes sense.
Not all recordings were as hyped up as others. I guess each recording has its own reverb, echo, and different out of phase anomalies.

So the $4000 question, is it worth the money ?...
Well, if you want the deepest, widest soundstage and the wildest dynamics your components can handle, what price is that worth to you?
For me, it’s a keeper, no question.

thanks for the informative review. You mentioned that it seems to be better on some recordings over others. Do really good recordings sound even better or does it help out the not so good recordings sound better? Or is it just random?

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?

Kclone,Peterayer.

Good questions.
I think all recordings are improved. It's just some recordings have a little more depth than others. I don’t even bother to toggle the Qol in and out anymore, but when I did ,there was volume difference between Qol engaged and not.

Once I got the shorting issue resolved the improvement was apparent and immediate. Changing the room treatments and the speaker positions just added to the improvement.

Ozzy does it sound better between amp and preamp or between source and preamp?

Jwm, I have only tried it between Preamp and Amp because I wanted to use the dual balanced outs for my main and JL Subs.

Hi Ozzy,

hows it going, we haven't chatted for a while. I see you are still enjoying your Anda 2's, marvelous speakers.

I'm really skeptical about this pce.

Reading your review I was surprised when I read;

"With the Qol engaged, the music takes on a natural sound and image. The soundstage becomes very wide and deep. My speakers virtually disappear"

When I had my Andra's, I had them dialed in so that you could not actually tell music was coming from them at all. My prefered toe-in was tweeters firing just to the outside of my ears, I had them placed upon Sistrum platforms.

Reading your own notes you appear to have had some hick-ups, have you actually taken the time to remove the unit right out of your set-up and not just pushing disengage and have a listen and compare?

Did you read Madfloyd posting just above? If so can you comment in realtion to what he heard and the differences you are hearing.

Thanks

Dev, Still enjoying the Andra's. I thought I had my Speakers pretty well dialed in too before trying the Qol.
No, I have'nt removed it from my system to compare with or without in the system. Maybe someday, but for now I don't see the need. I am happy.
But,everyone has different tastes, different ears and different systems. Only sure way to tell is to try it in your system.

do deal with the volume gain why not just an SPL meeter and just make sure you play the track at roughly the same volume? I have an ap. on my Iphone and it works pretty good.

Hi Ozzy, I don't know if that was a question me in relation to the Andra's.

It's been a few years now since I owned mine, I've been using MBL 101E's.

As long as you are happy as you wrote that's all that matters in the end, yes I agree best is to try.

Seems like anyone whom I know who has heard it besides your self has not liked it feeling it just another one of those gagets that might be interesting at first but for long term not so.

I suppose in due time we will all know becuase if it's all that we'll all own one.

As you wrote;

"Well, if you want the deepest, widest soundstage and the wildest dynamics your components can handle, what price is that worth to you? For me, it’s a keeper, no question."

Who doesn't want this?

Ozzy, thanks for the review.

Ozzy, thanks for the review and impressions. I am glad you are enjoying your Qol. Thanks to all who are also posting.

To address the cable and room treatment comments, I will give my experience as a dealer and from my personal experimentation.

Good cables will always help save the purity of the signal path and reduce noise in a "busy" system so use good discretion and set a budget for these items.

We have played with room treatments with and without Qol in the system. As always first order reflection issues should always be addressed, if possible. This may simply be for good measure or imperative for very difficult rooms. Without Qol, with and without these treatments, the difference is very noticeable. I am not telling anyone on this high end forum anything new there. With Qol, we have found that these treatments become much, much less of a consideration. In many cases, they made little to no improvement so they were simply removed from the room.

In difficult rooms, Qol has also made a nice improvement. Be it an asymmetrical room, odd construction, or dealing with the Wife's firm position on how much real estate she will give up for your crazy science lab, Qol has helped to improve these setups. By taking much of the room out of the equation, these difficult scenarios have become less of a headache.

If any of you are in the San Francisco Bay Area and would like to audition in our shop or in your home, please feel free to give us a call. We would be happy to give you a taste of Qol. setonav.com 510-279-2600 Or, if you are in other areas and would like to simply speak about the technology, we would love to hear from you.

The point on cables is a good one. I was fortunate to have an extra pair of balanced cables that were the same that I use throughout. Adding a different cable for the Qol will result in the sound being different than what you are used to hearing. That in itself could lead to thinking it is bright or colored sounding.

But contrary to what others have posted, I think the unit needs some break in time, just as every other electronic components does.

Setonaudio have you tried it between source and preamp?

Yes...we have experimented both ways and actually run it both ways on different sets up we have.

For our setups...again, this is for our specific setups. We run Qol behind the preamp in our higher end room with Cary FE211s tube amps and in front of the preamp in our more affordable setup with a Cary 200.2 solid state amp.

There are many reasons as to why one may feel it sounds better in one position or the other. Some reasoning may be scientific, some may be physiological, and others mental but the reason an audiophile should place it in one place or another should be governed by what makes your ears happy...."Listen to your Ears!"

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?

I have the QOL on the way. I will try and post my impressions after a few days.

After having experienced the Qol, AND reading reviews...I'm excited.
This is/could be, the straw that stirs the drink for music reproduction.
After all the bullshit, the Bose, the Polk SDA, the stuff we audiophiles are trying to forget...we come across this...the Qol. The name sucks...but the product is a step beyond...it's the Telephone, Xerox copies, Xrays, Core memory (think computers), Polaroid Cameras, Guttenburg Printing Press...Internal Combustion Engines...you name it.
This...is the next phase of audio as we've known it.

Larry

Larry, you experienced the QOL? Did you have it in your system or can you elaborate on that a little? thanks

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?

Peterayer, There are no mixed reports from those of us that either own or have tried a Qol in our own system. We all think its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If everyone is curious about what's inside, why doesn't someone open theirs up and take a look (or even some pictures)? It should be pretty clear if there is a gain stage in there or not. Is it sealed or potted solid to deny access?

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.

On 2/1 I posted a question. Does anybody have an opinion?

Peterayer,
Well, the price tag could cause Buyers remorse. Its hard to believe that anyone would not approve of the sound quality though. But, to each his own.

I have tried the Qol unit every which way. Moving around my Andra's was to grab all the soundstage that the Qol would provide.

Onhwy61, I reread your question and I am sorry, I just don't know how to answer it.

Ait, I believe I have read that the unit is sealed. But I dont how. There are screws that look like they are holding the cover on. I may try to take it off someday when I have some time.

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?

I will reiterate that I found the unit to 'add' to the signal in a very unnatural way. Increasing the amount of reverb on a singer's voice or lead instrument is not true fidelity in my opinion.

I'm surprised that so many actually like it.

Peterayer, When I toggle in and out the soundstage flattens. I knew it was an improvement even when I was behind the speakers. It's almost like turning on a light in a darkened room.
Now, I just leave the Qol on all the time.

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.

Peterayer,

To my ears, here is what happens.

1) Stage open up to a more natural size and shape. Without Qol, the stage sounds like a typical reproduced stage that we have been trying to make better every year.

2) Depth of the music becomes much more present. It sounds more three dimensional and layered.


3) The rooms seems to go away and the music becomes in the room rather than directly from the speakers.

You should do yourself a favor and have a listen to one. I think you will be pleasantly surprised as to how much better things sound or at least how much of a change the product makes to your listening experience.

In the end, it is what makes your ears happy that you should consider. If Qol does not then you should not get one. If it does, $4k is not much money, relatively speaking, in this wonderful hobby of ours. Heck, the alternative of upgrading your speakers or amp or preamp or cables or any component may cost you that much or more and not give even close to the difference you will hear in the musical improvements from Qol.

Let's face it,this is a huge jump in sonic happiness for us Audiophiles and HiFi junkies. We are not normally used to such giant leaps. We are used to paying $500 for this tweak or $1000 for that treatment that at best we say, "yeah...it helped things a bit". Often, many tweaks really don't do much to the end product...how the music makes you feel. With Qol, it is just so large of a change that our kind is having a hard time swallowing the improvement without over analyzing it or throwing up the snake oil flag. I mean, how could we go so many hears with such small expensive improvements and now find a giant leap for "hifi-kind"? :)

Sure the price tag may seem a bit high for an add on but when you consider the amount of money we spend on tweaks, cables, and treatments, the ratio of listening/toe tapping pressure per dollar is far superior in a Qol Signal Completion Stage.

Again, have a listen to one and simply "Listen to your Ears". They will guide you to your final decision as to if Qol is right for you.

For me, as a musician, audiophile, HiFi junky, and audio dealer, it was absolutely right for me the first time I heard it. The first thing I thought was, "How did they get those Vandi 2s to sound so good in this small hotel room?" After listening for a few minutes to the speakers that I know very well and becoming envious as to how much better they sound, I was 100% ready to buy and become a dealer.

My two pennies... hope this helps.

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?

Peterayer, The Qol will be in addition to the isloation you've already done. I would not call it an active approach.

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.

Peterayer,

I agree with Ozzy, this would be in addition to the tweaking you already did but to a much larger scale as what you did is not correcting phase.

There surely is a noticeable volume increase when Qol is engaged but it does not sound like when you hit the "Loud" button on your car stereo nor turn up the volume but rather it sounds like you are listening to more information. I would compare it to only playing one channel of your system,(Qol off). When you turn on the second channel, (Qol on), the rest of the music is now delivered and the signal and music is complete. Did you turn up the volume? NO...you simple delivered the rest of the music that is on the track.

I do see this technology moving its way not only into other hifi preamps and processors but also into the consumer market using the lesser digital algorithm of the technology. I think Larry Kay (Audiophile and HIFI enthusiast) will keep the highest quality analog version in the high end market. From a business sense, the hifi market is likely the low profit side while the licencing the digital algorithm to the consumer market is where that company will really prosper.

Less is more. Enough said.

I heard the QOL device today while visiting with Dave Weinhart; of Weinhart Design in Los Angels; he had it after his EAR pre; and hooked up to EAR tubed amps; driving Magico M5's; source was Sooloos server running thru Star-tech dac, and I brought my own familiar music; and engaged the QOL on and off at my request.
I was an initial skeptic; but now I'm a convert; with this uber system; the sonic depth; detail, staging, decay, and 'meat on bones' improvement was not subtle. I plan on placing an order; that's how certain that what I was experiencing was real; and would help me enjoy the music in my own home system even more. While on one hand it does strike people as 'snake oil', or simply pressing the loudness button of an old stereo; it does make a significant sonic improvement; without causing harm; at least to my ears. I guess I echo the glowing endorsements of folks who have actually heard one. It would be nice if the price of admission went down; but I am now a believer.

It's not snake oil, but it's not something revolutionary either. From the paucity of info available from the manufacturer it appears to be a mid/side processor. Read this article for an understanding of the M/S process. I believe Alan Blumlein described this in the 1930s.

A summary of M/S is that it breaks down a left/right stereo signal into a mono mid channel and 2 side channels. The stereo image size can be increased or decreased by how the side stereo signals are mixed back into the mono mid signal.

The Manley Backbone is a mastering studio preamp that has built in M/S processing. The Rupert Neve Field Editor is an outboard M/S processor that offers extensive control in manipulating the stereo width and depth.

Being that M/S processing has been extensively used by mastering engineers for decades and is also readily available as DSP plug-ins in most recording/mixing software, I don't see why high end, audiophile oriented manufacturers would want to incorporate the QOL process into their products.

I hooked mine up today. Put it between a Cary preamp and Cary amp. Very impressed. I did not need a lot of time with it to tell if it was doing something positive or not. I used a sound meter to make sure I was playing the tracks at the roughly the same volume to compensate for the 2 db in gain with it activated. Just more detail, air, 3Dness. Sounds good even out of the sweet spot. One big plus is I can listen at a lower volume levels because everything is there. Before the QOL, I found myself turning up the volume to hear details better in a lot of tracks. Now, everything seems more fleshed out, and no need to turn up the volume, which is good because I want save my ears. Great addition to my system, I'm keeping mine.

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.