Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

The QOL is no different than any other device which is non-necessary in the signal path (i.e. passive networks on cables, power conditioning/filtering, etc). It offers potentially increased sense of separation between instruments and a more 3-D sounstage, but at the cost of an absolute reduction of clarity/definition due to the component and extra set of cables being added to the rig.

It is not a 100% additive device, but is also subtractive in nature (as are these others referenced above). Every potential owner/user must determine if the effect it offers is worth more than the electronic overburden it imposes upon the rig. Just as responses will vary in terms of whether a DAC with level control should be used with an outboard preamp, so also reactions/conclusions will vary in terms of the efficacy of the QOL.

To date the only devices I can recall which have been virtually 100% additive without a noticeable subtractive effect has been Opamp upgrades and certain brands of cables.

The QOL imo does have efficacy in terms of manipulating the soundstage and perception of spatial relation and level of instruments/voices as they are heard in a recording. Some will conlcude it is an absolute necessity to achieve SOTA sound, while others may disagree. I believe the dividing line in regards to personal acceptance of it will be determined by whether one accepts the additional (i.e. additional, though non-necessary) signal processing or less.

I am not interested in arguing my observations, and YMMV.

Douglas_schroeder, is your post based upon actual use with the "qol", or on preconceived philosophy re: all optional devices in the audio chain?

Not to get too far off topic but I was struck by a comment Douglas made above. Your ears must be hearing some way different stuff than mine when it comes to networked cables. My experience is with MIT stuff so can't really comment on others but I've had the exact opposite result in that they present absolute resolution and clarity, not sacrifice it. As a matter of fact, I recently changed cables and it was the biggest upgrade I have experienced in 30+ years...mostly resolution and clarity along with dynamics, imagine and all that goes with.

I don't have any personal experience with the qol and not too much interest. My only exposure is a very good friend who had one on demo and returned it preferring his system (quite a fine one) without.

I'll offer my opinion as well but may be a little off topic. I was a MIT user for 14 years and decided to do some practical experimenting after numerous music lover said that these cables were choking my system. So, I took them up on their offer and was blown away with the results in my system. Sure MIT has a jump factor in soundstage and imaging but to me that's it, I found low level detail, shading and ambiance to sound artificial. After spending 8 years in England, most of the audiophiles I met there described MIT sound as "Hi-Fi-ish" and unnatural sounding.

Unsound makes a good point. Has Doug even heard the device in question?

Shakey

I conducted my assessment of QOL in my own room with multiple systems.

Douglas_schroeder, I find your comments and observations direct and to the point -- very helpful. After listening to the QOL in your system, does this add up to a component you will consider adding to your own system -- or not?

In response to Onhwy61,

Every recording engineer deals with the objective of creating an appropriate middle and side for stereo imaging. And, the range of subjectivity used in choosing this mix varies greatly from one individual to another. Stereo imaging is essential in the "placement" of instruments, vocals, etc. However, there is another critical element associated with the reproduction of sound, and that is the mix of direct and reverberant sound, the timbre quality of the room and instruments. Qol addresses this essential part of the recorded signals, to open them in the acoustic space as required to convey information buried in the signal otherwise.

The inventor of the intermittent wiper fought tremendous legal battles over the novelty of his patent. Comparing the Qol technology to an M/S processor is like comparing the words "it," "best," "worst," "time," "of," and "the" to the sentence: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Identifying components is far simpler than assembling them into art.

Sabai, thanks; I try to be clear but also balanced in my assessment of products. I returned the unit for the reasons stated above.

Douglas_schroeder, thanks for letting me know. I don't have the QOL and have never heard it but I was interested in the talk about the phase. At the moment I am experimenting with inverting the phase using speaker wires in parallel. This makes quite a different vis a vis the sense of "being there". There is often a sense of flatness to the holographic sound images. I know this is paradoxical but it is as though the holographic images are not being heard at their full 3D potential. They are is a "rounding out" when the phase is inverted. The sound images have a heightened "there-ness" to them with phase inversion. They simply have a feeling of being more real.

I don't know if this makes sense -- it is hard to put this into words. But my system is at the point where you can discern these subtle changes.

Sabai, yes, your system is at a good place in terms of definition/detail when you can hear such things. One of the attributes of the QOL is that it does tend to add more of that 3D or "rounded" nature to the images.

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.

Spiritofmusic, yes, it's frustrating to have limited access to components! There are many times I am frustrated by how many wonderful looking devices are across the pond, so to speak, with virtually no chance of my being able to use them.

But, do not despair, since there are many ways to build a great system. In fact, I learned that there are SO many ways to build rigs that I had to develop my own set of rules to do so for what I feel is maximum results.

Looking at the NeutralAudio X-DREI, it seems interesting, but I assure you, as I did with the QOL, it cannot be added to the system without some degradation of the signal. It's simply impossible to ADD components without more processing and the associated losses which result.

I think this X-DREI would have to be assessed just as the QOL; you would have to hear it in your own rig to know if it's benefit outweighed the loss of its insertion along with a set of cables into your rig.

There is no way of telling how the unit would sound/what it would do to the sound of the rig without hearing it, so I will not speculate on that. After glancing at the 6 Moons article it strikes me as a device I could live without.

One last thought to help prospective owners/readers; look at how many "add-ons" are used by the reviewer. You can tell a lot by the nature of the systems a reviewer builds. i.e. Does the reviewer use extensively tweaks? Do they use a lot of 'extras' for incessant fine tuning? Some do, some don't.

Personally, I have a very high threshold for what I spend my time on. I have eschewed the majority of what some may consider worthwhile tweaks. Half of them make no difference, and the other half make so little difference that they are a waste of time, imo.

Case in point, one of my good audio friends the other night surprised me by showing up with a CD Mat device. I had actually used it previously years ago with several cdp's and returned it to the manufacturer as I was uninterested in it. It was completely ineffectual on tray type cdps and marginally effective on top loaders. Weird; there was not complete consistency in that regard.

My friend thought it would be a surprise, but I told him it had already failed my Law of Efficacy. We tried it, and it took about one minute and two track selections for him to say, "Ok, that's enough," meaning it failed miserably.

He was right; it actually detracted from the sound quality. It has taken him years, but he now is finally beginning to trust his ears immediately in terms of what works and what doesn't. In other words, if it doesn't sound FAR better in the first few seconds it likely will not sound better no matter how much time you give. Break In will not matter, time will not matter - the device will not be sufficient to please long term.

A device had better sound fantastically better immediately, or else it likely will not impress me. I urge every audiophile to NEVER accept marginal improvements. ALWAYS demand in EVERY change a HUGE, mind-blowing upgrade. There are limitless improvements available and you only hurt yourself if you settle for less than shocking, perceptually huge improvements.

I would know very quickly if the X-DREI passed or failed my Law of Efficacy. I usually know it within a minute or two. If it passes, then I have to REALLY slow down and assess why, how, etc. it is having such a profound effect and how I can harness it's power.

But, again, don't worry if you can't get a particular device! There's a LOT of ways to make a killer rig! :)
Anything, source, cables, amp, pre, speakers - any of them can yield stupendous gains in sound quality. Don't worry over what you can't use; spend time putting together what you can use to get fantastic results.

I have been using monoblock integrateds for years now and have compared them to some extremely high end pre/amp combos, always favorably. Why? Because of the elimination of an entire component and set of cables. It's not that the mono integrateds are the world's best, or absolutely perfect. No, but it IS due to the elimination of the extra noise and signal loss which adding another component and set of cables would cause.

The shortest signal path has a VERY profound influence on system building, FAR more than most audiophiles know or want to believe.

Now, what if you had a flat sounding preamp? or a rather lifeless amp? Would QOL or X-DREI be appealing? Most likely. But if you have an extreme system the shortcomings of adding that extra component are evident, no matter what they call the technology. Then it is simply a question of, "Do I like this better," and the tradeoff will be usually definition for dimensionality.

Douglas_schroeder, I agree with you completely about not accepting marginal improvements. You can't get exceptional results if you accept mediocrity. Why waste time with inferior products? Unless you dismiss them quickly, it takes more time and effort to evaluate them that it does to evaluate superior products. I have tried so many cables, components, add-ons and tweaks -- as many of us have. Most are not worth more than a quick "hello good-bye". There is no reason to accept anything less than spectacular. It's like music. Why accept a mediocre recording when you can have a first-rate remaster?

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.

The Black Hole device gains due to not being in the signal path; it also loses due to not being in the signal path. In other words, it doesn't potentially add to the amount of processing and diminish the signal further, but it also cannot impose a change upon the signal to improve it. It is perhaps the opposite of the QOL or X-DREI in that it suffers none of the drawbacks of these other devices, but cannot confer the same potential benefit as these others.

We come down to the simple truth that the best way to alter the sound is with the signal path, but it's also the best way to screw it up. Hence, there are many good designers but fewer superb designers; many good system builders but fewer superb system builders.

I can't comment on the Black Hole device as I have not heard it, but the principle is surely worth consideration. The Legacy Whisper DSW (reviewed) which I use has a rear facing driver which operates out of phase for similar purposes, to physically treat the bass wave interaction with the head wall. There is an obvious benefit to be gained in the opinion of some speaker designers/users with such a system, and it does not impact the signal of the mains. However, for many devices which are out of the signal path I find their effectiveness is an order of magnitude less helpful. I would much rather spend my time trying devices like QOL or X-DREI than work with objects outside the signal path.

Regarding power; I have found that power supplies are critical when it comes to component design. However, many power filters/conditioners are also subtractive/additive, as they harm the signal as well by being in the signal path.

Obviously, it's not recommended that you go without a power protection device like a power bar. You do so at your own risk.

Setonaudio, not sure I fully understand your post. I agree that audio engineers fix the stereo perspective and wet/dry balance of mixes and that there are now devices/processors available to the listener that can further manipulate these elements. My point about QOL being an M/S processor is that it allows comparisons to other M/S processors regarding effectiveness and value. For instance, the SPL M/S Master offers studio quality performance and control flexibility for approximately $2,000. At the other end of the price spectrum is the $50 PSP SterePack DSP plug-ins. Is the QOL better than these other products? I have no idea. But at least interested people can make a comparison without being held back by the idea that what the QOL accomplishes is only available from BSG.

Douglas, I disagree with your assessment of the Qol.
Just because you did a review in one of the on line rags of an unrelated item does not mean your opinion is the only opinion. It is still only your opinion.

Perhaps the unit you tested was defective. Which dealer did you get yours from to demo?
I would like to see if I can also try that unit and compare it to mine.

All you are saying is that more is less. That line we all agree. But, does a subwoofer help in a quality system? Does Biwiring help? How about NOS Tubes?
Or a particular Power cord, dedicated circuits all of these help create the sound we appreciate?

You are merely stating your opinion not fact. I suspect you did't even try one. Who was the dealer?

I personally find the Qol to increase clarity and definition, just the opposite of what you stated.
Perhaps, you have your speakers wired out of phase.

I owned the Legacy Focus and I preferred them over the Whisper's that I believe you now own. The Whisper had a narrow sound stage and a strange bass quality. But again that is my opinion.

Don't discredit an item just because you have to add another set of interconnect cables.

Ozzy, I take it you didn't like my assessment? That's ok, you're entitled to your opinion as well. :)

Sadly, careless insinuations like, "I suspect you didn't even try one," end up hurting you, not me. I typically work with manufacturers directly, not dealers. I could, if I wished, provide copies of both the delivery and return of the unit, but I don't care to provide you with personal information. If you don't believe me, so be it.

What's ironic about your post is that we also disagree on the Legacy Focus vs. the Legacy Whisper. If I were to take your approach to disagreement I might insinuate that you have never owned the Focus, for surely no one could come to such a conclusion if they had! But that would be a bit callow, wouldn't it?

Finally, perhaps you meant to say "discount" in your last line, verses your word selection of "discredit." If I wished to discredit QOL my posts would have been quite different. :)

Ozzy,

Douglas_schroeder stated:

"I conducted my assessment of QOL in my own room with multiple systems."

You state:

"I suspect you did't [sic] even try one."

What's up here? If you don't like someone's opinion then just say so. If you make this kind of inane statement then you open yourself up to having others say the same thing about you.

Douglas_schroeder, your comments are spot-on. Ozzy's reasoning is skewed and contradictory.

First he states:

"All you are saying is that more is less. That line we all agree."

Then he states:

"Don't discredit an item just because you have to add another set of interconnect cables."

In effect, he is saying "more is less" -- then is saying "more is more".

It looks like you hit a nerve. Disagreement is fair game. But Ozzy's use of the word "discredit" is clearly inappropriate. This is an attempt to discredit you by turning your observations and opinions into a personal matter.

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 am wondering why there was no review of the unit in question if Schroeder listened to it extensively in several systems?

Shakey

Douglas, Sorry for my ranting. And yes, you did hit a nerve. It’s just that there are so many postings from so called "experts" that have never heard the Qol. When I first read Doug Schroeder posting it sounded like just another so called expert chiming in without really hearing it. Then when another poster asked if he had ever heard one then Douglas said, yes with multiple units. Why that wasn't stated in his first reply, I don’t' know.

I assure you I owned the Focus speakers just look at my previous reviews. But, the comment I made about the Whisper speakers was to show that we all have different tastes when it comes to our systems. And perhaps the Whisper speaker is not the right design to appreciate the Qol.

Douglas and Sabai, as one can tell, I sometimes don't agree with "Reviewers" and there comments should not be considered as fact. I just don't want people to form an opinion of the Qol without actually trying it.

Ozzy, I have known you for years and must say I was shocked with reading your last response. :-(

I believe you owe a sorry for your last posting, no problem debating but why oh why does it have to turn to this.

I appreciate individules providing their take on what ever it is and in the end if the item really interest me then it's up to me to try and make my own assessment.

Just because I like it doesn't mean you or others will be agreement nor the opposite, it's all subjective.

One area that is a fact and no one should be able to disagree with signal wise is if you add something then the signal is not as pure with out, example; adding another cable and/or a devise such as this Qol.

Possibly you would like to repost clearifying your past post.

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.

Question for Douglas. Do you have a highly treated room? I'm just throwing this out there so it may mean nothing. Maybe people with already really really good rooms do not can not hear the necessity of having a unit like the QOL. My room is not the best, and for me, the QOL seems to take the room at of the equation to a certain degree. In other words, it has improved my system enough to not have to make improving my room such a high priority. Doesn't mean I still do not need to improve my room, but the increases in 3D sound, clarity, and air with the QOL is enough of an improvement to make me very happy Thoughts?

Hi Ozzy, your post arrived prior to mine.

Hi Spiritofmusic, maybe my post did not come across clear so I'll clarifiy.

What I was trying to convey was;

I have a pre-amp connected to my amp using one IC cable, now I place this Qol for example between the two along with adding a additional IC cable.

The latter to me is not as pure a signal, hope that clarifies.

Now the end result, well that's a whole different story and debatable.

Dev, were cool and I hope I didn’t offend Douglas either because he has been a long time Audiogonners who's information has been very helpful.

Actually, the Qol should have included some sort of high quality volume control. Be it passive or active. It already has enough multiple inputs and outputs.
With the addition of a volume control the Qol could have replaced my Preamp and the extra cable , thus taking more electronics out of the chain.

Ozzy, all is forgiven; no problem. :)

I decided to recuse myself from the review of QOL due to recognition of a bias about definition/clarity in system building. It will be reviewed by another Dagogo.com reviewer. If I felt there was something inherently wrong with it I would not have recommended it for review by a colleague.

The development of my perspective regarding definition/detail is just that - a developing perspective. I'm not 100% finalized on it, and may never be. I wish to continue to use alternative devices in rigs to learn, to experience, etc. But the more I do so the more my principle is reinforced. So, should a product be judged strongly on that one account? I'm not sure at this time whether that would be proper, so I declined the review.

I neither wish to dismiss products out of hand, nor use them and hold them hostage to one criteria which is gaining ascendancy in my methodology. I am in the process of sorting out the paradigm regarding such devices. Is it proper to seek such devices when I know they may violate my principle? I do know it would be wrong to dismiss the category of such devices altogether, or to dismiss a product which influences many parameters of sound for one perceived shortcoming.

Or, perhaps it would not be wrong to dismiss such devices altogether, but would I then be objective in regards to manufacturers' proffered developed technologies and products? In my mind it's not simply a cut-and-dried situation. I attempt to use sensitivity and wisdom in making such decisions. I'm sure some will aggree and others disagree strongly.

I believe that such a decision does not preclude my discussing QOL, as one who has used it, in an unofficial manner, noting my principles applied in discussion of it, as I have done above.

Thanks Douglas, I look forward to the review.
I guess I am so impressed with the Qol unit, that I can't believe anyone else would not be.

I'm glad to see this bit of disagreement between two long time Audiogoners appears to have been remedied. When I asked Doug if he had actually heard the qol it was a sincere question, and I accepted his response as being just as sincere. While many, if not most of us might be a bit cynical of strangers with different perspectives than our own, on some level if this forum is to have any merit, we need to have some faith in the integrity of each other. Questioning the integrity, or calling out another should be done with the utmost caution and reserve.

Ozzy,

I hear you with "Qol" fidelity. So does Robert Harley and everyone who has purchase a Qol or is eagerly waiting theirs to arrive. It has impressed so many critical and now "wowed" ears that BSGT is sold out of units.

Dealers are being told it will be a few more weeks before the US factory can catch up with the overwhelming demand and hopefully keep up with the growing number of orders.

You are one of the many fortunate customers to be enjoying this wonderful addition to your system and its completion of your music and listening experience.

Don't be too hard on yourself about the emotional writing. Music and how Qol brings it to you touches your soul and emotions the way the artist intended. It is understandable that you were and are on the emotional high that others customers are on.

Enjoy and remember to "Listen to your ears!"

What will happen to this company if everyone wants to send them back and get their refund as stated? just curious.

Could be a real disaster don't you think or even if something does wrong because these are so new with no history.

I say this because I know numerous whom have ordered and said if they don't like it they will send it back and get their refund.

Can't resend used units out either to clients who purchased new.

Any thoughts in relation to this

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

I read the same comments in Audionervosa by another so called "expert". Hogwash I say!
There is no phasey sound, it sounds all natural.
The Qol just sounds like the whole signal is now being heard. If the Recording has a lot of reverb in it , then the sound may sound deeper in that regards. If the recording has no special processing then the Qol just makes it sound more refreshing and open.
The Qol may be based on older technology or maybe not.

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.

Ozzy I totally understand your emotional response. I found myself getting fired-up after any criticism of the qol unit as if someone had trashed my best girl friend, the one that knows all the right moves. And like you feel those who do not like the qol either did not spend enough time with unit or had a faulty one. I listen to music much more and with much more enjoyment than before qol. Long live qol I need it every night.

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.

The effect has already been discussed by an audio engineer in the WhatsBest forums.

The effect can also be gained using some pro audio hardware, purchased cheaper thn the QOL.

It's basically adding some 'sugar' on top, some thing engineer could have done during mixing if he desired.

Oh, so there is pro audio gear that does the same thing for less? Specific brand or company? Darn, wished I knew. The problem is there is not an thread on the forums that is making audiophiles aware of a speficic device that does what the QOL does. The OQL is one of those things that was at the audio shows, been reveiwed by a high traffic audio mag, and had a bunch of users and dealers buy the unit in a short amount of time that sounded off on it's merits. So had the pro auido gear been at the shows, reviewed by the press, and listening impressions been posted, then there may be no market or need for the QOL. But, that didn't happen thus opening the door for something like the QOL to enter the market and grab attention from audiophiles.

As far as the "purest" side of audio, I personally do not car what is in the chain. Sure I like less boxes and cables, but if anything improves the sound quality enough to be pleasing to my ears, I'm not against putting it into the chain.

Madfloyd,

If I tell you, or better yet post on a forum, that I build computers and can make your laptop perform as good as a multi-processor server can, are you going to believe me because I am a computer geek? I am sure that would be a firm NO, as it should be.

Your statements are claiming fact and seem to be based on what someone wrote on a forum rather than by practice and experience. I think we just went through a long discussion on how this is not what the thread is looking for. Experience with the product and technical preference is the topic I think we were on.

Looking forward to hearing others experiences with the product.

Setonaudio,

I don't get your "correction" to Madfloyd. He has already stated above that he had the qol and returned it as he preferred his system without the device so describing how the effect can be reproduced by other means seems more than appropriate. I realize you profit from the sales of qol devices but I sure think it's ok for folks to report less than positive experiences. Some are gonna like it, some are not.

Madfloyd, I agree that a highly qualified Recording Engineer should be able to produce just about any type of effect that his recording board can create.
But with that ability, my question is then, why do so many recording's sound so crappy?
If he can produce the quality of the Qol in the recording process then do it!

Ozzy, I think it's a matter of taste. For example, just about all instruments sound better with some reverb ( or space), but if you add too much, the instruments sound too far away and less intimate. Sometimes this is appropriate, mind you, or at the very least subjective.

The QOL adds a sense of excitement for sure, and even the manufacturer and reviewers suggest it works better on some material than others. At first I liked it, especially at low volumes, but when ipi started noticing it adding additional space to vocals and instrument solos such that it made them recede into the background more, it became evident to me that it was effectively changing the mix. This is all fine if you like it, heck there are no rules and this is all about enjoyment. I just wanted to try and point out that I don't think it is true to the source and that I thought it was interesting that an pro audio device exists that does what the QOL does and more at a cheaper price.

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.

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.

But with that ability, my question is then, why do so many recording's sound so crappy?

.

Simple, laziness or incompetence. That combined with a new generation that prefers lossy and/or compressed files where quality is not a priority, but convenience is allowing the music to be played on hand held devices suitable for multi-purpose uses.

Thanks to all the responses on this thread. What I have derived from the messages I read was that, you can get very good sound from an untreated room using QOL, OR the QOL "effect" is like getting your room treatment in place, where everything sounds just like the recording engineer intended while recording the music. It was mentioned earlier that QOL throws the room out of equation. At the moment room treatment costs suits me more than the QOL. From the last few messages, it is also looks like room treatments will not be system or recording dependent, unlike QOL.

You detractors broaden my cheshire grin, especially those that quote reviews by others than themselves.