Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Agreed Marc777,

Seems like some are trying to find reasons not to embrace a new technology and show how they can try to skin a cat cheaper.

I find this a bit odd because most embrace the slight, if any, improvements we get from all the little tweaks we constantly purchase. Be it enhancement in sound stage, texture, room issues, or whatever, they are all benefits you get from correcting for phase and is what Qol is all about.

Health foods are often more expensive than fast food. This is because healthy foods complete the human needs...not just try to solve the short term issue of hunger for the next few hours. Qol completes the signal and is not designed to solve a specific issue with a track, system, or room.

Setonaudio, please put a disclaimer on you postings.

I totally agree with Onhwy61. Let me add that there seems to be a few people in this thread that are a bit too over exuberant about this product, and leads me to believe that they might have a connection with the company beyond just purchasing their product. Not pointing any fingers here but it is a bit over the top. As with all fads, DBX etc. these types of devices will come and dissapear just as fast. As the police are sometimes fond of saying, "nothing more to see here folks, time to move on."

Onlywy61... I have made it known...a few times.

Like I stated prior... After the first time I heard Qol, I was a believer. I then asked BSGT to allow me to become a dealer.

hifigeek1, you should have a listen to one...it may change your opinion as to how one may become passionate about a technology.

I have to say though...since most if not all Qol owners are "overly exuberant" about the product...that should really allow readers to draw a positive conclusion about the product.

disclaimer1: I am a very happy Qol user and proud dealer.

Now I am rolling in the floor with laughter. You guys must be miserable!

I'm sure there are plenty of units on back order since they are sold out. So there should be more people sounding off in a month or two that are not dealers. Really, when you think about it, would it really be in a dealers best interest to promote this thing? I mean some one might be thinking about upgrading speakers, cables, or anything but won't if the QOL improves their system enough not to try anything new. A lot of guys buy something new for the system yearly or every 6 months but this has the potential to slow all that down thus hurting dealer business.

I am not a dealer and have had a week with my QOL. I have done more evaluting and I and still very happy. I can't imagine pulling it out of my system at this point. So I doubt it will be a "nothing to see here" passing fad for me.

Marc777/Setonaudio
You guys seem to be blinded by the "QOL effect". Either that or you guys have poor interpretation skills. I have mentioned the positive virtues about QOL, equivalent of not having the room dimension into consideration when playing music. I am in the process of setting up my new music room, which is squarish (mentioned on another thread), and the QOL passed my thought that way. But I don't want to add another circuit in my system. The room treatments are my highest priority and seem more suitable, at least for now.

I would rather wait at least a year and read the user (not dealer or magazine) reviews before even thinking of investing in a product like QOL. I have read Ozzy's other threads and his review seems genuine. But I will wait for other too.

Setonaudio, don't get me wrong. Your enthusiasm for QOL is too much, for a QOL dealer. It seems as if you take personal offense if people do not think too much about QOL.

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'!

Milpai,

Why too much? If one feels strongly about something, why not express it.

As an audiophile, hifi junky, and musician, I think Qol is great and now have a hard time listening to my system without it. Maybe that is the musician in me with Qol finally brings out what I always thought was missing in reproduced audio.

As a Silicon Valley MM, being a dealer is fun... simply fun and I love selling products that i feel are worth selling.

Hope this helps clear things up for you...

Kclone, thanks for the comment...you are spot on!

Douglas_schroeder - Having read several reviews and comments from you, I think I have a firm grasp of your system building philosophy/preferences. While it's not all that appropriate for my budget, it does make plenty of sense to me. I haven't heard this device myself, so I can't really comment personally on the sound, but I have read a decent amount about it as the technology interests me. If the QOL circuit were incorporated into an update of one of your favorite integrated amps (which I believe is the ultimate goal of BSG Technologies), would you give it another longer listen? Do you think that might have alleviated your concerns about the loss of detail/resolution?

Setonaudio, are there other products you sell that rate an enthusiastic endorsement? Just curious, it might help put some perspective on your BSG comments.

Jazzerdave, if the QOL technology were implemented inside another component then one would have to approach the entirety of the device's sound. That would make it harder to isolate and discuss, but also might mask it.

In the end if QOL were a feature of another component it would have to be assessed like any other component, head to head with some other reference.

Would I listen to it again if it were incorporated into components. Absolutely. Who can say what would transpire on a venture to merge it with other devices? I'd be game to hear it. QOL may end up most powerfully utilized to elevate lower end electronics. If it could be leveraged to lift the performance of an entire field of Mid to Lower HiFi gear - not mentioning the separate component - it would be a powerful boon to the hobby.

Dolby was very powerful in concept and application, and I enjoyed it immensely in recording music. The QOL has potential to alter the listening experience in a pleasing fashion as well, so I don't think it's a throw away idea.

Now that I've started I may as well add...

I see no correlation between QOL and devices like the A.R.T. system and Lessloss Blackbody. I would recommend the latter for a trial but not the former products, certainly not for someone who wishes serious changes in a rig.

If by "system-dependent" it is meant that the QOL doesn't sound good with all music or all components - surprise, surprise. Most components don't. It takes a radically good device to sound superb with nearly everything it's mated with. However, I think of system-dependent more as operational limitations, i.e. flea amp mismatched with low effic. speakers. The QOL seemed consistent in operation in rigs I built both before and after preamp, with SS and tube amps, and with dynamic and ESL speakers.

In no way would I suggest the QOL fixes room issues. As the community can guess I'm not overwhelmed with most room correction devices for similar reasons as my reaction to QOL. I would not see QOL as a "room fixer" component.

I have to leave this topic; waaaay too much to do!

Onhwy61,

I have not run across another product that has wowed me as much as Qol has. That said, I think this is the most enthused I have ever been by a product. High capacity music servers are another passion for us but that is to be expected as we are in the silicon valley. Oh, moving to SACD and higher sampling rates with digital music was pretty nice too...

Don't get me wrong, I have also been impressed with other product's value and performance but just not to this level.

This topic has generated quite the buzz. I've read and skimmed through most of the posts, and I could be wrong, but how does the QOL differ in concept from the old, traditional graphic equalizer? Sounds like A Hi tech, futuristic, advanced improvement on a very old concept; a device that takes into account the limitations of one's listening environment.

Setonaudio, What is in your personal system besides the QOL?

Hawk28,

Have a read of the BSGT.com website for additional info.

Peterayer,

Ummm....which one? :) An example of one of my personal systems would be Cary tube gear , USHER BE speakers, and MIT cables.

oh..and mostly Fender CS guitars, basses, and equipment.

Interesting. I was playing around with different locations with my speakers and I noticed that depending upon their placement, my speakers sounded louder.

When I moved my speakers closer together (maybe 2 feet closer) the music lost some of its dynamics and sounded softer. When I found the right spot which was much wider, the music became more dynamic and seemingly louder.

I have never experienced this before. I mean, I have moved the speakers before in and out, side to side, to lock in the center image and bass and so on. But, never has the perceived loudness increased. I wonder if this was due to the Qol.

Any of you Qol owners noticed this?
I need to try this again without the Qol in the system.

I’ve just read through this thread with considerable interest. I have not heard the QOL, but from what I can tell from this thread and from the information on the BSG website, QOL is designed to accomplish something very similar to Trifield, the signal processing developed by Geoffrey Barton and Michael Gerzon.

Although Trifield involves three channels rather than two, both Trifield and QOL manipulate the perception of the soundstage in two fundamentally similar ways...

1. WIDTH. The manipulation of “Width” expands the soundstage on the x axis. Trifield manipulates the perception of Width by calculating the sum and the difference of the L and R inputs, then amplifying one or the other. You can see a schematic of a typical Trifield circuit here. The Width parameter in the Trifield circuit is similar to the Mid/Side parameter described in the article that Onhwy61 mentioned, which says…

The M/S approach essentially considers it as being comprised of central and side elements. The Mid signal is the mono sum of both left and right, and basically describes those elements present in both channels. The Side signal is the difference between the two channels, and describes those elements that contribute to the stereo width… It follows from this that the balance between the Mid and Side signals determines stereo width.

Even though Trifield involves a third channel, the same basic principle determines the perception of Width.

2. DEPTH. The manipulation of “Depth” expands the soundstage on the z axis. Trifield manipulates the perception of “Depth” by adding group delay to one or more channels. Again, Trifield employs three channels whereas QOL employs two, but a similar principle seems to be involved.

Together, the manipulation of Width and Depth can create a very spacious soundstage, far more spacious than the speakers and the room would seem to permit. I know this from personal experience, as I have listened to Trifield extensively on my Meridian G68. In fact, I’ve been listening almost exclusively to Trifield for the past few months.

Meridian’s implementation of Trifield allows the user to set the values of Width and Depth, so he can tailor the soundstage to his particular room and taste. For my own taste, a small amount Width and Depth manipulation yields the best results.

The BSG website doesn’t reveal a lot of design details, except in a very abstract way. In his interview with RH, QOL's inventor Barry Stephen Goldfarb says this...

Essentially the idea was to get out of a single signal both the in-phase information and the out-of-phase information… I began to try to figure out a way of tricking the signal so that part of it would play and another part might be cancelled. I then tried layering different frequency paths. Let’s say I took a limited frequency band up to, say, 3kHz. I’d let that play. Then I would take another band-limited signal from 3kHz to 6kHz and put it in the opposite phase. Now they’re playing together. They’re not interfering because the two are not really playing the same frequency simultaneously, If you keep doing that with other frequency bands, it’s like weaving frequencies. A group of frequencies will be in-phase to a limited bandwidth; another group of a different bandwidth will be out-of-phase; and I would add these layers until the entire audio bandwidth from 20Hz to 20kHz was covered. That technique produces a whole audio signal… We call it in our patent “Phase Layering.”

The band-limited manipulation of phase is also found in Meridian's Trifield. Meridian's implementation of Trifield is digital, whereas QOL is analog, but again a similar principle seems to be involved.

None of these comments are intended to diminish the value of QOL. My own personal experiences with Trifield have led me to conclude that soundstage manipulation, when executed well, can yield very pleasing results. Judging from the owners who have contributed to this thread, it sounds like QOL’s execution is excellent.

I agree with the observation that the desirability of soundstage manipulation is, to a significant extent, recording specific. It is for that reason that, IMO, a little goes a long way.

Bryon

I have had a QOL in my system for about a month (speakers are Maggie 20.1's). All I can say is that Robert Harley in TAS articulated my experience to a "T". EVERYTHING he said is true. I could not have said it better if I tried.

Gcsakakini, Glad you like the Qol. I have had mine for over a month. I could never go back now. I leave the Qol on all the time.
Did you happen to notice what I posted above? When I moved my speakers a little, they locked in place and the dyanmics really shined.
That's probably why the 6 moons review on the Qol was so confusing. They used 7 different unfamiliar systems that were'nt really dialed in.

I have been listening to the QOL for a week in my system. For details on the system pls see the audiogon systems section. The QOL is set up after preamp and before amps via xlr connections. Here are some subjective and objective observations (generally corroborated by more than one listener):
-when we ran a signal sweep we got the exact same frequency response but 2db higher
-although I have not measured it, perceptive change in volume is different between recordings and ranges well above 2db on occasion
-the stereophile comment of instruments sounding like they are “illuminated from within” is our own experience also
-soundstage grows significantly both in width and in height. My speakers are 4 meters apart and throw a 6m stage usually, with this device we get another meter (3 ft) depending on recording. That is not subtle
-where I differ with some of the positive reviews is that this change in stage comes with two negatives: imaging and depth. The sound is a bit more flat and imaging detail in this system is worse. The tight controlled and “you are there” instruments we hear normally become very pleasing to the ear but a bit more diffused. I think it is subtle enough that in a less resolving system it may not be noticed but here it is obvious and it is a real issue since this extra believability is quite important for a lot of recordings
-the main effect I get is an increase in ambiance. My ears feel like they do when I play an out of phase recording (eg in XLO’s test CD). I therefore assume some out of phase information is added. The in phase info is not lost obviously, hence the greater sense of envelopment in ambiance. The cost of this is what I described earlier
-the effect differs from recording to recording. In general it is a pleasing improvement but sometimes not (especially where specific instruments are prevalent and the loss of imaging is bigger)
-I find the built quality to be the equivalent of a $300 CD player with the exception of the larger faceplate. The buttons are terrible and the device tends to send surges of signal when turned on and off (my other equipment doesn’t do that). The circuity looks very simpe to replicate and my guess is that it is very very cheap to make (this guess is not corroborated by any expertise, just the fact that the amount of electronics and their quality are much less than what you would find if you opened a cd player from pioneer)
-the s/n ratio is much lower than my other equipment so that is not good. I assume the best implementation will be if and when preamp makers decide to stick this in the preamp itself

correction: I was not suggesting that the quality of the electronics is lower than that found in a pioneer, that was a typo. Just that there isnt much there and therefore that the cost of this must be quite low. That is a good thing obviously if this device ends up being popular but it makes the $4k price a surprise.

Mihalis, thanks for the informative review.Based on your opinion of the QOL unit one can be a little more subjective in making a purchase decision. As all things audio,listening is the final arbitror.

Mihalis, It's a good thing you can send it back. You would have been disapointed if you had to keep it.

I however, really enjoy the Qol in my system and I have neither of the negatives you mention. I also think it is a very good looking unit with very good inputs and outputs. The bottons on my unit seem to be well made, so I am not sure what your complaint of them is, but they are rarely used because my Qol is always on.

I certainly don't doubt that you were not impressed by the Qol, but I'll keep mine.

Ozzy,
I want to make sure that your passionate support of this product doesnt end up giving the wrong impression by putting words in my mouth.
-I didnt say that I was "disappointed" by the product. Instead, I listed my subjective listening experience and that of other very experienced audiophiles
-I thought that was particularly important as some in this thread had said that very high end systems may have different experiences with this product. I have no idea why that would be but I assumed it might be interesting to some people to hear what we hear
-The loss of imaging is because the instruments become less "tight" and in some recordings that reduces the believability of the instrument itself. The overall effect would therefore be going against what some of us purist audiophiles seek
-However, why this is happening is another issue. It could be that this is the greatest invention since sliced bread but its somewhat low built quality and the insertion of more cables and hardware are causing the result I reported. Even Harley admitted in his review that on bypass the piece causes some sonic change (which obviously cant be for the better!)
-Which is why I repeat that the best way to implement this technology would be for the preamp manufacturer to include it in a much more high end piece of equipment with better signal to noise ratios
-As for built quality, there it is not a subjective issue. This is not built like a $4k piece of equipment from the cheap buttons to the cover which is so thin it warps and resonates. I assume one can better significantly the performance by improving on its transformer etc. In any event, I think us customers should be honest about this stuff and cause manufacturers to build better products. The margin on this one must be offensive to our intelligence.
-I am very glad they have tried to come up with something new and the 30 day waranty (which I dont know if it applies outside the US) is a great way for people to try this out. I am guessing this means some people may end up with used equipment (?) but I would be happy with that tradeoff.

So there is no disappointment here. It is an intriguing piece of equipment and I look forward to seeing how it will perform when and if implemented in a real high end application.

Mihalis, So are you keeping the Qol?

Mihalis,

Great review...the thread appreciates your pennies.

But, I am with Ozzy on the build quality. It may not be as stout as a $4000 SS amp but it is much, much nicer than a $300 CD player that is usually made with a plastic face and other cheap parts. BSGT seemed to have picked very nice connectors and a heavy chassis. At a 25lb shipping weight, I would hardly call it a lightweight component. At this weight, it would compare to many of the Sonic Frontiers components that were often noted for being well built and stout.

As for price and internals, well... they are made in the USA and I am sure that is adding to the cost of production. My two pennies, I would rather see my money spent on American goods, made by American hands, stimulating the US economy, than save a few buck on product made offshore.

disclaimer: I am a Qol dealer.

Ozzy, I am curious although not ready to insert it full time in the system. Setonaudio, agreed on the connections and I had noted the faceplate earlier. Also, I am pretty sure that US manufacturers are perfectly capable of producing this technology at very competitive prices and hope they will. Maybe also add a decent remote!

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/bsgtech/1.html

Ozzy wrote: "They used 7 different unfamiliar systems that were'nt really dialed in."

FYI: The various systems were familiar to all to the listeners. IOW, each listener had previous, extensive experience with each of the systems that were used for the evaluation. All of the systems were dialed in, as well.

Same message I left on the Tech Talk section.

Oddiophool, the 6 moons review was poorly written, I couldn’t tell if they liked it or not.
Suffice to say I find all their reviews too flowery with little substance. The Qol needs to be listened with the volume left alone instead of constantly fiddling with it like they did in the review. The dynamics is one of its main virtues.
Plus they tried it in so many systems with so many different listeners. Terrible way to do an analyis.

another huge plus for the QOL is you can go out and get an integrated amp or preamp that does not have input select on it's remote since you can just hook all of your sources into the 4 inputs on the QOL. A lot of the good preamps and integrated amps have remote volume control but not input select.

I have had the qol device in my system for over two weeks and found at best it made very minor changes on some recordings soundstages and placement of players on the stage. I did not find these changes to be a significant improvement compared to when the SCS is put into bypass.

Regarding timbres or tonality I experienced that the SCS at times kinda dried out the overall sound of my system.

Finally, even in bypass mode I did not find this device to be totally transparent, it added some amount of noise and took away some of the purity of my systems overall clarity.

I'm a staff reviewer for hometheaterreview.com and the
auditioning of this piece will be presented as a formal review in the next few months on the website.

What is SCS or what does SCS stand for?

Teajay, "minor changes", Wow! Have you had your hearing checked lately?
Just kidding, what kind of speakers are you using?

Ozzy, I have not moved my speakers since I got my QOL, but I would not be surprised that the differences you found were due to the QOL adding phase info. In the owner's manual, I think they recommend less of a toe-in for the speakers.
Mihalis, I share your concerns about the build quality not befitting it's 4K price tag.
Teajay, On some recordings the changes are "minor" but on others, especially orchestral, the changes can be dramatic and ususally makes things more wet, not drier.
Kclone, SCS stands for "Signal Completion Stage"

After reading all of the posts in this thread, I must say that I have experienced some of the negatives and all of the positives expressed above. For me, the QOL/SCS is a keeper as it benefits outweighs it drawbacks, and there is no guarantee that this technology will ever be available in a pre-amp or whatever. The QOL/SCS has added flexibility to my system and also when watching movies, I find that the phantom center channel mode is significantly improved.

Hi Ozzy,

The two speakers I have been reviewing the SCD with are MG-20's on MyeStands that are bi-amped along with a pair of speakers from Lawrence Audio called the Cello. The Cello has turned out to be one of the finest box enclosure speakers that I have ever heard, regardless of price. It is a five driver 3.5 vented design that uses two eight inch cone woofers along with Air Motion Transformer drivers for the midrange and high frequencies along with a ribbon tweeter used as a super tweeter. It is rated from 32Hz to 40 kHz, with the sensitivity (2.83V/1m) 90dB. It retails for $18,000.

Ozzy, I think this device is very recording and system dependent, along with how sensitive the listener is to phase. Since as you know you get a 30 day auditioning period, why not try it and see if it floats your sonic boat, as it did for you, but sunk mine.

Hi guys. I must also express surprise Teajay that you report small differences. I found the changes in my system to be quite significant although not necessarily for the better. It is indeed recording specific and one of the main differences is the perceived change in volume that each recording may get to. I got the same at my dealer's system which couldn't be more different than mine.
Ozzy, I sent it back. I also had discussions with other audiophiles that have cost no object systems. They all sent it back. Their experience was very similar to mine, i.e. that the main drawback is the loss of imaging detail, flattening of depth and a shift in the tonal hues of the instruments themselves. I repeat my view that in a system where resolution and imaging is not 10/10, this may not be easy to hear and therefore the enveloping feeling of the qol may be seen as an overall positive. It may be a good algorithm for car radios etc and maybe one day they can figure out how to deal with this drawback for high end.

Mihalis, I see you have some interconnects that cost more than the Qol.
What type of interconnect did you use with the Qol. You know that the Qol is in the signal path and a lesser interconnect than what you are used to would result in the conditions you descibed.
Anyway, you have a mighty fine system, but I still like the Qol.

Haven't heard it, but I bet it's just like what Mihalis describes. More crap in the signal path that reduces resolution and transparency.

No thanks.....

Shakey

No real helpful info. on my part(just like Shakeydeal!) However I appreciate Ozzy sharing his enthusiasm for this product. Where else are you going to hear about it in real world conditions. Many that have not found it to their liking I don't disagree with. How ever I don't think it is because your system is perfectly neutral causing the 'qol' to show all it does to or for a system. We all pick components no matter how neutral we think they are by balancing what we have with what we are getting otherwise it is just going to be noise to each of us if it doesn't meet our criteria. I appreciate that it sounds like Ozzie hit upon something, the 'qol' device, that works extremely well for him and that just may be of assistance to others also. Thanks Ozzie. Keep your enthusiasm and thanks for sharing.

Hey Ozzy,
The qol required me to add one Valhalla XLR. However, I don't think that matters at all since my comparison is not with and without qol, it is with qol on and on bypass. So the cable was always carrying signal and would have had its effect either way. I wish I could say cables (other than maybe power) can make such a difference but in my experience they don't...

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.

Not for anything but why does this matter ? Whatever it is doing or not doing is moot to me. Having a Qol in our system now for over 8 nonths we are closer to the live event. Much more emotional impact. More information.
Just do not see the need to now how it does what it does. Really guys without a home demo all is moot. How can we put down something not heard in ones system ? Open eyes not shut maxamizes ones experience. You need not believe the marketing hype fair enough however everything and everyonr desrves a fair shot.

04-01-12: Pipedream
Not for anything but why does this matter ? Whatever it is doing or not doing is moot to me...
Just do not see the need to now how it does what it does. Really guys without a home demo all is moot. How can we put down something not heard in ones system ?

My post was motivated by nothing more than curiosity. I am not putting QOL down. If you read my comments on this thread on 2/27, you will see that I own a Meridian preamp that, like QOL, can manipulate the soundstage. As I mentioned in those comments, I enjoy the effect. So although I haven't heard QOL, I am favorably disposed to the idea. That puts me in the camp of likely supporters, not detractors.

As for my motives for asking, I happen to be an audiophile who enjoys knowing how things work, within the limits of my technical competence. For you, knowing how something works may be "moot," to use your word. I would invite you to consider that what is moot to you may be of interest to others.

Also, it's strange to me that you would challenge a person who asks a manufacturer who has already elected to participate in a conversation to talk about his product in a substantive way. Even if my comments were intended to be challenging - which they were not - it is perfectly within the limits of civil discourse to ask a manufacturer for the principles of his design and even the details of his implementation. The manufacturer is free to share as much or as little as he likes. Several well regarded manufacturers are very willing to share, and do so regularly, like Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere, Bobby Palkovic of Merlin, Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio, and Duke LeJeune of AudioKinesis. And since I'm already stating the obvious, let me also say...

Audiogon is a place for the free exchange of ideas and information. That's what I asked Larry for. Ideas and information.

Bryon

To date, exactly 3 of more than 120 sold have come back. There is one more currently thinking about it. In at least one instance the reason was financial, not performance related. 3 (or 4) out of 120+ is not bad in our estimation.

I suspect any product with a return privilege would be hard pressed to do as well.
Larry Kay