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. |
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. :) |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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, 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. |
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_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, thanks; I try to be clear but also balanced in my assessment of products. I returned the unit for the reasons stated above. |
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. |
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? |
I conducted my assessment of QOL in my own room with multiple systems. |
Unsound makes a good point. Has Doug even heard the device in question?
Shakey |
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. |
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. |
Douglas_schroeder, is your post based upon actual use with the "qol", or on preconceived philosophy re: all optional devices in the audio chain? |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 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. |
Less is more. Enough said. |
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. |
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, The Qol will be in addition to the isloation you've already done. I would not call it an active approach. |
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,
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. |
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, 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.
|
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. |
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? |
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. |
On 2/1 I posted a question. Does anybody have an opinion? |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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? |
Larry, you experienced the QOL? Did you have it in your system or can you elaborate on that a little? thanks |
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 |
I have the QOL on the way. I will try and post my impressions after a few days. |
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? |
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!" |
Setonaudio have you tried it between source and preamp? |
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. |
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. |
Ozzy, thanks for the review. |
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, itÂ’s a keeper, no question."
Who doesn't want this?
|
