Very interesting speculation, Bryon. Two brief points in response:
1. By a broad definition, everything is a processor. No signal gets through anything, even a one inch piece of wire, completely unaltered, so everything "processes." We actually process less than any preamp, phono preamp, amp or CD player, DAC, or many cables. And much less than any transducer (speaker or phono cartridge).
2. Don't have any familiarity with Trifield, but note that regardless of spatial stuff, qøl also widens dynamic range, reveals more detail and more harmonics. However, back to spatial. In life, sound radiates spherically and the ear-brain interprets all of that. With hi-fi, it radiates hemi-spherically. With qøl, you're back to the full sphere and the ear-brain hears that as being more like the real thing. That's what a few are hearing when they say the images seem to be more forward.
Larry |
I haven't heard the unit, but I'm considering a trial. My hesitation is that I set my system up to achieve sound reproduction that is true to the original recording. That's been my personal definition of the absolute sound so far. It seems to me that if the QOL effect is better or more realistic, then some similar process would have been applied to the original recording (assuming its a good recording). |
>Audiogon is a place for the free exchange of ideas and information.<
Not really..... |
"Don't have any familiarity with Trifield, but note that regardless of spatial stuff, qøl also widens dynamic range, reveals more detail and more harmonics"
..........................
Larry,your description of the qol's influence on the musical signal sounds just like the very same thing my ears hear using the Harmonic Recovery System of yester-year.John Sollectito of SCE was the developer of said unit.Your description from above is exactly what I hear with the HRS in line. It recieved great reviews from reviewers and users alike. |
Bryon my comments were not directed towards you. I agree with you 100%. My comments were directed to those who offer opinions of said gear without hearing it in their systems. Or simply dismissing it because of promotional verbage. Asking how it works is just dandy. There are those who need to know "how" great, no issues here. Just for me it does not matter. The end result no matter how described or implemented is the final test. We could go into detail how, why and so on. I feel it is moot.
The qol is a game changer. In over 40 years now hearing all types of systems and devices there have been contenders but no cigar until now. HRS, Carver, Hafler and so on have produced products that offer only a glimpse of what Qol can offer.
We have never been closer to the live experience until Qol entered our home. At $3995 it was a stretch which my wife reminded me of almost everyday. Then when heard she has changed her tune. She stated "great no more purchases coming along now that we have this". I responded and said "got that right" but ya know that Weis DAc is looking good. The door slamed and we were back to normal. Go figure.
Anyway not trying to start any flame wars. Whomever you are listen to one in your system and judge for yourself.
|
Thank you, Pipedream, for you post. I am in agreement with you that sound quality and listener enjoyment are far more important considerations than principles of design or details of implementation. My interest in design and implementation is a result both of my desire to increase listener enjoyment and my interest in technology, both audio technology and technology more generally. That seems to be a fairly common motivation among A'gon participants.
Having said that, I will acknowledge that, in spite of the wide range of reasons why people post about various products, they can be grouped into two broad types: those who habitually post about products they like and those who habitually post about products they don't like. The first group is usually looking for ideas and information. The second group is usually looking for trouble.
IMO.
Bryon |
Well said Sir. I'm new to posting here. Not much of a forum person.
|
A couple years ago, when I made the transition from lurking to participating, I had no idea how rewarding it would be. It's been great fun to share my experiences and hear about other people's experiences. I've learned a great deal from other participants, and I've met some very kind people along the way.
So welcome to Audiogon!
Bryon |
Currently have the QOL on trial. Having heard it after 100 hrs of break-in wanted to get experience from others who have had it longer. What I am hearing is in the by-pass mode the sound is "veiled" and dose not reflect a true " un-QOL" sound. When I removed the QOL from the system the sound was much better from the by-pass mode and in my ears not that far different with the QOL in the "chain". So, a better comparison may be QOL versus non QOL rather than "bypass". What say you? Thanks. |
For me the bypass mode is moot. Just no reason for it IMO. Yes I agree with that. Qol vs. non Qol.
Bypass mode is not the same as direct, period. When Qol is engaged though the affect wrought far outweighs anything else.
It takes at least 300 hours to sound its best. Bummer yes but worth the wait.
Is it installed after the preamp ? |
thanks Bryon nice to be here. |
Bryon is right and it almost feels like one cant say anything that is not completely positive about the qol without becoming inundated with passionate responses which try to find flaw in that opinion. I find that amusing and of course one has to assume that some people have lost the ability to be objective. Of course I am referring to other threads ;-)
A few points additional to what I said earlier:
-I find the ratio of returns information to be somewhat misleading as I know of more than one audiophiles with systems worth north of $0.5 million who have listened extensively to and did not purchased the device. They didn't buy but shared or borrowed from dealers. That was the case with me also
-I am very interested in the technology. It does read somewhat arbitrary eg why would the perfect ratio apply to this algorithm? (btw I am not suggesting it is arbitrary-I have no idea-I am saying it seems arbitrary to me since I dont have the technical knowledge)
-claims that this is as important as the invention of stereo are exaggerated and frankly hurt the credibility of the argument in favor of the technology
-this technology has the huge advantage that it certainly sounds nice in less accomplished systems. I would love to have this in my car, phone etc and I assume that is where great potential lies. Or put it inside preamps etc and take advantage of their lower s/n ratios, superior power supplies etc
-But how can one really patent this. I am no lawyer but this does look very hard to secure. Good luck
-I continue to think that their offer to return the device after a month's trial is wonderful and should be taken advantage of from US audiophiles. In Asia we are able to have dealers offer equipment for trial anyway
And by the way, at some point I will do another trial and spend more time with it. It is an intriguing product.
Michael |
Dear Pipedream,
Thanks for the advice. As of yet I am not hearing that big of a difference with the QOL compared to my regular system. I do have it installed between the preamp and amp. My system is approaching $250K so subtle differences are easily revealed. I would like to hear from others who are on the "fence" as to what they were hearing that convinced them one way or the other to keep it or return it. Thanks Ron |
Rnwong,
Your experience with the SCS, from your post on 4/10/12, is exactly what I heard in my system. I tried it in two positions, source/preamp-preamp/monoblocks, and it did not make any difference. I'll be submitting a review on the SCS for my website hometheaterreview.com, which will not be very postive towards its performance. Personally, I would not spend the 4K on this device, as it did nothing I find to be an improvement in my system. |
My response is for those who like me saw the ads and curious as to whether or not this is worth trying out. Also kudos to Robert Harley who called it as he heard it knowing there was going to be some controversy to put it milidly.His article convinced me to give it a try.I installed the Qol between my preamp& amps.The first thing I noticed was the increase in volume which makes comparisons problematic because the louder volume source will tend to sound better. The second thing I noticed switching the bypass on or off and adjusting the volume was there were some changes in the sound and soundfield but nothing at that point that would get me to spend my money. After a couple hours, I decided that since it was a new unit, I would give it some time to break in. I shut down my amps & ran music through it for 2 days 24/7 before I sat down for another listening session. Again working with the volume differences, I went back & forth with the bypass switch.Things were getting interesting.The soundstage, width ,depth & height had noticeably increased. The music had an additional richness to it. There was more air around the instruments and overall the sound was simply more natural.Simply miked acoustic music that is well recorded has a live truthfulness to it. I ran it another 24 hours after this session and had friends over. My buddy is a skeptical electric engineer. His wife loves music but thinks we are a little crazy. After 5 minutes she said ," you don't need to tell me when it it is on or off, I can tell instantly. The soundstage is bigger and everything sounds better". My friend the double E took his time but by end of the evening he encouraged me to buy it. I spent a couple more good listening sesions before making up my mind to purchase one.To me it gets me that much closer to the live event. With some recordings you might not notice much of a differenc and with others you will have a smile on your face. I never heard anything I never noticed on a recording before but the presentation was different in a positve way. Background vocals that previously buried in the mix were delightfully involving. The same went for drums and cymbals that sounded much closer to real then before.If you are considering trying a Qol, I encourage you to do so with one caveat and that is if either your speakers, amp or preamp cost less then the Qol I would wait a while because there are a lot of good changes you make make to a system for $4K. For the record my system is not in the $250K I saw in another response but I could buy a new top of the line Corvette with the money I spent on it. |
Ron, although people do debate whether the effect is a good or a bad thing, it does seem to be a very noticeable one, certainly when trying at least 2 or 3 recordings. In my system I hear a lot of out of phase ambiance which makes it sound like I am more enveloped in the music. A bit like listening to an out of phase signal whilst still listening to the in phase signal. You can rarely miss that effect. The stage gains about 2 feet in a stage that is otherwise 13ft or so. Again very noticeable. I also find that what people call forward is actually a diminution of depth and an increase in the size of individual instruments. Instruments do sound more illuminated from within (as RH said) but that is at the cost of loss of imaging and positioning accuracy. When I did a simple sweep I got a 2db difference across the spectrum but consistently. In different recordings however I get perceived differences as much as 5db estimated. Results do indeed vary with recordings, quite substantially. The usual reaction of seasoned audiophiles is WOW this sounds better, wow etc etc. After about 3 or 4 tracks people lose that initial enthusiasm and become more critical about the issues I mentioned. I completely understand why people with less resolving systems may not suffer from that and I also understand the enthusiasm given the magnitude of the effect. My system is also not limited by cost (you can see it here on audiogon) so I pretty much know when my neighbor is shaving. In my case, I didnt go further in my auditioning to compare dynamics etc. The loss of imaging is a big deal for me. Plus a pair of Ypsilons just arrived and I am rather spending my time comparing them to my system instead... |
In my response yesterday I may have sounded a little elitist when I stated that if you amp. preamp or speakers cost less then the Qol you would be better off spending your money elsewhere. I would like to clarify that. If you have an amp.preamp or speakers that you can sell for say $2K take that money, combine it with the $4K you were going to spend on the Qol & trade up. It is a buyers market & for 4-6K$ you could get some wonderful gear for that kind of money. In the 40+ plus years I have been in this wonderful hobby, I have constantly traded up.Like most of you I am not one of these 1% types that can just go out & purchase whatever I feel like.I trade up when it is an improvement & when I can afford it.With that out of the way, I would like to talk a little more about the Qol.What finally convinced me to purchase it was I spent a couple evenings just simply listening to music I knew very well.I ignored the bypas completely. Sometimes the Qol is not the most accurate sounding piece but most live performances have "errors' as well.What conviced me was the fact that in my system it has a very relaxed believable musicality to it.It gets me a little closer to being there. However one persons wine is another's vinegar. A wine I might call a fruit bomb somebody else might call a hedonostic delight. If you can afford one give the Qol a try and listen for yourself. Just because somebody may have a system that costs more then the average house & does not like it or they don't want to put another "filtering" cable in their system that is their opinion and they are entitled to it.The 30 day trial is very reasonable & will give you ample time to use the best sound testing device you have"your ears". |
Dear Mihalis and Lwin, Thank you for your posts. At the suggestion of Pipedream, I installed the QOL after the source whereas before I had it between the pre-amp and amp. That one change has made a great difference in the overall presentation and enjoyment of the music. My amps, preamps are Ypsilon ( very resolving). So, any difference to the sound is very noticable. Yet, this QOL has changed the sound I think for the better. I haven't lost the resolution yet some "presence" is now apparent. Got just over 250hrs of breakin and ordered the Hi-fi supreme fuse. The jury is still out but now leaning slightly on keeping it. Have about 2 1/2 weeks to decide. I agree with both points of view about the merits of resolution and musicality. thanks Ron |
I found I like it better after the source as well. Of course those with Integrated amps do not have a choice. |
Interesting, I didn't try it after the source because I use both analogue and digital and wanted to avoid the extra switching. I wonder why that would make any difference if the claims of the manufacturer were accurate. The mystery continues! |
Dear Mihalis,
I also have digital and analogue sources. From my phono preamp I feed the output interconnects that would have gone into my preamp and feed them into "input 2" or any of the other inputs "3" or "4", on the back of your QOL. The "output 1" serves as common "out". On my remote I push In2,3,or 4 and I have the phono stage kick in. Hope this helps. Ron |
Based on the last couple of posts,I decided to try my Qol after my source. I'll give it a few days of playing before passing judgement with my system. |
Well, I played the Qol this weekend hooked up after the source (Cary 306 Pro CD player) instead of between my Pass Preamp and Pass Amp as I have played it for several months.
Though it sounded nice after the source, when I returned the Qol to after the Preamp the Qol magic returned.
Better dynamics, depth and more lifelike sound. |
I received my BSG qøl last week. It's a keeper for me.
Here's my blog about my experience of the wonderful device.
http://wp.me/s1ACHJ-bsgqol |
I want to point out something I haven't seen mentioned yet.
(Unless I missed it).
Devices like this have come & gone, over the 30+ years I've been in audio.
Some are hailed as "revoltionary". And always, when they become popular enough, the next question asked is which hi end company will integrate the device or process into their product line.
Then, they fade away into obscurity. |
I'm still enjoying my Qol. Well worth the investment. |
I want to state up front that I have not heard the BSGT Qol. I, therefore, have no opinion one way or the other as to whether or not it improves the sound of any audio reproduction system.
I am responding to this forum topic since I am interested in the BSGT Qol system, and I am considering auditioning it.
However, it seems very strange to me that there is a lot of questioning and speculation in this forum about how the BSGT Qol works when the two patent applications for this technology are readily available for free at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website. The patent application numbers are 20110064230 and 20110158413.
The first patent application describes the method as follows:
"A first circuit is connected to the signal source and has an in-phase output therefrom coupled to one or more of the transducer voice coils, or mixer channels. A second circuit is connected to the signal source and produces an inverted phase output coupled to one or more of said plurality of voice coils, or mixer channels, to reproduce the discrete signal source through one or more transducers or mixer channels. The apparatus may have a reference signal circuit coupled to the discrete signal source for an in-phase reference signal and an anti-phase circuit coupled to the signal source for producing an out-of-phase signal output. Additionally a treble signal circuit is coupled to the discrete signal source and produces a phase layered treble signal output from the signal source while a bass signal circuit produces a phase layered bass signal from the signal source. An output circuit has the outputs from the reference signal circuit and the anti-phase signal circuit and from the treble signal circuit and from the bass signal circuit mixed to form a composite output signal. The treble and bass circuits may use a mixed left and right, dual mono, or multiple signal components of the discrete signal source. The anti-phase circuit mixes the left and right, dual mono, or multiple signal components of the signal source and has parallel circuit paths which invert the signals and then mixes the parallel path signals to form the anti-phase output. An audio reproduction process includes selecting a discrete signal source and using this signal to produce an in-phase reference signal and an anti-phase signal and a phase layered treble signal and a phase layered bass signal. Then mixing the reference signal with the anti-phase signal and the treble signal and the bass signal to form a composite output signal for driving a plurality of transducer voice coils, or mixer channels. From these modules, a substantially complete audio signal composite is formed." and "[0055] Phase layering uses a combination of inverted phase)(180.degree.) together with smaller sectional phase shifts, (e.g. 45.degree., 90.degree.) and so on, to establish a substantially whole signal that would otherwise be canceled using traditional in-phase and out-of-phase approaches. The result is a substantially complete audio signal that is whole, open, omni-directional, and multi-dimensional, having similar and like properties to the original sound event. Essentially, applying any number or mixture of these myriad techniques will produce a usable phase-layered signal. In essence, phase layering is a way of providing a substantially complete signal without canceling the in-phase signal. The use of a phase layered signal is to provide a continuity of phase relative information, or otherwise concealed information, as a modular component that layers in equally with the reference signal."
The second patent application describes the method as follows:
"[0038] Accordingly, the present invention is directed to a method and apparatus for an audio reproduction system that substantially obviates one or more of the problems due to limitations and disadvantages of the related art. As stated, the present invention applies to audio signals. This includes stereophonic signals as well as monophonic and multichannel signals. In accordance with one aspect of the invention, phase-layering is used to achieve a complete audio signal, as explained in the detailed description below. In accordance with another aspect of the invention, a complete audio signal is achieved by adjusting the gain for each of a pair of signals, such that the ratio approximates what is referred to herein as the golden ratio, where each pair of gain adjusted signals are then mixed to produce a corresponding audio output signal.
[0039] The golden ratio is, more specifically, a mathematical constant that is defined by two quantities, one larger quantity and one smaller quantity, where the ratio of the sum of the two quantities to the large quantity is equal to the ratio of the larger quantity to the smaller quantity. Numerically, the golden ratio equals one plus the square root of five divided by two which gives an irrational number that equals, approximately, 1.618. While the golden ratio has been used by artists and mathematicians in choosing proportions, and while the ratio is found in nature, it has never been applied to the mixing of audio signals in order to reveal otherwise hidden content buried in those signals."
I think it is clear from the descriptions in the patent applications that the signal magnitude and phase manipulations implemented by the BSGT Qol are inconsistent with high fidelity reproduction of the recorded audio signals. It may be true that the addition of multiple phase delayed versions of the recorded signals with particular magnitude ratios sounds more spacious and/or natural based on the hypothesis that this is what happens due to multiple reflections in natural reverberant environments. However, the phase delays and magnitude ratios described in the patent applications are not based on the specific natural environment of the recording, and are therefore, introducing artificial phase and magnitude variations to the recorded audio signal.
I think the debate in this forum comes down to the age-old, never-ending debate between high fidelity reproduction versus euphonic reproduction. This is a never ending debate since most of us do not have access to the recording events in order to compare the audio reproduction's fidelity to the original, and because what is euphonious (i.e., what sounds good) is in the ear-brain complex of the listener.
In this debate I am a centrist in that I want to start with high fidelity to the recorded signal, but I recognize the limitations of the current recording and reproduction technology in capturing and reproducing the natural "live" sound of instruments and voices in an acoustic environment, so that signal manipulation may be necessary to make the sound more realistic, natural, and alive without being harsh or fatiguing (which are my main criteria for euphonic sound).
It is good that BSGT lets one buy the Qol to try in one's system with a 30-day return policy so one can determine if it produces positive results for the listener that are worth its price to the listener.
On the other hand, given its fairly high price, I want to also try less expensive devices that make similar sonic improvement claims based on similar signal manipulations. In addition to devices mentioned in this forum, I am investigating the ambiophonics miniAMBIO 2.0 which retails for $150; the BBE sonic maximizer for $150 - $250 depending on model and where you buy it; and perhaps even an old Carver preamp/processor or receiver with "sonic holography" Note that the BBE and sonic holography devices date back to the 1980s or thereabouts, and received both accolades and vitriol from the audio community during their hey days. It is interesting that BBE is still in business and it seems to be selling mostly to the professional audio and musician community, but did not significantly impact consumer or audiophile audio equipment in the long run. |
You guys should read a VERY well written review of the Qol by Wslam in the members review section.
Awesome! |
Just trying to revive the Qol. There are now 2 recent reviews of the BSG Qol. One is in Stereo Times and the other is in Dagogo |
I've read both new reviews and after having been able to listen to a QOL for a few hours, I don't agree.
I found QOL effects seductive but not more realistic. Spatially, it does perceptually enlarge the sonic stage but more by pulling apart the center and compressing placements toward the left and right extremes than by actually enlarging it. Anything left in the center suddenly has a lot of space around it, whether that's natural or not. Front to back dimensioning is more of an actual asset but here QOL makes you a first row listener regardless of what would be natural for the performance or consistent with your habits if listening live. It also presented height dimensioning too large to be authentic in almost every case. And human voices sound like they originate from three-foot throats resonating into 16 foot chest cavities. In fact overall this was the most distracting aspect of QOL -- its in-your-face presentation even when a more distant perspective is natural or known to be in the recording itself.
Tonally, I heard QOL introducing seductive distortions to natural sound that are easily enjoyed for being ultra-vivid, but saturated of tone and texture beyond what's heard from real instruments even up close. I thought QOL sound was highly entertaining and so of course its greatest advantage was Blu-Ray cinema sound. There is some merit to the observation that phase coherence renders aural events more revealed and precise. But again it forces a guitar-is-6-inches-from-your-ear experience with string plucks and wood resonance that no one hears other than the player, and even then he or she doesn't hear THAT from a playing position.
So on balance I believe reviewers, so often unmoored from the sound of actual music played in real spaces, are seduced by the magnified and overwrought presentation rendered by QOL, rather than judging its contribution to convincing fidelity. It is a highly entertaining contribution through aberration, and I can see it making some category of modest systems more engaging through a kind of hallucinogenic euphonic bloom. No doubt fun for some. But if you already have a tonally truthful, realistically resolving system, my advice is to put $4,000 into more music or something else on the gear side that's genuinely advancing of musical truth. QOL is a funhouse mirror for your recordings. You have to seriously consider how long it is before that gets old.
Phil |
Wow. Thank you for taking the time to write that review. Was your audition in your own system? I've heard some of the things you describe, like the much larger than life vocal presentation, in poorly set up systems with very good components. I leave thinking the owner or dealer should really spend more time to properly place the speakers and listener in the room. They also usually need to consider room treatments. What you describe is very distracting if the goal is to capture what is on the recording. Of course, that is not always the goal.
This thread is a year old now. Do the early adopters still own their devices? |
Peterayer, I still own and enjoy the QOL. It is important to bring your speakers closer together to capture the center image properly. |
If you want a really good read, take a gander at Jim Merod's QOL review on Positive Feedback. Jim is a guy that, shall we say, likes to "show off". The kind of guy that you might refer to as "really likes to hear himself speak".
Here is a snipet for your amusement:
"So, let me close, temporarily once again, since this explaining stuff and being inclined toward ideas and inspiration, maybe a speculation now and then, is real work cuz ill-considered questions make a guy want to crawl into an ice house on a hot day with a keg of Harp's lager or Boddington's ale along with V. S. Ramachandran's most recent book to ease the tug of imbecilic sophmorisms that music (at the outset) was supposed to dissolve... or confound ahead of time. Jim Merod"
Yeah, that's some good s&*t right there.
Shakey |
Peterayer,
I heard QOL in two systems, one of which I wasn't familiar with much of the gear. The bulk of my time with it was in a meticulously built system in a Rives-designed room, and I was highly familiar with the gear. This was a six figures system of very high resolution, accuracy and convincing tonality. While my comments derived from this audition, my responses to QOL were same hearing it through an unfamiliar hifi too.
I should add that the owner preferred listening with QOL in the loop though he hears what I noted and whether just entertaining or real to him, he likes it. For me QOL was mostly euphonic splash which was a distraction from sonic realism. I can understand why a friend who heard it thinks it has value adding tone to hifi powered by lean solid state amps.
Phil |
Has the old Bedini B.A.S.E. technology been mentioned here? It also works with phase to accomplish it's effect. I haven't experienced either of these technologies but the B.A.S.E. gained a fair bit of notoriety in the 80s. I wonder what the similarities might be on a possibly revamped patent that's run out? |
Csontos, I doubt if it is similair. It looks like BSG has just been granted a patten on their design. |
I just had an opportunity to bring home a unit for an audition in my system and I tend to agree with most of the pros and cons discussed so far in this thread. And for me, to my ears, the cons add up to more than the pros. So, I returned the loan unit to the dealer.
The one most important aspect of the sound that deterred me from an outright purchase was the unrealistic expansion of image size of every instrument. Although the soundstage has expanded, so too have the piano, guitar, saxophone, violins and whatever else that is playing together in a band or orchestra to the point that each of them seems to extend from the far side of the left to the far side of the right of my room boundaries. May be seductive initially but it just doesn't sound real and right. |
Jon2020,
This is an interesting observation -- one that I had not heard before. Since I live overseas, taking their 30-day trial could get complicated -- and expensive, with all the back and forth shipping. Based on what you have to say, the QOL does not sound like it has the sonic attributes that would take my system where I want it to go. I was curious about the QOL but I will not let my interest go any further. |
Sabai,
Going by your previous postings in the thread, I would surmise that your system is pretty high end and resolving. That said, you may also like to know other aspects of my personal experience with the qol :-
1) The S/N ratio is indeed rather low as previously posted; I can hear more hiss and noise from my speakers in between tracks and during soft passages. With the qol out of the chain, the added noise was gone
2} When I cranked up the volume with the qol in place, there is a point where distortion can be easily heard and things start to sound ragged
3) Image size is quite stretched to the point of unbelievability. A glaring example is when the tenor sax is playing, it is as if I am standing at the "cusp of the crucible" so to speak, staring down into the deep belly of the sax - totally unreal
4) The bypass mode is not a true absolute bypass. Remove the qol from the chain altogether and the comparison is startling - one gets easily seduced by the immediate signal gain and think, ah, instruments have more body but take it out of the chain, and gradually crank up your system. You will realise a similar gain in instrument body but without the image stretching effect
From the patents posted previously, it would seem that the qol is an analog equaliser preamp with some gain that manipulates the left and right signals in an out-of-phase sort of way that expands the soundstage and instrument images in a very significant way. And this, to my ears and in my system, is to an unbearable degree.
But to be fair to everyone, you pay for whatever floats your boat. If you like the sound, enjoy. If not, return it. And there will be peace all round in this most peaceful of hobbies. |
Jon2020,
Yes, my system is very resolving and has reached a level of continuity and holography that I really never thought it would reach.
Thank you for your observations. I find them very informative. In fact, they are so detailed that I wonder why they have never been reported in similar way before. Is no one else hearing what you are reporting here? Are your observations specific only to your system?
The only reports I have read about the QOL are either glowing ones -- with few specifics -- or vaguely negative ones where the individual decided to return the QOL. |
Sabai,
Yes, my experience is specific only to my system which is likewise quite resolving. So, it may sound different in another system which may turn out to be a positive experience for the owner. As the cliche goes, to each his own. |
A few of my comments on the Qol.
First off everyone thinks that there systems are very resolving so to me that has nothing to do with whether you will be impressed by the Qol.
The better the system the more the Qol will impress.
Next, using the Qol will require moving your speakers closer together otherwise you will get the effect of too much extreme right or left. I didn't have to move mine much, perhaps 6" each but that totaled a foot closer. Depending upon your room and how far apart your speakers are to start with you may have to move them even closer together.
You will need another interconnect that is at least the equal of your other interconnects. Otherwise you are not hearing the full potential.
I am using mine with my HiDiamond Interconnects and power cords.
And finally, the cost of the Qol makes us not want to like it. I know I was trying to figure out how it was not to my liking so I could save my money. But in the end, I had to give in to the fact that the Qol really added a dimension to the music that brought it closer to real live music sounding.
I couldn't be happier with the Qol.
But as what has already been posted "to each his own".
Don't let other opinions make your decision to not try it. |
Ozzy,
I wish you well in your pursuit of happiness. |
>>The better the system the more the Qol will impress.<<
I don't agree with this. My experience listening to QOL on a few systems is the opposite. The perceived gains of having a QOL in the system tend to be more favorable on less resolving, more modest hifi circumstances. The better the system, the more QOL's overwrought spatial distortions are revealed.
>>Next, using the Qol will require moving your speakers closer together...<<
I'd heard this advice before hearing QOL. On one system it wasn't feasible to move the speakers at all, and anyway they were as close together as could possibly be useful for stereo in the room. But on two other systems, moving the speakers closer together was easy, so I indulged the suggestion incrementally. I found no change in QOL's introductions of spatial distortions, just some differences of type, dimension, direction and scale. In some respects spatial distortions became weirder with *any* reduction of the space between speakers, from already optimum non-QOL placement for stereo.
>>You will need another interconnect that is at least the equal of your other interconnects.<<
OK, sure. Did that.
No less disturbing to sense of fidelity for me than the spatial anomalies were the tonal aberrations. I considered all the tonal aberrations euphonic but further from realistic for every instrument and voice. And I agree that when pushed, QOL sounds like it clips or develops strain before anything else in the system does. Though I could understand why some people were drawn in. Same with the spatial distortions. Very entertaining in a funhouse mirror sort of way. Tonally, everything is over-vivid. QOL was to me very engaging temporarily for over-the-top upsizing of sources. As I wrote before, I think QOL is a hoot for Blu-Ray movie soundtracks when you want more of that cinema sound bombast and unreal space from HT2.0 in your house.
What I liked least about QOL was the way it zoomed you in for a first-row listening assault regardless whether first-row perspective was appropriate to the music, the performance, the recording. For me, I think I could listen to *any* system and recommend a better way to spend $4,000. For anyone trying to determine whether the audition is worth the time, dig into the archives here of people with opinions and triangulate whose perceptions are best matched to yours. If you're like me you will pass. If you're like Ozzy you'll embrace QOL and be happy you did.
Phil |
I think the QOL will find a happy home in car stereos, TVs, telephones and radios. In other words, in mid-to-low-fi environments. Isn't that the eventual plan of the designer? |
Peterayer,
I would differ from your point of view on qol's purpose of mid-to-low-fi environments. We will have to define this "mid/low-fi". What may seem "hi-fi" to me, may be "low-fi" by your standards. The reason being "affordability".
At the same time, I also disagree with Ozzy's comments that the better the system, the effective the qol is.
Following this thread, I have concluded that qol introduces a "perspective". Some folks like it and some folks don't like it. Neither is right or wrong. It depends on what perspective you are seeking. I have a doubt that there are some folks who may have been impressed with qol. But the very idea of "yet-another-circuit" in the system may have put them off - psychologically. This may be the reason why products like qol do good in the market, but are not very popular. |
Milpai, by "low-fi", I mean precisely, low fidelity to the source. I was not trying to make a statement about affordability. There are plenty of inexpensive audio products that sound remarkably real. Just read recommended component lists and listen to well designed inexpensive gear at dealerships. I don't think this is the ultimate environment for this QOL device. By low-fi I'm talking about Bose wave radios, car stereos, flat screen TVs. I read somewhere that this is where this device will hit the mass-market. Devices that do not reproduce sound very accurately, but would benefit from some spacial enhancements. |
Ok Peterayer, I get your point now. Thanks. But lets hope that they don't suddenly start charging $2500 for the wave radios :-) |
"Ok Peterayer, I get your point now. Thanks. But lets hope that they don't suddenly start charging $2500 for the wave radios :-)"
That won't happen. But what will happen is these early adopters will kick themselves for buying this thing for 4K when the bottom falls out and it's available for muuuuuch less.
Disclaimer:
Haven't heard it, don't want to.
Shakey |
Peterayer, It does not appear that you have actually tried the Qol Unit. Have you ? |
