Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

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

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

Hi Ozzy,

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

I'm really skeptical about this pce.

Reading your review I was surprised when I read;

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Kclone,Peterayer.

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

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

Ozzy, Thanks for that very interesting review. Now that you have changed room treatments and the positions of your speakers, how do you know that the result is from the Qol? What do you hear when you toggle the Qol in and out of the system? When it is out of the signal, is the sound better than it was before you made all of the changes? Or is all of this improvement only when you have the Qol in the loop? Do you also notice a volume change when you toggle it on and off?

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

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

BSG Qol Review February 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah, my Luxman has a preamp out. But wouldn't just hook up through one inputs on the Luxman (source>>>QOL>>>Luxman)? I mean, why use tape out or preamp out? I don't get it.

Interesting thread. Ozzy, what is the latest on the qol?

I would think that if this device is the "real deal" ie not some signal processor that most people like at first, then get tired of; which I am concluding from all the positive posts that it's not; then if one were to hook two in series the sound shouldn't change very much, if at all. The reason is if it restores lost info then the second one in series would have no more lost info to restore, therefore not changing the sound at all. Now that's just theory and I figure some small changes, but not like twice as large an effect. If the second one makes a big difference to the sound then it probably is just another spatial effect machine.

So if possible, can someone try two in a row to test this?

Kclone, some integrated amps have a preamp out, if not, choices are after source or through tape in if available.

Hey Ozzie, anything to report? It was mentioned that is sounds best between the pre and amp. What about an integrated, anyone try one with that in which case it would have to come after the source?

I realize after listening to any live music and in particular a 1973 live album in London by Van Morrison on my turntable, why I have have been so emotional about the qol. It brings out a heavy emotional response in me! I want to laugh, scream, jump, cry,fight,love,kiss,make love and so much more. All this fire I accredit to the qol unit. Just start listening to music and forget about burn in and then you will hear what the big deal is.

Just got my unit off the Fed Ex Truck.
It was really cold so I waited a while before turning it on.
I added a 1 Amp HiFI tuning fuse that I had , and I had another balanced interconnect that was the same as my others. I also had a Synergistic Tesla T2 power cord that I plugged into the Powercell.

First impression, it does increase the sound level. I also think it sounds a little bright.
But, it was fresh out of the box , I'll let it break in a few days before I comment further.

I didn't say it sounded "bad" either. Other than it being difficult make a fair comparison due to what appeared to be different levels of gain, the unit did appear to change the sound field. As for better or worse, that would be for the listener to decide.

I thought so, thanks Mark. The thing that I potentially like about this is this unit does not do any D to A converson or anything like a lot of room correction devices do. So if you love the sound of your DAC or source, it's siganl dose not get altered by another D to A or A to D process. Thanks.

Kclone, Nay I was referring to other threads, sorry for confusion.

Mark, Are you reffering to me at taking a swipe at it? I never took a swipe at it. I'm open minded about this and I appreciated the feedback you have provided to us.

Kclone, I have a fairly big room (16'x34'x9') that is very open to a bigger room so I do not have major room issues as speakers are far from front, side and back walls. But I can say that when the qol is engaged the room seems to be less a factor by far. As far as why i am fired up is it is like you are taking a swipe at my hot lady and i took offense. Once you sample her wares you may be in the same boat.

I don't think the posts are negative, as you put it. The device may well sound fabulous. Frankly, I think most systems could benefit from some subtle eq and phase manipulation, but audiophiles are uniformly against such things on principle. Except for the bass, where a Rives is permitted under certain conditions. The question is not whether it sounds good. The discussion revolves around how it works and what it does with the signal. If you think it sounds good, who cares what anyone else thinks?

Marc, why does it sound like your panties are in a bunch? My responses above is from my experience demoing to the unit, not "theory".

So Marc, would you say this device is something you put in after everything else? I mean, would you say it would be a higher priority then something like room correction or room treatments?

All the negative posts based on theory and not having listened to them are a waste of your time and ours. We as well as you know "buyer beware" and that there have been countless gizmos that play with the signal before the qol and most of those if not all sucked after any long term listening. With this unit the longer I listen the more sure I am of its extreme value for me. Until you try it sour grapes seems small minded from my seat as I know what it can do for listening enjoyment.

I'm not aware that it would matter what type of speaker.
My understanding is that the device restores 'lost' phase information...restores it.
In that regard, the answer to the increased gain, may be answered.
More data, would equal more volume..more dynamic range.
So the 'illusion' of more gain, would be no illusion at all.
Dynamic range expansion, through recaptured, lost phase information.
Unless there's something I'm not getting, which is entirely possible.
Larry

Does this device work with speakers that have ribbon tweeter too?

The manufacturer swears there is no gain stage in the unit. The additional perception of gain is really due to a cleaning up of the signal.

Now I personally agree with you, it sure enough sounds like additional gain to me. Others have said the amount of perceived gain varies by album though.

YMMV

Hifigeek,
Sorry to disagree...but...
Usually, less is more...but what if, big if here...that some thing, adds back, (restores) lost phase information, making for a more complete signal, one that looks more like the original?

My basic theology is YOUR theology, yet, having seen this, experienced what it 'appears' to do, I'm pulling for it, and do really believe in it's value.

Again, sorry to disagree...

Good listening,
Larry

My attitude, less is more. Another device in the chain complicates matters.

Definitely gain.

Face,
Is it the 'gain' or the dynamic range that is changed?
Two very different items...

Larry

Well, I am expecting much better results from the Qol unit than the last few posts have described.
I'll just have to wait and hear it in my own system this weekend.

When in active mode, it changes the amount of gain, making it nearly impossible for a true A-B.

To build on Chayro's post, I have an SPL Qure parametric equalizer which has the Qure processor. In addition to the normal 3 bands of parametric EQ the Qure processor messes with the signal's phase and adds a mid/hi boost which is intended to clarify vocal/instruments and reduce digital harshness. It also adds around 1-2 dB to the signal. I personally don't like the effect and never switch it into the signal path, but if is definitely noticeable.

I'm not saying that the SPL Qure is the same as the QOL device, but just pointing out that phase manipulation devices are fairly common and do have a sonic effect.

Haven't heard it, but in my past life as musician, I have heard many devices that can make a piece of reproduced music nicer to listen to - Aphex Aural Exciter for example, although that device is very old by now and I'm sure there are plenty of new items available in the studio to spice up a track. In general, these devices worked by manipulating the eq and phase to make things sound bigger and more present. I read the review of this device and the interview with the designer and I don't doubt for a minute that this gizmo may well make an audio system sound more pleasing. But I do have a hard time with the "unlocking hidden phase information.. etc" concept. I could see if this device followed the microphone directly in the recording chain, but once the music is recorded, I can't understand the concept of "hidden information" that cannot otherwise be unearthed through playback on the same device on which it was recorded. I realize that audiophiles claim to hate tone controls and DSPs, so from a manufacturing standpoint, it is much more paletable to say you're just uncovering what's already there than to say you're manipulating the signal. Again, I won't say it doesn't sound good or that what the designer is saying isn't true. I just don't see how it's possible. Once something is recorded on a 30 ips tape (for example) I cannot see how that same recorder is failing to play back intact what it just recorded. Enjoy.

Roscoeiii,
I agree the only sure way of evaluating a piece of equipment is to try it in your own system and room.
All other remarks are just unsubstantiated opinions.

Someone mentioned on another thread about the H-Cat Preamp and was comparing it in there opinion (without trying the Qol) to the Qol unit.
My comment to that is, a few years back I did buy the H-Cat Preamp but I could not detect an improvement so I sold it.
I am going to use that same process with the Qol.

Your point Roscoeiii, is well taken by me.
Opinions without having experience has NO value.

I saw the Qol system a year ago...tried to engage them, as their basic principle of phase information restoration makes perfect engineering sense to me...

They, at that time were not ready for as much attention as they'd gotten...I wish them well, and look forward to trying one in my own system.

Larry

Or it will work in your system and sound great.

Hifigeek1, have you tried it and are you basing your opinion on actual experience?

I haven't tried it, but do feel strongly feel we should give the basis for our opinions here. Give a product and the possibility for real innovation a chance rather than dismissing it out of hand.

That said, if you audition a piece of new equipment, please put your critical hat on, compare it with as much as possible, and give it time to either grow on you or give it time for you to sour on it.

Let's be honest about the source of our stated opinions, our own personal listening preferences and the systems in which a piece of equipment is being evaluated.