Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?
Little pre cut pieces of tinted plastic with adhesive on it. http://www.lightdims.com Cheap and a awesome tweak for those "too damn bright" led's on equipment. |
I remember all the mags wrote great reviews and i couldn't see spending $4K on it so i kinda forgot all about it. Then i seen one for sale on usam for 800 and i thought why the hell not? I went to check the website and found out they closed so i was a little worried i might be buying a very expensive door stop. Nope...it's mint. Factory box, remote, manual the whole enchilada. I've hit that bypass button about 273 times and i can't pin point it but it makes everything I've been playing better. The only nit pick was the hi intensity LED's ... 3 perfectly sized and placed lightdims fixed that in a hurry! As far as I'm concerned..this ain't going anywhere. |
I don't understand it either. I took mine out of the system for a few weeks thinking I could sell it. But, just before accepting an offer I put it back into the system for one more time. Whoa, I couldn't take it back out! I think if QOL would have added a volume control it could have been sold as a full preamp and would have been more in demand. Add on boxes sometimes are a pain. Too bad though, great, great product! |
Kicking in a bit late on this thread (I have not tried the QOL yet) but Setonaudio's mention of room problems, odd shapes, etc brings up a good question, for me anyway. I have one of those difficult rooms (open side, other issues) and I'd put a McIntosh MEN220 into the chain more than a year ago and it solved "the problem" (loss of upper bass signal). So, the MEN220 was a gamechanger for me. But because it is a sort of (for want of a better word) "processor" I am wary of what might happen if I thrust the QOL in there. I do get the idea that I can try for free, of course. Any thoughts? Anyone else in the same boat? |
Still very much enjoying qol unit. On occasion I have taken it out and listened to music for a day without it. I have stopped that as I am always moved more by the music physically and emotionally with qol in. Also has anyone tried it on mono material? From my perspective it is amazing the improvement made in air and space." Long live qol I need it every night! " |
213cobra, Phil, your observations are spot on. Sometimes it may seem insensitive to call a spade a spade but in this hobby, where value is paramount before we part with our hard-earned money for an outright purchase, we just need to call it as it is. Benefitting the whole community is indeed the aim of such a forum and you have done so very well. Every component will have its pros and cons and a balanced view is what all of us here need. I wince whenever I hear pure gushing without a single caveat. When Larry gives not a single caveat, it is only understandable, given his capacity as CEO of bsg tech. But dealers of the product would want to be balanced and more circumspect in their views because it is very unlikely they would want to sell anything else in their store without saying to a potential client, "Oh, by the way, you should take this box home too or else, whatever you are buying WON'T let you hear everything that you should." If a dealer says that with every source, pre-amp, power amp or speaker component that he is trying to sell, then his integrity does come into question a fair bit or worse, he might lose the sale altogether. A good thing I observed from my local dealer of the qol is that at an audio show, he merely displayed it but did not hook it up with the other components on active display. I guess he did not want the qol to detract the listener from the intrinsic qualities of the separate components that he was exhibiting. Regards. Jon. |
Hello Ozzy, No, I have not actually heard the Qol Unit. I don't believe that I have commented on its sound. The benefits that you and others have written about do not seem to be lacking in my system, so I have no desire to audition the device. There are very divergent opinions about the Qol in this thread, and I find the whole topic quite interesting, as I do most topics in audio. |
"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 |
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. |
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. |
>>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 |
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. |
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, 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, 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. |
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. |
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? |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
