I ordered the fuse this morning (small 3AG 250V 1 amp). When it arrives, and after a few days break in, I will report. Meanwhile the Qol keeps getting better. I now think that an excess of 200hrs. is minimum. Also, the use of XLR interconnects is essential. I don't know what speakers all of you are using, but this unit seems to work particularly well with electrostatics. I have it in the sound system that uses Sound Lab M-1 PX's. |
You may be correct about the burn in. I also used a short, aftermarket power cord, rather than stock. I had the unit connected with XLR cables between preamp and amp. I wonder if this unit is anything like the FM Aoustics Linearizer. SInce trhe qol uses so little electricity, I leave mine on all the time. |
I have had a unit for a few days, and it has been broken in for about 150 hrs. I think that it is probably a breakthrough product because it addresses the problem of phase relationships, which usually sound flattened out but which are allowed to be heard with this unit. The enlargement of the stereo image is something else that occurs. |
The unit operates in the analog mode: so, it is placed between the preamp and amp. Sound quality improved considerably after break in, as it is with all electronics. Also, since I had to use an extra pair of XLR cables, they had to be broken it as well. I continued to break the unit in by running my FM tuner through the preamp and BSG for a couple of days. I also noticed a perfect synergy between my Bybee devices (which are between DAC and preamp, as well as Golden Goddess Speaker Bullets on loudspeakers). |
What I did was to leave my FM tuner on for about three days straight. I really think that you need at least 200 hrs. before you can evaluate. I was lucky in that my unit has been used as a demo for about 100 hrs. before I even hooked it up. In the digital world things are even worse. When the mods for my EMM labs pair were done, they took almost 600 hrs. before they calmed down. When I was beta testing the Bybee Golden Goddess Speaker bullets, they took almost the same amount of time. |
I think that Ozzy's observations concur with mine. Luckily, I have a big, open area for my speakers (75 ft. long space with the speakers in the middle. I have mentioned in a few blogs that the distance and toe of the speakers might have to be adjusted. The edges of my Sound Lab M-1 PX's are about 6 feet apart, with about a 15 degree toe in. The illusion of greater dynamics and loudness I also noticed, and I had to set my default volumes about 9 db lower. As to whether the thing is worth $4000, well in a mid fi setup, where the whole expense is about 10-20,000, I don't know; but, in an ultra high end rig (over $120,000), the benefits outweigh the cost (a 5% investment, much like exotic interconnects, except the Qol will do a lot more). |
My suggestion about A/B comparisons is that you should use recordings that you know extremely well. In the What's Best Forum there was a lot of talk about whether the bypass mode really took the unit out of the equation. My experience with about 70% of the recordings I used was that the changes were profound. There were a few recordings where not much happened, but there was no recording where the sound got worse. If you read the blogs, there is a lot of skepticism, but if your system has been the same for a long time, the addition of the Qol unit will make an instant (good or bad) impression on you. I think that a lot of criticism has to do with whether the results are accurate" or just euphonic (a little like all the discussion of "tube" sound). My take on this is that live instruments have a certain amount of randomness (chorus effect due to minor phase delays, even when instruments play together). When the music goes through a microphone, recorder, and finally your loudspeakers, everything becomes phase coherent. The Qol "restores" the effect of the original phase shifting. Whether this is the same as the original is the sticking point. Does that really matter, if the reproduced sound regains the character of the original , live sound. Isn't this the same thing as why many people prefer the "sound" of LP's. A good LP with its RIAA curve (which mimics the decaying acoustics of many concert halls, which usually do not project much above 15kHz) seems to be more musical. After all, recorded sound is merely an "impression," not a totally accurate rendering of a live event (I am referring to live classical or jazz recordings, made with all the musicians in the same room at the same time, not pop, which is never "live.") |
To Cobra: loudness in live music is a mysterious thing. e.g. The loudest a solo violin can play is about .02 acoustic watts. A bass drum could pump out 20. That is roughly 1000 time louder, yet ,subjectively both can compete because subjective loudness involves other things. I am sorry about quoting those prices, but for a well-heeled audiophile who will spend $4000 on a pair of interconnects, the additional expense for Qol would not amount to much (and, he/she can always return it). Long ago, before I started producing pro CD's, I gave up the idea of reproducing the actual live event. I was (and am) satisfied to put things back into the recorded event that have similar parameters. Even if we could reproduce the actual live sound, we don't have the physical presence of the musicians, 50% of that performer-audience relationship that often propels great performances in concerts. |
I don't think that the soundstage is larger than life. The way I would characterize it would be to say the there is the illusion of more air around the instruments. What I am evaluating are commercial CD recordings that I actually made myself. Since the BSG unit is so new, the one thing nobody can talk about yet is the synergy between it and other components, particularly loudspeakers. I suspect that really analytical transducers, like planars and electrostatics really benefit from this technology; while big box monsters, like the Wilson Alexandrias might not fare so well. All the controversy made stem from the synergy issue. After all, everybody knows about this problem in matching the right amplifier with the loudspeaker. That is why BSG offers the 30-day money back guarantee. |
Since the matter of cable has come up, I though I would put in my 2 cents: 1)if you use the same interconnect in the signal path, you are probably ahead. 2) XLR is WAY better than RCA (that's why they were invented and are used in pro mics.). 3) Shorter is best. 4) Most high-end interconnects are snake oil. Start with good electricity and most of the nasties don't get in. Keep interconnects away from power cords. Speaker cables are a black art. Again, shorter is better. Phil is correct about the subjective corruption of the signal by all interconnects; however, careful selection can create a cancellation effect, where weaknesses and strengths cancel each other out. |
I know that the polarity of these things is critical. There is usually an arrow: does it point in or out? I remember having to fuss with this on my EMM Labs digital setup. |
Ozzy, you are correct. It has to be heard in the system you know best. All of us know that swapping out or adding components is really the manipulation of checks and balances. I would like to hear more about designer fuses: I have hi fi tuning fuses in just about all my components with good results. I still have the original fuse in the Qol. Something else: I have rear channels in my setup (they are 24 ft. behind the listener). The way I set up the Qol is to feed my rear channel decoder (SDP1 made by Audio Research) with the second output of the Qol. I have never seen the ambient channels blend into the room in this way. I mentioned this setup to Larry Kay et al., and they had not tried it. |
My advice: don't waste the output on the sub, since directionality is so little in low frequencies. I am running my sub directly out of the preamp. I think that you are correct is stating that the Qol should have been a multichannel device. Remember, the volume level on the rear channels will have to be bigger for balance. You will see that the info coming out of the surround channels is quite different and much more realistic. |
The Audio Research SDP1 operates as a matrix unit in the analog mode. Ordinarily, you would take a preamp output and connect it to the SDP input. I used the second output of the Qol and put it into the input of the SDP. I am not using the front channel outputs of the SDP, but taking the Output 1 of the Qol straight to the basic amp. In other words, I am not taking the front output from the SDA1, just the rear channels.
This setup produces a believable illusion, and all the levels are controlled by the main preamp.
As an aside, I would say that I have been entering into all kinds of hi fi discussions on the net, and this is the first one where all participants are helping each other with a new, untried product. I am sure that the usual prejudices of orthodoxy will eventually creep in. I have already gotten some flack from the purists at the Sound Lab Owner's Group, where I first brought up the topic of Qol. |
Great video. Actually, I was compelled to use monaural LP's when I first started teaching music at UCLA. The then Chairman of the Dept.thought that the sound was more "honest." (of course, he wore two hearing aids.). |
All right!!! Lets go back to 78's, the first direct to disk. I even have an Edison cylinder player from 1903. I plan to listen to Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungs tonight. |
What model of Supreme fuse did you use (amperage and slow blow vs. fast blow)? |
Without a doubt, the Hi Fi tuning fuse is worth the money. I had some delay, because I ordered the wrong size. It seems to smooth out the sound and remove a small amount of grit. |
I just read the review, which taught me more about frying eggs than anything else. Something alluded to in a letter in this month's Absolute Sound indicates that there is an increase in forwardness of the image. In my system (Sound Lab M-1 PX electrostats) the Qol seems to stabilize the image in speakers that often sound too recessed under normal circumstances. In the 6 moons article manufacturers reply, Larry Kay is correct when he states that the variability is in the recordings. We all have noticed the annoying lack of consistency in R-L balance in any number of recordings, just to name one issue. I agree with Oddiophool: put the Qol in one system and live with it. After about two months with the unit I have found that, in general, it makes the sound more cohesive with little or no loss of transparency. I would like to have heard a comparison of the effect of Qol on the Duntech Sovereigns vs. the Beveridge electrostats. |
I would agree with all about having a good power cord. As usual, anything in the analogue mode picks up interference. The "loss of clarity" occasionally mentioned, I think, is the removal of that etched quality found in many studio recordings. What the Qol does is create a sense of air around the instruments and voices. I would be interested in feedback from anyone using full range electrostatic speakers in the system. With my big Sound Labs I can finally appreciate the true accuracy of sound, along with a sense of liveness. Because my listening area is so big (75 ft. total), I have back channels (some 25 ft. behind listener). I have them fed also with the Qol. Using an Audio Research SPD1 for the rear, the out of phase information is more realistically conveyed. I also think that with the Qol it is easier to reproduce real concert levels (I am talking about real, classical music concerts where the sound comes only from instruments and voices without sound reinforcement ala rock and other pop). |
I concur with everything Pipedream says. My unit has been used over 600 hours, and it is finally smoothed out (I leave the unit on 24/7 and have used the Isotek burn in CD a few times over the period). One last thing: using the XLR output for the main channels also really helps, especially if the source-to preamp and preamp to amp connections are balanced. Since my whole front end is on an isolated platform, a setup like that improves the sound of any component. An added bonus is when you use a classic, analogue FM tuner like the McIntosh MR 78 or Marantz 10B tube tuner as a source. I am sure the result is euphonic, but addicting. |
I have both the small and big supremes. I just replaced the big one outside. If there is one inside I did not look. Maybe Larry Kay will advise. |
