AudioNervosa
Systemic Development => Bipolar System Disorders => Topic started by: rollo on October 26, 2011, 09:17:27 AM
-
Sounds exciting. Is this what we have been waiting for ?? If it does as advertised I believe we are in for a revolution in our hobby.
Check it out. www.bsgt.com
charles
SMA
-
Hmmmm. Interesting. The o'scope video was something else. Notice though that it also appeared to swap phase?
Bryan
-
Hmmmm. Interesting. The o'scope video was something else. Notice though that it also appeared to swap phase?
Bryan
Hey Brian the video got me as well. I believe phase manipulation or corrrection is part of the theory.
Trying to get a demo piece. We shall see.
charles
SMA
-
Very interesting indeed.
I believe this is the patent application: http://www.google.com/patents?id=zV9OAQAAEBAJ&zoom=4&dq=barrry%20s%20goldfarg&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Would love to hear one of these.
-
Do I sense a tour coming up???? :drool:
-
Do I sense a tour coming up???? :drool:
One can only hope........
-
Do I sense a tour coming up???? :drool:
One can only hope........
Hope no more we are making the plunge. Check goes out tomorrow.
A public demonstration will be announced if it passes our listening evaluation. Which I believe it will. Details to follow.
charles
SMA
-
Do I sense a tour coming up???? :drool:
One can only hope........
Hope no more we are making the plunge. Check goes out tomorrow.
A public demonstration will be announced if it passes our listening evaluation. Which I believe it will. Details to follow.
charles
SMA
:yay2:
-
Shipped today and on it's way. :dj:
charles
SMA
-
The Bird has landed. Tonight tonight not just any night oh my !!.
charles
SMA
-
Was thinking about pinging you in this thread to see how it was going. Sounds like we'll know very soon...
:pop
-
I too am curious as to what Charles has to say about this phase correction unit. I emailed BSG Technologies 2 weeks ago and never got a reply which really disappointed me. But regardless, an owner's insight should be even more enlightening than what I might have gotten from the manufacturer. :-k
Cheers,
Robin
-
Well out of the box [ very well packed ] the SS finish is quite well done. Heavy too. Blue LEDs which one can dim by remote.
Installed an Essence PC tight as crabs arse. Not hooked into the Uberbuss yet. Would like to hear it as is first.
As of now it is bypass mode between Pre and Amp and breaking in. I will try it between source and pre as well. Ya know tonight the button will be pushed. So either :dj: or [-X
You have no idea how hard it was for the past 4 hours not hitting that qol button. Patience, nah they had me tied up. :rofl:
charles
SMA
-
Come on, Charles! Don't keep us in suspense any longer. Whatdidya hear when ya pushed the button?
-
First impression was frankly staggering. Installer between Pre and Amp. It just opened up in every area. More information in spades in a way unheard before. Life and presence is the word.
Since we will be a dealer I do not want to seem like I'm a Fan Boy or misrepresent myself or the product. Not the right thing to do.
The end result, it was tough to go back to bypass mode. I thought my system was set in stone. Ha !
I can hear a tad of break-initus meaning a tad bright on top. Maybe. To early to really tell. It appeared to change after 5 hours or so. Overall a fuller more dynamic presentation with air, space and presence. In all fairness to the qol the final verdict will wait until 100 hours has been reached and placed after source. I can say now that the presence and illumination of the music is unlike anything I've heard before in our system.
What the qol does not sound like is false, contrived or processed.
charles
SMA
-
A truly intriguing piece of engineering! There is not a lot of depth on the BSG site about it nor where or how they intend to market Qol beyond this specific product. Attempting to read their patent info is certainly interesting if not totally beyond my comprehension.
Clearly, what you are evaluating is meant for the high-end, and not for mass marketing, yet there seems to be a lot of hinting that Qol has a ton of mass marketing potential in so many different areas. No doubt that's true.
Keep us posted, Charles. If this is anywhere close to being the breakthru technology it's hinted to be, it will be fascinating to see what they do with it.
-
The main goal of BSGT Technologies is licensing. Similar to how Dolby was marketed. The big electronics manufacturers such as Samsung, Sony Pioneer, etc. Basically every product that produces sound. Recording studios , TV, phone, radio you name it.
The owner is an Audiophile and vinyl lover.. :D At its list selling price it is a high end product.
To burn the qol unit in it was connected to a Sony CDP. To my suprise the Sony with the qol now outperforms our Lector hands down. Cost of Sony $125 cost of Lector $5500. So for the cost of the qol and the Sony it was less than the Lector. When used with the Lector the result is better yet.
The qol is changing as it breaks in. So far about 60 hours. The brightness has found it way out the door. Beginning to open up more. Weight is uncanny. Presence like ribbon speakers. The air and decay of the notes is unlike anything I have heard through an audio system. Continuous might be a good way to describe the sound.
So far so good,it has brought me closer to live. A lot closer in my book.
There will be formal reviews coming out soon. Robert Harley is conducting review as we speak. So not to burst their bubble I will not go into ultra detail yet. So far its a keeper.
charles
SMA
-
Game changer (or so is their hope).
But imagine... if Qol can be licensed and imbedded it in any cheap CDP, preamp or whatever such that it can blow away the likes of mega-buck products like Lector, then we have a game changer (and somebody gets rich!).
Of course, the devil is in the details. From what I can dig out coupled with your comments, the hope/plan seems to be that Qol will find itself imbedded in a lot of products. I've seen several references to integrating to car stereos. But, at what cost?
Charles, do you envision additional Qol products coming directly out of BSGT or is this particular product's primary goal to demonstrate just what Qol can do?
Damn... nervosa setting in... must resist...
-
At this time licensing the technology is their biggest goal. Once they get a foothold on the major electronics manufacturers similar to Dolby's efforts. As of now I stand corrected in that the qol is geared towards the High End buyer at $4000 list.
This week I have a demo scheduled with an all Lamm system which includes the Lamm Statement Pre a pair of M2.1 amps, CEC top of the line transport, Weiss Medea DAC and Analysis Ribbon speakers. The system is fed by three dedicated circuits with PI Audio Uberbuss on each circuit.O h my !
Anxious to hear the result. So far I have tried two amps three different speakers combos [ 2 ] CDPs, [ 2 ] DACs all with the same result. Air, space, clarity a sense of the live experience. Is it live ??? No it is not but I will say a heck of a lot closer than ever before.
The longer I listen the more info I'm hearing for the first time on recordings I know for years.
As I stated before the qol unit made the Sony CDP sound equal or better than the Lector without qol.
I'm wrestling with, if one spent $4000 on a new speaker or component would said piece give better results than inserting a qol unit ?? So far my feeling is no. Listening to the qol in numerous systems will enable me to draw the proper conclusion.
Jury is still out on "where" the qol performs it's best. Either before or after the Pre. It appears so far after the Pre for Analog based systems and after the source on CD based systems. Still experimenting.
The qol is still changing as it is breaking in. To my suprise different power cords make a difference as well as the PI Audio Uberbuss. The stock cord is a waste. A shielded Belden 12GA would be a better choice to include. So far my only beef with design. The IEC is fine. The Belden cord has a snug fit. Triode Wire Labs 10ga so far suits it fine.
At 200 hours which is coming along slowly I may add [ nervosa ] it should stop changing. So if the little cues of break initus do not go away then my take may be different. Everyday it improves. Right now the brightness is not gone 100% as I stated, stand corrected. Much much less than out of the box. Barely noticeable but noticeable.
There is light at the end of he tunnel. Although the typical break in has its ugly stage around half way through process the degree of such was never ultra fatiguing as experienced with say breaking in a CDP or DAC.
So is it live or memorex ?? The 64,000 question. Still Memorex but as close as it comes in my experience so far.
The only system head that comes as close to live as possible is the full out MBL system. Will the qol unit makes it sound like that ? No. Let's get real here. A hell of a lot closer though.
charles
SMA
-
rollo, do the loudspeakers disappear better with the qol in the system or out of the system?
This is one of my main litmus tests and at each rung on the ladder as my equipment has been upgraded my loudspeakers ability to disappear into the recreated sound field has improved.
I would be interesting to see if this brightness shows up in other systems and presents itself as a consistent characteristic of the qol.
Do you know if the qol circuitry is in the form of ICs or has the processing been implemented with discrete parts.
Here is a something to ponder, Brian Cheney has done live versus recorded demonstrations at THE Show in Vegas and the general consensus was that the two were quite close. I wonder if qol processor was inserted into the playback chain if the end result might be "better" than live or different enough from the live performance to be considered a gross departure from accurate playback of the recorded performance.
A comparison with and without the processor under these would be a very interesting experiment and would probably provide an answer as to whether the processor gilds the lily or not.
Scotty
-
This is simply not the audiophile way of things! :-({|= An inexpensive electronic phase correction circuit that makes inexpensive things sound like expensive things? They very well may have a game changer here - at least us cheapies hope they do since we can't all be buying $20k digital front ends if they license it at the top end of the marketplace.
-
rollo, do the loudspeakers disappear better with the qol in the system or out of the system?
This is one of my main litmus tests and at each rung on the ladder as my equipment has been upgraded my loudspeakers ability to disappear into the recreated sound field has improved.
I would be interesting to see if this brightness shows up in other systems and presents itself as a consistent characteristic of the qol.
Do you know if the qol circuitry is in the form of ICs or has the processing been implemented with discrete parts.
Here is a something to ponder, Brian Cheney has done live versus recorded demonstrations at THE Show in Vegas and the general consensus was that the two were quite close. I wonder if qol processor was inserted into the playback chain if the end result might be "better" than live or different enough from the live performance to be considered a gross departure from accurate playback of the recorded performance.
A comparison with and without the processor under these would be a very interesting experiment and would probably provide an answer as to whether the processor gilds the lily or not.
Scotty
Scotty, without the qol the Pipedreams already do that. What it did was take the information that was previously just inside the speaker and moved it outside the speaker The owners manual suggests moving the speakers slightly closer together with less toe-in. I have yet to experiment with changing the speaker placement. What I can say is the soundstage is wider and deeper. Wall to wall floor to clg. It gives me what the recording offers. With say a RR CD or Chesky CD the soundstage is huge. Especially in the upper inside and around the back of the speaker. Width is uncanny. without sounding like a 12 foot Piano.
Scotty from the little BSGT talks about the innards as they are patent pending just not sure. However there is zero processing according to BSGT. All analog no digital.
Live vs playback would be a great way to tell. The brightness has lessened from day oneand is almost gone. When I bring it over to the Lamm based system we will know for sure. However our system is not bright. More of a rich SET sound.
So far not one aspect of playback sounds contrived or processed. Just illuminates the music in a way I'm not used to.
What I really need to do is match exactly the volume level when going from bypass to qol. Qol adds volume. The specs do not indicate gain. So far we have paused the CD with qol added volume and then replayed. So far the volume being real close but not exactly equal has still yielded the same effect in presentation with qol inserted.
Back to the slight brightness. As I mentioned IMO it is typical break initus as it is lessened every day during the process. Second the Uberbuss as well was not 100% broken in. Dave at PI Audio says it will be strident sounding until then. He was dead on. Triode Pete is having the same experience with the Uber. Tonight the Uber will be pulled and we should hear a difference if any.
After the demo with the Lamm system we will know a bit more. Keep ya posted.
charles
SMA
-
rollo, thanks for the update, the effect you describe sounds similar to what I have heard from the Fosgate processor I have when operated in Panorama mode. The problem it has is that it was not constructed to Audiophile standards.
It gives with one hand and takes away with the other, a most unfortunate situation.
I am looking forward to your report on the Lamm system.
Scotty
-
OK pulled the Uberbuss. The qol is not bright. The Uberbuss is still changing. :(
Last evening the affect was just to good to be true. Especially with live recordings. If was an outside concert you knew it. If it was recorded in a studio you knew it. Should make life a bit easier for the recording Engineers. Can only imagine what qol would do for the initial recording process. I believe there will be many less keys used on the mixer. :)
I'm hearing so much more information than before in a way that just brings me closer to the real deal. Not much more I can add.
Had my doubts at first like any new technology, it's a keeper.
charles
SMA
-
Charles,
I don't pretend to understand how Qol works, but I was wondering... if you recorded the output from Qol and replayed it without the Qol, would you still hear the improvement? Could you use it to 'remaster' any recording? Hmmm, if that worked, it would be an interesting way for all of us to hear what you're hearing. Nah, couldn't be that easy, could it?
It's kinda hard to imagine what you're hearing or what it's doing. I know, I just need to listen for myself and someday I hope to get that chance. Right now, I'm living my nervosa vicariously through you! :rofl:
-
Can only imagine what qol would do for the initial recording process.
I wonder as well, but I would also be concerned because that could mean that the process was being applied twice to the same recording, once as it was created ond once when it was played back. That could end up being too much of a good thing. Not saying it would ebd up being better or worse, just wondering out loud. As with any new technology, only time and experimentation will tell.
-
rollo, if you like the sound of the Qol processor you might also like the sound of the FAP V1 – Vacuum Tube Pre-amplifier With 5.1 Channel Surround Sound and Dolby Pro-Logic II.
This an all vacuum tube design from Jim Fosgate the inventor of SQ matrix surround sound.
The processor has the Panorama mode I referred to in my earlier post.
Here is a link to the pdf doc containing the owners manual
http://www.fosgateaudionics.com/products/documents/MAN4368A_FAPV1_Tube_MAN.pdf
Link to Fosgate Audionics website
http://www.fosgateaudionics.com/products/FAP-V1.asp
scotty
-
Can only imagine what qol would do for the initial recording process.
I wonder as well, but I would also be concerned because that could mean that the process was being applied twice to the same recording, once as it was created ond once when it was played back. That could end up being too much of a good thing. Not saying it would ebd up being better or worse, just wondering out loud. As with any new technology, only time and experimentation will tell.
That could be an issue if the signal was being processed. There is zero processing involved of any signal. Nor a gain stage.
What the qol device does is extract information previously unattainable. How it does that is the $64,000 question. However it does.
The result is not an effect of any kind. No pseudo surround no manipulation or time delays.
I would say the qol largest achievement is the soundfield it creates. Soundstage would not describe the result. It is a field of sound. Notes are presented with air, decay, space. There is nothing artificial about the sound.
What has impressed me most so far are Classical recordings and Live recordings. The real space is revealed and made more believable. Piano note decay is continuous. The rumble and growl of a full orchestra is clearly evident throughout the recording.Triangles just linger in space. Horns have bite as in real life. The bass so far is superior to anything experienced in my home, period. Uncanny.
Tympani sounds like a tympani not a car subwoofer on steroids.
Thanks for the heads up Scotty.
charles
SMA
-
Is it just an expanded soundfield while still keeping the appropriate image sizes correct, or is there a 3 foot wide mouth and nose in front of you as the lead singer?
Does it seem like there is more space to the sides and even toward the back of your listening position (i.e. an all encompassing type of sound without surround speakers) or is it just more of a dissapearance of the speakers in front of you?
-
Is it just an expanded soundfield while still keeping the appropriate image sizes correct, or is there a 3 foot wide mouth and nose in front of you as the lead singer?
Does it seem like there is more space to the sides and even toward the back of your listening position (i.e. an all encompassing type of sound without surround speakers) or is it just more of a disappearance of the speakers in front of you?
Bob no 12 foot piano here , image size is fuller however not exaggerated, stretched, overblown or unrealistic. The soundfield extends well beyond the outside of the speakers as well as the upper rear corners behind them. As I stated a field of sound. As in real life the music does not come out in stereo it comes at you as a mono mass of sound. Right, left , depth are evident but not the pinpoint imaging as we are used to in reproduced sound. King mono with dimension, scale and continuous decay of harmonics as in real life.
What you can also hear is how manipulated some recordings are. Well recorded Cd's now show off what is possible when a CD is done justice in the recording chain. When not ya get that as well.
charles
SMA
If I relocate my listening position forward the affect of surround increases to the side walls. Nothing from the rear.
-
That could be an issue if the signal was being processed. There is zero processing involved of any signal. Nor a gain stage.
...
But, but, but.... something is feeding a signal to your amp with Qol in circuit that is different than without Qol, no?
I totally get that 'signal processing' is a loaded term often with negative connotation, but somehow, the signal coming out of Qol is different from what goes in. If so, could not the Qol output be recorded and subsequently played back with improvements intact? If yes, then that leads to more questions along the lines posed by tmazz. But if not, it has me totally befuddled and extremely curious.
-
Well, well, well... Charles came over this morning & brought the BSG - QOL with the Grover tour cables. We hooked-up the Qol between my tube pre-amp & SET monoblocks.
We listened for ~ 4 hours & probably could have listened all evening & night (if Life didn't get in the away :lol:)... in other words, no listener fatigue whatsoever...
The Qol (pronounced "Cool") was impressive. It did not appear to add anything unnatural, artificial or synthetic like most surround sound processors.
It appeared to add a dimension to the music, especially live concert recordings. We listened on VINYL to the original Belafonte at Carnegie Hall as well as Friday Night in San Francisco (DiMeola, McLaughlin & DeLucia) as well as other LP's. You sense the entire venue along with audience & orchestra locations in Carnegie Hall. You could hear the spaciousness & "air / reverb" at the Warfield Theatre. The venues (halls) sounded completely different & natural. We listened to numerous CD's, including some Ray Brown Live recordings, Waltz for Debby & the NY Audio Rave Reference Tracks 2006. Same effect on CD's - pretty impressive... however, the vinyl to me, was a bit better...
Decay of instruments was superb & real... perhaps, according to the BSG-Qol website, the PHASE is corrected... I think they might be onto to something big... Depth & Imaging of instruments in the Soundfield was equally impressive. My horn speakers sounded wider, larger, disappearing at times...
I had reservations on the Qol. I like my hi-fi system SIMPLE & do not like adding "unnecessary" things to it. My system is so SENSITIVE (literally as well) is that any sonic anomaly is easily picked-up by ear. The Qol, when in my system, was dead quiet and did not interfere my system sonics at all.
The Qol picks-up ~ 2 dB worth of gain when engaged as per Charles... I concur. It appeared that there was more information being retrieved with the Qol than with it bypassed. Perhaps the perceived increase in information was the added "gain"? IDK...
Overall, I could not find anything detractable about the Qol, except for its MSRP... and then again, it might be worth it... :duh
Does my system still sound good without it... YES!
Can I live without the Qol in my system... absolutely.
Do I want to live without the Qol in my system (after only 4 hours of listening with it)... Probably Not ](*,)
My initial impressions (more to follow on Friday & Saturday!),
Pete
-
Pete,
Thanks for the input and your take on the Qol. Charles already had me drooling a bit and you sure didn't help that! From most everything I've read, it sounds incredibly intriguing if not a bit mystifying.
There's an interesting discussion on AC here:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=99930.0
... that ultimately links to the only potential criticism I've found here:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing
which utlimately points to a couple other products that may or may not be similar in nature here:
http://www.fmacoustics.com/c_dom_fm_133_233_harmonic.html
and here:
http://rupertneve.com/products/portico-5014/
All very fascinating if not totally overwhelming and a challenge to sort out. Be that as it may, I really want to find a way to hear Qol myself at some point. I'm certain we've only hit the tip of the iceberg on this...
-
Pete glad you liked :roll: it. The "gain" [ 2db is an estimate ]is a result of what is extracted in absolute correct phasethrough qol. Very similar to adjusting ones subwoofer. When phase is correct for the sub it'sthe volume increases. Never before with any kind of device has this been accomplished.
Of course your system still sounds good. Just mo better with the qol :shock:
OK this is my official stand as an Audiophile not a dealer. Never in all my 40 years at this hobby has a device come along that changes the game. This is it. Period. I will stand by this statement with my reputation at stake. Yes a bold statement which I have doubt the BSGT qol technology will confirm in any system. :thumb:
charles
SMA
-
Does it perform better between source and pre on digital? Or is between pre and amp optimal regardless of medium? I'd love to get a demo on this thing....sounds very interesting. Thanks for the updates
-
Does it perform better between source and pre on digital? Or is between pre and amp optimal regardless of medium? I'd love to get a demo on this thing....sounds very interesting. Thanks for the updates
Actually hard to say, we like it in both positions. We are using it after the Pre right now. as it appears to have a slight edge. If one has a phono setup after the Pre if CD based then either way. The jury is still out.
Where are you located ? If you are in the NYC tri-state area a demo is in your future just email me at rollo14@verizon.net to arrange a day.
charles
SMA
-
Thanks Charles, I run digital only so it sounds like I would have options on placement to explore. I'm in Texas unfortunately.... :(
-
Thanks Charles, I run digital only so it sounds like I would have options on placement to explore. I'm in Texas unfortunately.... :(
I love that Texas Brisket but a bit of a drive. :lol: I will contact BSGT to see if there any dealers in your area for a home demo.
charles
SMA
-
Thanks Charles, very kind of you! If you ever end up out our way, brisket, beverages and listening session are on me! A link to my room and system http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?vevol&1115953260&read&keyw&zzvac
-
:drool: looking great there Buckaroo. thanks for that Texan hospitality.
charles
SMA
-
Charles have you put the Buss back in again and did stridency subside as the Buss got hours on it? Curious as I have custom hard wired from Dave on both my front end and amps and the interplay of the QOL and Buss is of interest to me.
-
Charles have you put the Buss back in again and did stridency subside as the Buss got hours on it? Curious as I have custom hard wired from Dave on both my front end and amps and the interplay of the QOL and Buss is of interest to me.
The stridency after 200 hours is gone. The qol is plugged into the Uberbuss with good affect.
charles
SMA
-
Thanks Charles! Good to hear they play well together...
-
I'm done. Yes thats right done. Living with the BSGT qol for a while now has convinced me to stop my audio journey.
Before being qoled I was a happy camper. All to me was right [ except vinyl] The vinyl set upneeded a new cart. Bought a Goldenote Boboli HOMC for the Lingo'ed Linn LP12. Before We had a chance to install it we became Kuzma dealers and waited for the Stobi S, Stogi 12s arm, external power supply and Crystal cable phono cable . In a word DONE.
Adding the BSGT just concludes a long 40 year journrey. I cannot listen without it. It has changed the game for me and others who have heard it in THEIR systems and bought it.
If you are confident and happy with your system and have no desire to change a thing, adding the BSGT will make ya giggle all the way to the record store.
From this point on no more Nervosa :roll: for a long time. If anything a new digital front end and that's a long shot. The Plinius 101 CDP is in instead of the Lector CDP. So far it's a keeper.
charles
SMA
-
Charles,
Has there been any scenarios where you would would have wanted to put the Qol in bypass? Any system or music that you felt it did more than you wanted?
-
Haven't found it in TX yet, but you are definitely piquing my interest Charles!
-
Thank you Charles! The Qol arrived for a demo today at my place gently tucked under the arms of a smiling Mr. Rollo and it was truly an ear opening experience! After a little while listening without, just to serve as a baseline, we connected the Qol.... and lo and behold we had the Left/Right channels backwards... (dark room and my I/C's were hard to reach easily). After realizing our mistake the cables were corrected and the system sounded better than I have ever heard it sound.
Main improvements?
1) Images had even more "density" "solidity" and locked-into-place presence
2) Space was even more airy and profound...instruments each had their own space which was even more pronounced than before ...
3) There was a tangibility to the acoustic which felt far more like I was present at the music-making event...it was simply more "there" ...in the room
This was a remarkably impressive demonstration and I must say I now have something seriously tugging at my wallet. Once you hear it, you will want it...
-
.....come on Charles, I'll warm up the BBQ.... :thumb:
-
Hey Lissnr had a great time Saturday. Thank you for your comments. Your system before the bsgt unit was installed was sounding magnificent. The system never sounded better.
Yes changing the Ics was a revelation. Made more of a difference than I thought. It wasn't that the sound was reversed it was just not in focus.
After living with the BSGT SCS for a while we have now confirmed the following: It is neutral, adds zero to the signal, it will reveal any deficiencies in the chain before it. The Bypass mode does NOT degrade the original sound. Powercords do make a difference. Using the same IC's throughout is recommended between Pre BSGT and Amp. Apples to apples. No need to flavor anything with a different IC. A power conditioner such as the PI Audio Uberbuss further improves space and dimension created by qol. Break-in is 200 hours plus or minus.
When all is broken in and you become familiar with the new sound field try moving your speakers a bit closer together. Reduce toe in as well. Moving our Pipedreams approx. 6" closer together and reducing toe in from 30 degrees to 22 it all came together. Now we have a more focused wider, deeper sound field with even more separation between instruments. Well worth the effort. Thanks Larry Kay for that tweek and bringing us this game changer. BRAVO !!
charles
SMA
-
.....come on Charles, I'll warm up the BBQ.... :thumb:
Dang that's tempting :drool:. Did Larry from BSGT contact you ??
charles
SMA
-
Interesting reading:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology)
-
I for one would love to see a photo of the insides.
- Is it all passive components (can't be because it needs to be powered up)?
- Does it work in the digital or analogue domaine (must be analogue since there's no signal degredation)?
- Is it "black boxed" so you can't tell what parts are being used or how?
- Are there transistors or op-amps or some other "chip" being used (probably, because they seem to be decoding and reconstructing the signal, at least they would have to do this to analyze phase and adjust it, I presume)?
-
Interesting reading:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology)
WOW! Sorry for the lack of technical expertise here, but... it kinda makes me think of what Naim supposedly did with their NAC 72 pre-amp years ago. Mixing a little bit of the opposite channels back into the circuit for bigger, better sound overall.
-
Ouch
-
First I'd like to hear how this information disappeared from my reproduction chain. And then how it was faithfully reproduced despite it not being present anymore.
I don't doubt that this device can make a system sound better, but I'm not convinved that it is restoring lost information that it somehow knows should be there.
-
I for one would love to see a photo of the insides.
- Is it all passive components (can't be because it needs to be powered up)?
- Does it work in the digital or analogue domain (must be analogue since there's no signal degradation)?
- Is it "black boxed" so you can't tell what parts are being used or how?
- Are there transistors or op-amps or some other "chip" being used (probably, because they seem to be decoding and reconstructing the signal, at least they would have to do this to analyze phase and adjust it, I presume)?
It works in the analog domain. Again no processing. The signal again is NOT reconstructed. No it is not "black boxed" . I will not open it up until the patent is secured.
For the flat earthers out there why is it so important to know how it is done ? This is not an equalizer, room correction device, DSP, no mixing of signals, expander or the like. It is a device like no other before it. Period.
The only true test is listening to it in your system. conjecture and opinions are just that. What it does is extract more information related to phase and acoustic information of the original recording space. The result is more acoustic info which shows up as increased volume.
Similar to adjusting phase on ones subwoofer. When correct it is louder.
charles
SMA
-
First I'd like to hear how this information disappeared from my reproduction chain. And then how it was faithfully reproduced despite it not being present anymore.
I don't doubt that this device can make a system sound better, but I'm not convinved that it is restoring lost information that it somehow knows should be there.
So, when would you like to hear it in your system ? Nothing disappeared it was always there. For the first time in our hobby it can now be brought forth.
All the other devices that manipulate, alter or process cannt hold a candle to qol. Why? No device can do what this does. It is ground breaking technology. Patent pending.
How can one be convinced of anything until you know more about it and hear it in your system ? :roll: :thumb:
charles
SMA
-
Interesting reading:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology)
WOW! Sorry for the lack of technical expertise here, but... it kinda makes me think of what Naim supposedly did with their NAC 72 pre-amp years ago. Mixing a little bit of the opposite channels back into the circuit for bigger, better sound overall.
Nope. Keep quessing. :thumb:
charles
SMA
-
Interesting reading:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology)
Without even knowing anything about what this box is or is supposed to do I can see from the pictures that it is a piece of pro audio gear with all 1/4 phone and XLR comnnectors. This tells me that anyone who tries to use it in a home system will run into the same kind of connector and signal level problems that we experienced with the stock ART Di/o units and will have to end up modding these things as well.
Not that it cna't be done, as there are many modded Di/os ouot there (including one in my mancave), but it is just another layer of complication that you need to be aware of when you are looking at a unit like this.
-
Ouch
Yup. I guess all those controls he has will no longer be required much. How else can they muck up the sound. loudness war anyone ? reverb ? right left stereo ? :rofl: :rofl: Are not the best recordings we have not processed much ? The writer alluded to another device however failed to compare them side by side. :shock: Not fair. in war and love.Only offered his opinion. Hey maybe an educated one but still not hands on Mano a Mano. :o
Think about it if the bsgt does it's job the recording Engineers job is not as artistic or valued as much. Hmmm. The only negative comment we have encountered. Makes ya wonder. :roll:
charles
SMA
-
To all the flatearthers :shock: out there. We love ya. aa. Take the qol challenge. Let me bring one over plug it in and you decide the outcome ??? are ya game ??
So far four in home demonstrations two sales, two pending. If you cannot afford it do not bother because the Nervosa will haunt you. Even if you are not in a position to buy one kidding aside I would more than happy to bring one over for the experience.
Say the word.
charles
SMA
-
Interesting reading:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4384-Stereo-Field-Processing&highlight=Technology)
WOW! Sorry for the lack of technical expertise here, but... it kinda makes me think of what Naim supposedly did with their NAC 72 pre-amp years ago. Mixing a little bit of the opposite channels back into the circuit for bigger, better sound overall.
Nope. Keep quessing. :thumb:
charles
SMA
Charles, you know I've heard the Qol at our November Syndrome meeting firsthand and think the differences with it in/out of Jim's system were more than obvious, so I'm not trying to discredit it. I wasn't trying to guess at the technology here. The Naim circuitry just happened to be what came to my mind after reading a few other posts.
No doubt that anytime a new piece of technology comes out that does things differently, better or in an unprecedented manner, it makes many of us wonder how do they do it!?!
Qol should be happy their piece is creating such a cross-talk.
-
I don't doubt that it can make a significant improvement in in one's listening pleasure.
I do doubt that is somehow knows the acoustical and phase information of the original recording space - that's just silly talk. So the device does nothing if it plays electronic music that has no original recording space? Hmmmm....
I'd still like to know how my system loses this information. Where did it go? How does Qol know what information was lost?
Nothin' wrong with saying that it creates additional spatial information. Since the signal changes, it's surely creating something.
I just can't believe it somehow knows what information my 600+ watt class-D based system is losing, and that it's the exact same information that Triode Pete's 2(?) watt tube system is losing, and that both systems need the exact same information added back in the make them both "right" again.
Again I don't doubt its ability to make a system sound better.
-
Charles - even flatearthers needed to understand the fundamental shift in thinking that the earth orbits the sun. I, for one, totally believe that the Qol is doing some pretty damn amazing, and likely, game changing things. I also have no doubt that when I hear it (my system, my ears), I'm going to want one.
But the engineer in me just wants some semblance of understanding on what it's doing - particularly before I start robbing my daughter's college fund. :rofl: What I've read so far just seems like marketing and trust-me raves. All good and greatly appreciated. Really. I just want more :drool:
-
I have heard what it does and can appreciate it. However I still think that there marketing materials are a pile of cr@p. The unit simply cannot create information that is not in the signal that is presented to it. It is just physically impossible. My guess it that in trying to simplify what the unit does for a not technical audience (as well as protect there proprietary information) the marketing folks have just lost their grip on the reality of what really happens inside the box.
And this is unfortunate because it is directing a huge amount of the discussion about the unit towards the weaselspeak of the marketing folks and away from a discussion of what the unit actually does from a listening perspective (which is what it is all about, isn't it?)
My advise on this issue - evaluate with your ears and not your eyes. Just take the writen descriptions of the unit as the marketing BS that they are and ignore them. Listen with your ears and then make up your own mind if the improvement you hear is worth pursuing.
-
The information IS in the original signal. The qol device creates or recreates nothing. Ones component doesn't lose and find a thing. Amp is just amplifying the new info brought forth.
Qol extracts more info available on the recording. That is the whole enchilada. That is why it is patent pending. How the BSGT qol accomplishes that is a valid question which I cannot answer at this time. Sorry.
Soon when the patent is in hand much more will be revealed and explained. When revealed how it works will that change the affect ? No. Curious minds are fine no issue with that whatsoever. I'm curious as well. No issue with doubting Thomas's either just the way it's presented.
No one is claiming the device "knows" or "finds" anything. BSGT Technologies is claiming it retrieves hidden info on the recording which was previously MIA. That's it no more no less.
Believe it or not is ones choice. I just feel that until one hears it in their system or actually knows how it works, guessing or assuming is just not fair to the product or BSGT at this time. How can we claim anything but what we hear until we really know the design concept ?
Just like me saying brick and mortar stores in NJ rip you off without knowing the brick and mortar people or their sales strategy.
charles
SMA
-
Despite their denial, it's an effects box. It offers real time analog version of what has been available in DSP plugins (http://spl.info/software/vitalizerr/beschreibung.html) for years. Phase and dynamics effects processing can sound great when applied tastefully. Nobody is denying the box works.
The problem is that the marketing smacks of the typical pro-audio disrespect for audiophiles. They are hiding behind patents, deny it's an effects box and make ridiculous claims like "hidden information on every recording" because they don't want to scare away the rabbit with the truth that it adds good sounding artificial distortion to our pure and innocent signal.
Charles, I think it's fair to question the Qol sales pitch in this open discussion ward because you are financially invested in our believing it.
-
.....come on Charles, I'll warm up the BBQ.... :thumb:
Dang that's tempting :drool:. Did Larry from BSGT contact you ??
charles
SMA
Charles, I never heard from anyone at BSGT and after a couple days I sent them a direct email and still nothing.
Curious guy that I am, I did swap some emails with the gentleman from WBF to get more information on the Rupert Neve Stereo Field Editor mentioned in the thread over there. I have one coming with a 30 day return option so I can see what it does and if I ever get the opportunity to do the same with a BSGT unit would at least have a perspective on each. I'll have the Neve this weekend and will report back results. Like the BSGT it also operates entirely in the analog domain, and if you check out his website you'll see Rupert is a bit of a legend in the recording industry. I like a couple of aspects out of the gate. 1 - the ability to dial and adjut the effects (I can't tell if this is possible with the BSGT) and 2- the cost is $1800 if it works well and is worth keeping. I don't know enough to know anything about what either product does with a signal, so only listen for what I hear. More to come....if you're near Fort Worth, you're welcome to come by and hear the Neve, just drop me a PM.
-
Patent application # 20110158413
The qol device creates or recreates nothing
:rofl:
Claims
1. An audio reproduction method comprising the steps of: selecting a discrete signal source having left and right signals; applying the left selected discrete signal to first and second summing circuits; inverting said left selected discrete signal and applying said inverted left selected discrete signal to a third summing circuit; applying the right selected discrete signal to said second and third summing circuit; inverting said right selected discrete signal and applying the inverted right selected discrete signal to said first summing circuit; applying the output of said first and second summing circuits to a left output summing circuit; adjusting the gain of each input of said left output summing circuit such that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio; mixing the input signals to said left output summing circuit to produce a left output signal; applying the output of said third and second summing circuits to a right output summing circuit; adjusting the gain of each input of said right output summing circuit such that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio; and mixing the input signals to said right output summing circuit to produce a right output signal, thereby producing audio output signals for the production of sound.
2. The audio reproduction method of claim 1, wherein the steps of adjusting the gain of each input of the left and right output summing circuits comprises: adjusting the gain of each input to the left output summing circuit relative to each other to so that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and adjusting the gain of each input to the right output summing circuit relative to each other such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
3. The audio reproduction method of claim 1, wherein each of the left and right input signals are applied to a corresponding unity gain amplifier.
4. An audio reproduction system comprising: a discrete signal source having left and right signal outputs; first, second and third summing circuits, each having an output, and each having a left input and a right input operatively connected to the left and right signal outputs of the discrete signal source, respectively, wherein the left input of the first, second and third summing circuits receive a left input signal associated with the left signal output of the discrete signal source, and right input of the first, second and third summing circuits receive a right input signal associated with the right signal output of the discrete signal source; a left inverter connected so as to invert the left input signal prior to the third summing circuit; a right inverter connected so as to invert the right input signal prior to the first summing circuit; a left output summing circuit comprising first and second inputs connected to said first and second summing circuit outputs, respectively, and comprising an amplification component for separately adjusting the signal gain at the first and second input, said left output circuit configured to produce a left output signal which is the result of mixing the gain adjusted signals at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the signals at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit at least approximates the golden ratio; and a right output summing circuit comprising first and second inputs connected to said second and third summing circuit outputs, respectively, and comprising an amplification component for separately adjusting the signal gain at the first and second input, said right output circuit configured to produce a right output signal which is the result of mixing the gain adjusted signals at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the signals at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit at least approximates the golden ratio.
5. The audio reproduction system of claim 4, wherein the amplification component associated with the left output summing circuit is configured to separately adjust the signal gain at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and wherein the amplification component associated with the right output summing circuit is configured to separately adjust the signal gain at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
6. The audio reproduction system of claim 4 further comprising a left and a right unity gain amplifier, wherein the left signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the left unity gain amplifier and the right signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the right unity gain amplifier.
7. The audio reproduction system of claim 4 further comprising a left and a right negative unity gain amplifier, wherein the left signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the left negative unity gain amplifier and the right signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the right negative unity gain amplifier.
8. An audio reproduction method comprising the steps of: selecting a discrete signal source having left and right signal inputs; summing said left input signal and an inverted right input signal to produce a left-right difference signal; summing said right input signal and an inverted left input signal to produce a right-left difference signal; summing said left and right input signals to produce a left+right summed signal; adjusting the gain of said left+right summed signal; adjusting the gain of the left-right difference signal; adjusting the gain of the right-left difference signal; summing the gain adjusted left+right summed signal and the gain adjusted left-right difference signal so as to produce a left audio output signal, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the left+right summed signal and the left-right difference signal at least approximates the golden ratio; and summing the gain adjusted left+right summed signal and the gain adjusted right-left difference signal so as to produce a right audio output signal, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the left+right summed signal and the right-left difference signal at least approximates the golden ratio.
9. The audio reproduction method of claim 8, wherein the gain of the left+right summed signal is asymmetrically adjusted relative to the gain of the left-right difference signal, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and wherein the gain of the left+right summed signal is asymmetrically adjusted relative to the gain of the right-left difference signal, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
10. The audio reproduction method of claim 8, wherein each of the left and right input signals are applied to a corresponding negative unity gain amplifier.
11. An audio signal reproduction method comprising: mixing a plurality of input signals so as to generate a plurality of intermediate signals; pairing each of the plurality of intermediate signals with another one of the plurality of intermediate signals; adjusting the gain associated with each of the plurality of intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains associated with the intermediate signals that make up each pair of intermediate signals at least approximates the golden ratio; mixing each of the gain adjusted intermediate signals with the other one of the plurality of gain adjusted intermediate signals that make up the corresponding pair of intermediate signals; and generating an audio output signal corresponding to each of the mixed, gain adjusted intermediate signal pairs.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein mixing the plurality of input signals so as to generate the plurality of intermediate signals comprises: mixing a left input signal and a right input signal; and generating three intermediate signals, where each of the three intermediate signals is one of a sum and difference signal based on the left and right input signals.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein pairing each of the plurality of intermediate signals with another one of the plurality of intermediate signals comprises: pairing a first one of the three intermediate signals with a second one of the three intermediate signals; and pairing a third one of the three intermediate signals with the second one of the three intermediate signals.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the gain associated with each of the plurality of intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains associated with the intermediate signals that make up each pair of intermediate signals at least approximates the golden ratio comprises: adjusting the gain associated with the first one of the three intermediate signals and adjusting the gain associated with the second one of the three intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and adjusting the gain associated with the third one of the three intermediate signals and adjusting the gain associated with the second one of the three intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the plurality of input signals are inverted prior to mixing.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the intermediate signals are inverted prior to mixing.
17. A circuit for reproducing an audio signal from a plurality of input signals, the circuit comprising: a first plurality of audio mixers, each having two inputs and an output, wherein each of the two inputs is configured to receive a signal based on a different one of the plurality of input signals, wherein the output is configured to provide one of a plurality of intermediate signals, and wherein the one intermediate signal is the result of the mixing of the signals at the two inputs; a second plurality of audio mixers, each of the second audio mixers having two inputs and an output, wherein each of the two inputs is configured to receive a different one of the plurality of intermediate signals, wherein the output is configured to provide one of a plurality of output signals, wherein the one output signal is the result of the mixing of the two corresponding intermediate signals, and wherein the gain associated with each of the two corresponding intermediate signals have been adjusted so that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio.
18. The circuit of claim 17, wherein each of the second plurality of audio mixers comprises: two amplification components, wherein each of the two amplification components is configured to adjust the gain of a corresponding one of the two intermediate signals received at the two inputs of the audio mixer.
19. The circuit of claim 17, wherein the plurality of input signals includes a left input signal and a right input signal, and wherein each of the plurality of intermediate signals is one of a sum and a difference signal based on the left and right input signals.
20. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising one or more inverters, wherein the one or more inverters are configured to invert one or more of the left input signal and the right input signal.
21. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising one or more inverters, wherein the one or more inverters are configured to invert one or more of the plurality of intermediate signals.
22. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising: a left unity amplifier configured to receive the left input signal; and a right unity amplifier configured to receive the right input signal.
23. The circuit of claim 22, wherein the left and right unity amplifiers are negative unity amplifiers.
24. The circuit of claim 17, wherein the second plurality of audio mixers comprises two summing circuits, wherein the first of the two summing circuits is configured to mix a first one of the plurality of intermediate signals and a second one of the plurality of intermediate signals, and wherein the second of the two summing circuits is configured to mix the second one of the plurality of intermediate signals and a third one of the plurality of intermediate signals.
25. The circuit of claim 24, wherein the gain associated with the first one of the plurality of intermediate signals and the gain associated with the third one of the plurality of intermediate signals are adjusted such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618, and wherein the gain associated with the third one of the plurality of intermediate signals and the gain associated with the second one of the plurality of intermediate signals are adjusted such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
-
Patent application # 20110158413
The qol device creates or recreates nothing
:rofl:
Claims
1. An audio reproduction method comprising the steps of: selecting a discrete signal source having left and right signals; applying the left selected discrete signal to first and second summing circuits; inverting said left selected discrete signal and applying said inverted left selected discrete signal to a third summing circuit; applying the right selected discrete signal to said second and third summing circuit; inverting said right selected discrete signal and applying the inverted right selected discrete signal to said first summing circuit; applying the output of said first and second summing circuits to a left output summing circuit; adjusting the gain of each input of said left output summing circuit such that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio; mixing the input signals to said left output summing circuit to produce a left output signal; applying the output of said third and second summing circuits to a right output summing circuit; adjusting the gain of each input of said right output summing circuit such that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio; and mixing the input signals to said right output summing circuit to produce a right output signal, thereby producing audio output signals for the production of sound.
2. The audio reproduction method of claim 1, wherein the steps of adjusting the gain of each input of the left and right output summing circuits comprises: adjusting the gain of each input to the left output summing circuit relative to each other to so that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and adjusting the gain of each input to the right output summing circuit relative to each other such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
3. The audio reproduction method of claim 1, wherein each of the left and right input signals are applied to a corresponding unity gain amplifier.
4. An audio reproduction system comprising: a discrete signal source having left and right signal outputs; first, second and third summing circuits, each having an output, and each having a left input and a right input operatively connected to the left and right signal outputs of the discrete signal source, respectively, wherein the left input of the first, second and third summing circuits receive a left input signal associated with the left signal output of the discrete signal source, and right input of the first, second and third summing circuits receive a right input signal associated with the right signal output of the discrete signal source; a left inverter connected so as to invert the left input signal prior to the third summing circuit; a right inverter connected so as to invert the right input signal prior to the first summing circuit; a left output summing circuit comprising first and second inputs connected to said first and second summing circuit outputs, respectively, and comprising an amplification component for separately adjusting the signal gain at the first and second input, said left output circuit configured to produce a left output signal which is the result of mixing the gain adjusted signals at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the signals at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit at least approximates the golden ratio; and a right output summing circuit comprising first and second inputs connected to said second and third summing circuit outputs, respectively, and comprising an amplification component for separately adjusting the signal gain at the first and second input, said right output circuit configured to produce a right output signal which is the result of mixing the gain adjusted signals at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the signals at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit at least approximates the golden ratio.
5. The audio reproduction system of claim 4, wherein the amplification component associated with the left output summing circuit is configured to separately adjust the signal gain at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and wherein the amplification component associated with the right output summing circuit is configured to separately adjust the signal gain at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
6. The audio reproduction system of claim 4 further comprising a left and a right unity gain amplifier, wherein the left signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the left unity gain amplifier and the right signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the right unity gain amplifier.
7. The audio reproduction system of claim 4 further comprising a left and a right negative unity gain amplifier, wherein the left signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the left negative unity gain amplifier and the right signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the right negative unity gain amplifier.
8. An audio reproduction method comprising the steps of: selecting a discrete signal source having left and right signal inputs; summing said left input signal and an inverted right input signal to produce a left-right difference signal; summing said right input signal and an inverted left input signal to produce a right-left difference signal; summing said left and right input signals to produce a left+right summed signal; adjusting the gain of said left+right summed signal; adjusting the gain of the left-right difference signal; adjusting the gain of the right-left difference signal; summing the gain adjusted left+right summed signal and the gain adjusted left-right difference signal so as to produce a left audio output signal, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the left+right summed signal and the left-right difference signal at least approximates the golden ratio; and summing the gain adjusted left+right summed signal and the gain adjusted right-left difference signal so as to produce a right audio output signal, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the left+right summed signal and the right-left difference signal at least approximates the golden ratio.
9. The audio reproduction method of claim 8, wherein the gain of the left+right summed signal is asymmetrically adjusted relative to the gain of the left-right difference signal, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and wherein the gain of the left+right summed signal is asymmetrically adjusted relative to the gain of the right-left difference signal, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
10. The audio reproduction method of claim 8, wherein each of the left and right input signals are applied to a corresponding negative unity gain amplifier.
11. An audio signal reproduction method comprising: mixing a plurality of input signals so as to generate a plurality of intermediate signals; pairing each of the plurality of intermediate signals with another one of the plurality of intermediate signals; adjusting the gain associated with each of the plurality of intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains associated with the intermediate signals that make up each pair of intermediate signals at least approximates the golden ratio; mixing each of the gain adjusted intermediate signals with the other one of the plurality of gain adjusted intermediate signals that make up the corresponding pair of intermediate signals; and generating an audio output signal corresponding to each of the mixed, gain adjusted intermediate signal pairs.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein mixing the plurality of input signals so as to generate the plurality of intermediate signals comprises: mixing a left input signal and a right input signal; and generating three intermediate signals, where each of the three intermediate signals is one of a sum and difference signal based on the left and right input signals.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein pairing each of the plurality of intermediate signals with another one of the plurality of intermediate signals comprises: pairing a first one of the three intermediate signals with a second one of the three intermediate signals; and pairing a third one of the three intermediate signals with the second one of the three intermediate signals.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the gain associated with each of the plurality of intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains associated with the intermediate signals that make up each pair of intermediate signals at least approximates the golden ratio comprises: adjusting the gain associated with the first one of the three intermediate signals and adjusting the gain associated with the second one of the three intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and adjusting the gain associated with the third one of the three intermediate signals and adjusting the gain associated with the second one of the three intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the plurality of input signals are inverted prior to mixing.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the intermediate signals are inverted prior to mixing.
17. A circuit for reproducing an audio signal from a plurality of input signals, the circuit comprising: a first plurality of audio mixers, each having two inputs and an output, wherein each of the two inputs is configured to receive a signal based on a different one of the plurality of input signals, wherein the output is configured to provide one of a plurality of intermediate signals, and wherein the one intermediate signal is the result of the mixing of the signals at the two inputs; a second plurality of audio mixers, each of the second audio mixers having two inputs and an output, wherein each of the two inputs is configured to receive a different one of the plurality of intermediate signals, wherein the output is configured to provide one of a plurality of output signals, wherein the one output signal is the result of the mixing of the two corresponding intermediate signals, and wherein the gain associated with each of the two corresponding intermediate signals have been adjusted so that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio.
18. The circuit of claim 17, wherein each of the second plurality of audio mixers comprises: two amplification components, wherein each of the two amplification components is configured to adjust the gain of a corresponding one of the two intermediate signals received at the two inputs of the audio mixer.
19. The circuit of claim 17, wherein the plurality of input signals includes a left input signal and a right input signal, and wherein each of the plurality of intermediate signals is one of a sum and a difference signal based on the left and right input signals.
20. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising one or more inverters, wherein the one or more inverters are configured to invert one or more of the left input signal and the right input signal.
21. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising one or more inverters, wherein the one or more inverters are configured to invert one or more of the plurality of intermediate signals.
22. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising: a left unity amplifier configured to receive the left input signal; and a right unity amplifier configured to receive the right input signal.
23. The circuit of claim 22, wherein the left and right unity amplifiers are negative unity amplifiers.
24. The circuit of claim 17, wherein the second plurality of audio mixers comprises two summing circuits, wherein the first of the two summing circuits is configured to mix a first one of the plurality of intermediate signals and a second one of the plurality of intermediate signals, and wherein the second of the two summing circuits is configured to mix the second one of the plurality of intermediate signals and a third one of the plurality of intermediate signals.
25. The circuit of claim 24, wherein the gain associated with the first one of the plurality of intermediate signals and the gain associated with the third one of the plurality of intermediate signals are adjusted such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618, and wherein the gain associated with the third one of the plurality of intermediate signals and the gain associated with the second one of the plurality of intermediate signals are adjusted such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
Geez! Glad I decided NOT to become a Patent Attorney!!!
BTW, I prefer the Golden Ratio of 1.6180339887 that Paul Klipsch stated in his room designs... :rofl:
-
OK, let's be fair to Qol. I went to their web site and what they say about the unit is different from what has been said here and in other places in the press in some subtle but very significant ways. Qol does not claim that they are extracting more information from the source (which is what I took issue with), but rather that "bsg technologies has developed a method of retrieving sonic information from audio signals that provides a realistic and complete rendering of the original acoustic event." Finding a way to manipulate the signal so that "more information" can be heard from it is very different from extracting more information from the original source. However, in spite of bsg's claim on the next line that "qøl™ is NOT a processor" I beg to differ. IF a component exists for the sole purpose of changing the signal that goes through it in some way then it is a signal processor, plain and simple. To claim that it is not because it processes the signal in a different way from previous signal processors is just plain and simple weaselspeak.
But like I said previously, the important thing is not really how it does it, but rather what it does. And that has to be judged by our ears in a listening session, not by our eyes in a reading session.
I also wonder how much of this uproar is related to the asking price and people trying to figure out if the unit does $4k worth of "work". Would every body be this up in arms over how it worked if it cost $400 instead of $4,000? My sense is that a lot people would be saying "it makes a sound improvement for only $400, so I really don't care what goes on inside the box."
-
Patent application # 20110158413
The qol device creates or recreates nothing
:rofl:
Claims
1. An audio reproduction method comprising the steps of: selecting a discrete signal source having left and right signals; applying the left selected discrete signal to first and second summing circuits; inverting said left selected discrete signal and applying said inverted left selected discrete signal to a third summing circuit; applying the right selected discrete signal to said second and third summing circuit; inverting said right selected discrete signal and applying the inverted right selected discrete signal to said first summing circuit; applying the output of said first and second summing circuits to a left output summing circuit; adjusting the gain of each input of said left output summing circuit such that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio; mixing the input signals to said left output summing circuit to produce a left output signal; applying the output of said third and second summing circuits to a right output summing circuit; adjusting the gain of each input of said right output summing circuit such that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio; and mixing the input signals to said right output summing circuit to produce a right output signal, thereby producing audio output signals for the production of sound.
2. The audio reproduction method of claim 1, wherein the steps of adjusting the gain of each input of the left and right output summing circuits comprises: adjusting the gain of each input to the left output summing circuit relative to each other to so that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and adjusting the gain of each input to the right output summing circuit relative to each other such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
3. The audio reproduction method of claim 1, wherein each of the left and right input signals are applied to a corresponding unity gain amplifier.
4. An audio reproduction system comprising: a discrete signal source having left and right signal outputs; first, second and third summing circuits, each having an output, and each having a left input and a right input operatively connected to the left and right signal outputs of the discrete signal source, respectively, wherein the left input of the first, second and third summing circuits receive a left input signal associated with the left signal output of the discrete signal source, and right input of the first, second and third summing circuits receive a right input signal associated with the right signal output of the discrete signal source; a left inverter connected so as to invert the left input signal prior to the third summing circuit; a right inverter connected so as to invert the right input signal prior to the first summing circuit; a left output summing circuit comprising first and second inputs connected to said first and second summing circuit outputs, respectively, and comprising an amplification component for separately adjusting the signal gain at the first and second input, said left output circuit configured to produce a left output signal which is the result of mixing the gain adjusted signals at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the signals at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit at least approximates the golden ratio; and a right output summing circuit comprising first and second inputs connected to said second and third summing circuit outputs, respectively, and comprising an amplification component for separately adjusting the signal gain at the first and second input, said right output circuit configured to produce a right output signal which is the result of mixing the gain adjusted signals at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the signals at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit at least approximates the golden ratio.
5. The audio reproduction system of claim 4, wherein the amplification component associated with the left output summing circuit is configured to separately adjust the signal gain at the first and second input of the left output summing circuit, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and wherein the amplification component associated with the right output summing circuit is configured to separately adjust the signal gain at the first and second input of the right output summing circuit, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
6. The audio reproduction system of claim 4 further comprising a left and a right unity gain amplifier, wherein the left signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the left unity gain amplifier and the right signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the right unity gain amplifier.
7. The audio reproduction system of claim 4 further comprising a left and a right negative unity gain amplifier, wherein the left signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the left negative unity gain amplifier and the right signal output of the discrete signal source is applied to the right negative unity gain amplifier.
8. An audio reproduction method comprising the steps of: selecting a discrete signal source having left and right signal inputs; summing said left input signal and an inverted right input signal to produce a left-right difference signal; summing said right input signal and an inverted left input signal to produce a right-left difference signal; summing said left and right input signals to produce a left+right summed signal; adjusting the gain of said left+right summed signal; adjusting the gain of the left-right difference signal; adjusting the gain of the right-left difference signal; summing the gain adjusted left+right summed signal and the gain adjusted left-right difference signal so as to produce a left audio output signal, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the left+right summed signal and the left-right difference signal at least approximates the golden ratio; and summing the gain adjusted left+right summed signal and the gain adjusted right-left difference signal so as to produce a right audio output signal, wherein the ratio of gains associated with the left+right summed signal and the right-left difference signal at least approximates the golden ratio.
9. The audio reproduction method of claim 8, wherein the gain of the left+right summed signal is asymmetrically adjusted relative to the gain of the left-right difference signal, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and wherein the gain of the left+right summed signal is asymmetrically adjusted relative to the gain of the right-left difference signal, such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
10. The audio reproduction method of claim 8, wherein each of the left and right input signals are applied to a corresponding negative unity gain amplifier.
11. An audio signal reproduction method comprising: mixing a plurality of input signals so as to generate a plurality of intermediate signals; pairing each of the plurality of intermediate signals with another one of the plurality of intermediate signals; adjusting the gain associated with each of the plurality of intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains associated with the intermediate signals that make up each pair of intermediate signals at least approximates the golden ratio; mixing each of the gain adjusted intermediate signals with the other one of the plurality of gain adjusted intermediate signals that make up the corresponding pair of intermediate signals; and generating an audio output signal corresponding to each of the mixed, gain adjusted intermediate signal pairs.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein mixing the plurality of input signals so as to generate the plurality of intermediate signals comprises: mixing a left input signal and a right input signal; and generating three intermediate signals, where each of the three intermediate signals is one of a sum and difference signal based on the left and right input signals.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein pairing each of the plurality of intermediate signals with another one of the plurality of intermediate signals comprises: pairing a first one of the three intermediate signals with a second one of the three intermediate signals; and pairing a third one of the three intermediate signals with the second one of the three intermediate signals.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the gain associated with each of the plurality of intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains associated with the intermediate signals that make up each pair of intermediate signals at least approximates the golden ratio comprises: adjusting the gain associated with the first one of the three intermediate signals and adjusting the gain associated with the second one of the three intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618; and adjusting the gain associated with the third one of the three intermediate signals and adjusting the gain associated with the second one of the three intermediate signals such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the plurality of input signals are inverted prior to mixing.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein one or more of the intermediate signals are inverted prior to mixing.
17. A circuit for reproducing an audio signal from a plurality of input signals, the circuit comprising: a first plurality of audio mixers, each having two inputs and an output, wherein each of the two inputs is configured to receive a signal based on a different one of the plurality of input signals, wherein the output is configured to provide one of a plurality of intermediate signals, and wherein the one intermediate signal is the result of the mixing of the signals at the two inputs; a second plurality of audio mixers, each of the second audio mixers having two inputs and an output, wherein each of the two inputs is configured to receive a different one of the plurality of intermediate signals, wherein the output is configured to provide one of a plurality of output signals, wherein the one output signal is the result of the mixing of the two corresponding intermediate signals, and wherein the gain associated with each of the two corresponding intermediate signals have been adjusted so that the ratio of gains at least approximates the golden ratio.
18. The circuit of claim 17, wherein each of the second plurality of audio mixers comprises: two amplification components, wherein each of the two amplification components is configured to adjust the gain of a corresponding one of the two intermediate signals received at the two inputs of the audio mixer.
19. The circuit of claim 17, wherein the plurality of input signals includes a left input signal and a right input signal, and wherein each of the plurality of intermediate signals is one of a sum and a difference signal based on the left and right input signals.
20. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising one or more inverters, wherein the one or more inverters are configured to invert one or more of the left input signal and the right input signal.
21. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising one or more inverters, wherein the one or more inverters are configured to invert one or more of the plurality of intermediate signals.
22. The circuit of claim 19 further comprising: a left unity amplifier configured to receive the left input signal; and a right unity amplifier configured to receive the right input signal.
23. The circuit of claim 22, wherein the left and right unity amplifiers are negative unity amplifiers.
24. The circuit of claim 17, wherein the second plurality of audio mixers comprises two summing circuits, wherein the first of the two summing circuits is configured to mix a first one of the plurality of intermediate signals and a second one of the plurality of intermediate signals, and wherein the second of the two summing circuits is configured to mix the second one of the plurality of intermediate signals and a third one of the plurality of intermediate signals.
25. The circuit of claim 24, wherein the gain associated with the first one of the plurality of intermediate signals and the gain associated with the third one of the plurality of intermediate signals are adjusted such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618, and wherein the gain associated with the third one of the plurality of intermediate signals and the gain associated with the second one of the plurality of intermediate signals are adjusted such that the ratio of gains is within 10 percent of 1.618.
This is what happens when lawyers get involved in engineering. :rofl: :shock: :rofl:
-
Just shorten that to "That's what happens when lawyers get involved."
-
I also wonder how much of this uproar is related to the asking price and people trying to figure out if the unit does $4k worth of "work". Would every body be this up in arms over how it worked if it cost $400 instead of $4,000? My sense is that a lot people would be saying "it makes a sound improvement for only $400, so I really don't care what goes on inside the box."
About 10-15 years ago I bought into that whole pure sound crap the magazines were spouting. I played with parts mods and sat in critical listening mode looking for elusive sound particles. It was not alltogether enjoyable, but I did learn a lot technically.
But I grew ad many audiophiles do. I emerged enlightened and finally found a sound I liked. I could sit back and enjoy, relax, smile ... it's all good to me, right now. I believe I graduated to the next level. I really don't care if it's pure anymore, as long as I am smiling and tapping my foot (although some basics do apply).
The Qol unit falls into this category I believe. I don't take any exception with it's signal processing, if that makes things sound better to you. I do take exception to the marketing crap though. No, it's not pseudo quantum mechanics (like Bybee) or mysticism (like Shakti or machine dynamics) but it is unexplained. Maybe that's how they justify their extroadinary pricing. What you don't know can hurt you, or at least your wallet.
Does it make a difference to the sound - yes, I heard it several times now. Does it make you happy and do you have the cash for it - then maybe you should consider buying it. Does it always work - not to my ears. I've heard it on cone speakers and this transformation was truly inspired - all good. Pete also says it is tremendous on his horns. But I heard it on Maggies and I was not liking it. I also heard it on Apogees and I don't think it is warranted there (they can sound just as open and spacious on their own with proper setup and room treatments).
In my opinion this unit expands the soundstage and spaciousness of a recording, something cone speakers strive for but rarely achieve, but also something panels do naturally. It seems to be too much of a good thing on them to my ears.
I would truly like to look inside that box and see what is inside. That would potentially explain a lot. Clearly they admit to playing games with phase and it makes sense given what I heard. Is it pure audiophilia - definitely not. Will it make you smile and enjoy your system more - possibly so. Are there other units that do similar things for less $ - possibly so. Does this technology have applications for desktop PC audio and laptops - it is already there in the form of "Beats Audio" on HP laptops that makes things sound bigger, euphonic and dimensional. Phase processing for sure.
-
As I've consistently said, I have no doubt that the device (is it pronounced "cool" or "coal" ?) has the potential to increase one's enjoyment of their system tremendously. I'd guess that the change is more noticable than any amp-for-amp swap or pre-for-pre swap etc. and therefore most likely, on a sound-quality-change-for-the-doller basis, represents a bargain.
:thumb:
-
This is simply not the audiophile way of things! :-({|= An inexpensive electronic phase correction circuit that makes inexpensive things sound like expensive things? They very well may have a game changer here - at least us cheapies hope they do since we can't all be buying $20k digital front ends if they license it at the top end of the marketplace.
I'm a little late to the party and have been silently reading along.
Must be nice to be able to judge a $4,000 piece of audio gear to be inexpensive.
I get it that all things are relative to your personal situation, but it is comments like this that lead me to believe that most audiophiles have completely lost all sense of scale and perspective.
Now that I got that off my chest it's time to go back to silence.
--Jerome
-
I suspect most of us have, at times, jumped early into new gear based on early buzz, rave reviews, etc... I know I have. Sometimes it proved to be a great investment. Other times, after the honeymoon period, not so much. On more than one occasion, I dodged a bullet by suppressing the early urge to buy.
At $4k, I do have reservations -- not to question those that have heard what Qol does, but to have concerns about the longevity of the technology and BSG Technologies. As a new and expensive product and as a relatively unknown company, they really must get everything right at each turn to make this into a highly successful product. Certainly a big upcoming review by a recognized rag will go a long way toward their credibility.
I strongly suspect that when I hear it, my ears will convince me to buy it, but I want equal confidence that Qol and BSGT will be around 3 years from now. For me, that's just going to take a bit more time and understanding to get there.
-
As was discussed earlier, the financial gain to be had by the company in the long run likely isn't from selling stand alone boxes - but by having their technology licensed and included in mass market products where economies of scale would make it more viable and affordable.
Look at Dolby...
Bryan
-
As was discussed earlier, the financial gain to be had by the company in the long run likely isn't from selling stand alone boxes - but by having their technology licensed and included in mass market products where economies of scale would make it more viable and affordable.
Look at Dolby...
Bryan
Look at Dobly is right.... Ray Dolby was listed as #166 on the Forbes 2011 list of the wealthiest people in the world with a net worth of $2.4B !!!! :shock:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/list/#p_2_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20states_All%20categories_
-
This is simply not the audiophile way of things! :-({|= An inexpensive electronic phase correction circuit that makes inexpensive things sound like expensive things? They very well may have a game changer here - at least us cheapies hope they do since we can't all be buying $20k digital front ends if they license it at the top end of the marketplace.
I'm a little late to the party and have been silently reading along.
Must be nice to be able to judge a $4,000 piece of audio gear to be inexpensive.
I get it that all things are relative to your personal situation, but it is comments like this that lead me to believe that most audiophiles have completely lost all sense of scale and perspective.
Now that I got that off my chest it's time to go back to silence.
--Jerome
I don't think the implication was that this unit itself was inexpensive, but that if the technology gets licensed and built into units from the ground up, that could be done for a small fraction of the current $4k price and that could have a huge impact on the industry. Again, look at Dobly. What was the price of the first outboard dobly units, and once the technology became licensed and into the mass market product it was virtually ubiqitous in at least casstte decks and ended up adding very little to the price of those units.
-
Ok Tom, but as a forward looking statement whether or not the technology will be available at an "affordable" price remains to be seen. At the moment the buy-in cost is $4k if I understand correctly.
--Jerome
-
Early adopter = expensive and potentially immature technology
I guess it all depends on what it does for you and how much you can control your audiophile urges.
-
Ok Tom, but as a forward looking statement whether or not the technology will be available at an "affordable" price remains to be seen. At the moment the buy-in cost is $4k if I understand correctly.
--Jerome
Agreed
-
Early adopter = expensive and potentially immature technology
I guess it all depends on what it does for you and how much you can control your audiophile urges.
Control your urges???????? :shock:
Boy are you in the wrong place. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Now that we have seen the patent information I'm still puzzled as to how it is implemented. It appears I may have confused or overstated the how part. Meaning how it is implemented in circuitry. Could it be that the manipulation of the signal is a new way of handling the recorded information to provide more information or is it processed. Samantics ? marketing, not sure. Anyway something is going on.
Saying that I still stand by my statement that this is a game changer. I put my audio reputation on the line stating that here. My comments are from my audiophile heart and ears not from dealers hype. I think you guys know me better than that.
Will a DSP device, expander, digital processing accomplish the same ? Frankly I cannot say. Until a direct comparison is made my conjecture would be just that.
The only way to determine if the BSGT qol is right for you is to try it your system. Pricing is always an issue for us all. Is it worth the price ? Only the end user can decide that.
Now living with qol and experimenting with cabling and other components I can say that like any neutral device it will expose the character of such good or bad. Very similar to my experience with the CAT Preamp and the Pipedream speakers.
When we demonstrated the qol with Apogee speakers at first I did not like the sound, something was not right. Later we discovered that the channels were reversed. The listeners who listened to their Cd's before Qol were unable to detect that, which was surprising. When they left the owner of the system put on a familiar recording and noticed it right away. When the channels were corrected so was the presentation. It appeared that when channels were reversed it had an ill affect with phase and balance. Just do not know why. We did hear a major difference. It was better focused and fuller with more weight.
BSGT reccommends adjusting the speakers a bit closer together with less toe in. Moved the Pipedreams approx 6" closer and changed toe in from 30 degrees to 22. A tighter presentation than before. Like any new device some change or experimentation is likely. With Maggies which I still own are very particular with placement to get the tweeter not to sound bright or overbearing. Volume is an issue as well. Maggies when pushed will sound like crap. They have a sweet spot for volume in a given room.
Although we heard the benefits of the soundstaging, decay of notes, harmonics the topend was not right.
So moved the Pipedreams out of the way put in the Maggie 3A and listened. The Maggies were placed in the optimal position In our room before qol. To my surprise heard the same issues as before. The tweeters were brighter than usual and strained at high volume. Could not live with that. Was not pleasant. What got me was that with Analysis Ribbons in two different systems no speaker changes were needed.
What to do ? Moved them 6' apart instead of seven and reduced toe in a 1/2 at a time to dial it in. Settled on 6'-2" apart with a 15 degree toe in. Ah ha no more treble madness.
So like with any new component experimentation is required for optimal sound. It has been a learning experience so far and will continue to be so.
The whole concept of SMA is allowing said component to be heard in your system. We let you hook it up, we offer no opinion nor comment on a thing. The customer decides on his own. It is all about synergy not salesmanship or marketing prose. We can read all we want, evaluate specs, question methods and the like with very good reason. At the end of the day though what it sounds like in ones system is what matters the most to us. :thumb:
charles
SMA
-
I suspect most of us have, at times, jumped early into new gear based on early buzz, rave reviews, etc... I know I have. Sometimes it proved to be a great investment. Other times, after the honeymoon period, not so much. On more than one occasion, I dodged a bullet by suppressing the early urge to buy.
At $4k, I do have reservations -- not to question those that have heard what Qol does, but to have concerns about the longevity of the technology and BSG Technologies. As a new and expensive product and as a relatively unknown company, they really must get everything right at each turn to make this into a highly successful product. Certainly a big upcoming review by a recognized rag will go a long way toward their credibility.
I strongly suspect that when I hear it, my ears will convince me to buy it, but I want equal confidence that Qol and BSGT will be around 3 years from now. For me, that's just going to take a bit more time and understanding to get there.
You made valid points. A review in the Absolute Sound is forthcoming by Robert Harley. Curious myself to read his comments to see if they fall in line with our opinion. Time will tell.
It is wise not to jump in to anything right away. Especially a piece that costs $3995 list. The 30 day home trial with MBG offered by BSGT is reasonable if a dealer is not in your area.
Only fools rush in patience is a virtue. Let's see what Harley has to say.
charles
SMA
-
Having skimmed through the patent I now get it and what it's doing...
Sounds like an analog version of Ambiophonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiophonics).
I'd still like to put a multi-meter on its output, measure the output voltage of a continuous tone, or white noise, with the circuit engaged vs. by-passed, and then do a level matched listening comparison. Because what I noticed most with the unit engaged, was the increase in volume. Maybe I should have Charles bring it by my place(?)
-
While I have not heard this device it sounds like the thing Robin (Satfrat) uses to process his signals.
He setup his processor on my computer and it creates a bigger space with a larger ambient space. His was a digital proccessor that played with the signal to make it seem more surround sound, it worked and it sounded good.
But I could see how purists would dislike this method.
Like BobM says whatever makes you happy.
Purists will probably shy away because they will be thinking Dolby Digital for 2 channel.
I would love to hear it one day
-
link=topic=3459.msg45596#msg45596 date=1323356345]
I suspect most of us have, at times, jumped early into new gear based on early buzz, rave reviews, etc... I know I have. Sometimes it proved to be a great investment. Other times, after the honeymoon period, not so much. On more than one occasion, I dodged a bullet by suppressing the early urge to buy.
Remember the Burson Buffer? Oh my God everybody wanted one, I had mine for 20 minutes then back in the box.
Also there was that little wire that they sold that went on the back of the speaker terminals, they sold for like $30, and everyone wanted one!!
and don't forget the little black boxes with crystals in them, even I bought some!
So many stories
Flavors of the month they come and go
-
Hey, I still use those little wires on the back of my speaker, and some crystals on the breaker box. In fact, I think that's an apt analogy. The pigtails on the back of my speakers seem to have the same effect as the Qol to my ears - more spacious sound - and they are only $30 (what a deal)!
-
Having skimmed through the patent I now get it and what it's doing...
Sounds like an analog version of Ambiophonics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiophonics).
I'd still like to put a multi-meter on its output, measure the output voltage of a continuous tone, or white noise, with the circuit engaged vs. by-passed, and then do a level matched listening comparison. Because what I noticed most with the unit engaged, was the increase in volume. Maybe I should have Charles bring it by my place(?)
Barry that might prove very interesting. I'm game. I have matched levels as close as possible recently as the increased volume can vary from .5DB to almost 5DB depending on the recording according to BSGT Technologies.
The affect was still obvious to my non audiophile beta testers , my Wife and daughter. The bat ears of the family.
When Qol tm is engaged the result is more than volume. Weight of sound, solidity of images, better focused, deeper bass, presence [ especially vocals ], decay of notes and just more information available. Cymbals sparkle with the initial metallic hit, shimmer then decay. Piano foot pedal harmonics just hang longer then noticed before.
Now hearing it in your system is frankly the only way to honestly determine the results.
Let's see if we can arrange coming to you soon. Your experience is well respected and your opinion and findings are valued.
charles
SMA
-
Hey, I still use those little wires on the back of my speaker, and some crystals on the breaker box. In fact, I think that's an apt analogy. The pigtails on the back of my speakers seem to have the same effect as the Qol to my ears - more spacious sound - and they are only $30 (what a deal)!
Bob when can I come over so we can listen to it in your system ? Your never going to truly know until then.
I have used the pigtails as well. Yes they gave me more spacious at the expense of making the tonality brighter.
The Mapleshade solution of the pigtail so far has been the most affective method of this "ground plane" concept. They are connected to the amp instead of the speaker. A bit ugly to look at since the wires are so long. Like a two drink date.
Let me know.
charles
SMA
-
Well so far I've heard it on Maggies (Emil's), Apogees (Grant's) and Gallos (Barry's at Emil's). I haven't heard anything that makes me enthusiastic on any of the panels, so a trip to my house is not warranted since I also have Apogees. However the effect on the Gallo's was stupendous. I'm looking forward to hearing this on your Pipes.
As for the pigtails, I also thought they were bright at first on my speaker - terminals, then I put them on the - terminals of the amp. As you like to say "Oh My!". Try them there before you throw them out. And if your preamp inverts polarity as mine does (or if your amp is balanced as mine is) then experiment on both + and - terminals.
-
Barry that might prove very interesting. I'm game. I have matched levels as close as possible recently as the increased volume can vary from .5DB to almost 5DB depending on the recording according to BSGT Technologies.
charles
SMA
Well my pre-amp has .5 dB steps in its volume control so we should be able to get it pretty darn close to spot-on ;)
-
.....Like a two drink date....
You say that like it is a bad thing. 8) :yay2: 8)
Hey everything in its place. (http://serve.mysmiley.net/winking/winking0008.gif)
-
Barry that might prove very interesting. I'm game. I have matched levels as close as possible recently as the increased volume can vary from .5DB to almost 5DB depending on the recording according to BSGT Technologies.
charles
SMA
Well my pre-amp has .5 dB steps in its volume control so we should be able to get it pretty darn close to spot-on ;)
Cool, looking foward to it. Should be fun.
charles
SMA
-
While I have not heard this device it sounds like the thing Robin (Satfrat) uses to process his signals.
He setup his processor on my computer and it creates a bigger space with a larger ambient space. His was a digital proccessor that played with the signal to make it seem more surround sound, it worked and it sounded good.
But I could see how purists would dislike this method.
Like BobM says whatever makes you happy.
Purists will probably shy away because they will be thinking Dolby Digital for 2 channel.
I would love to hear it one day
I doubt QOL is anything like the system full of bandaides that is all mine (now that my bankruptcy has gone thru 8)). But I do have quite an expansive sound stage presence,, as well I should with all the included household tweaks. Throw all that in a bag, count up the $$$$ and the $4K QOL might have been quite the deal for me. But what is done is done for me which is why I refuse to demo the unit personally. My pockets are empty but my ears are full,, I have absolutely nothing to complain about,,,,,, so long as I don't try the QOL drug! :rofl:
Ambiophonics was the 1st thought of mine also when it was mentioned that the front speakers were pulled more closely together with less toe-in. But the difference being Ambiophonics is done in the digital domain while QOL is organically analog. Too bad digital rules! :thumb:
Cheers,
Robin
-
Hey Robin good luck with your finances. Glad to hear your liking your system.
Hope the future is better for you.
charles
-
It appears most of the questions raised have been answered in the Harley review. So far he cannot listen without it. Some quotes. " The signal best description of Qol is that it caused the sound to" open up", both spatially and in timbre " Could not agree more. " Qol widened the palette of tone colors, the density of those colors, their vividness, and their life "" This richness of timbre and vividness was not an artificial " Technicolor" rendering that sounded hyped or artificial, but rather revealed the inner brilliance of instruments and voices _ a heightened sense of chiaroscuro. With Qol engaged" . Exactly. That's only half of what Qol does.
With open eyes more is ahead in retrieving the "live" sound. Closer and closer we get. Good times for our hobby.
charles
-
Charles, it's an interesting read in TAS. It does raise a lot of questions about where Goldfarb will be taking his approach from a marketing and productization (is that a word?) standpoint. While Harley was certainly very impressed with Qol (as have all who have spent time with it), Goldfarb alluded to integration across numerous platforms and in digital. I have to wonder how the Qol product as it currently stands will be positioned if/when all of that happens.
Still... fascinating concept :drool:
-
It appears most of the questions raised have been answered in the Harley review.
charles
Charles,
Is the article available on-line? My sub to AS lapsed, and I'd be interested in reading what RH had to say.
Thanks, Barry
-
Available here via the BSGT site...
http://www.bsgt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/tas_feb2012_review.pdf
note: highlighting appears to be BSGT added - not in the print version.
-
Available here via the BSGT site...
Thanks!
-
It was great to meet Charles and his friends (one from NY and one from DC) in person. We had a good time just shooting the breeze about everything under the sun with hors d'oeuvres and libations before going down to listen to music. Charles had a bunch of items including a Neko DAC which I am on the list for audition later. As it turned out we never got to the DAC as we were preoccupied with the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage. I will get my time with the Neko DAC later.
Qøl™ Signal Completion Stage.
We listened to various cuts on vinyl and CD to get everyone familiarized with my system. Then we put in the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage between my preamp and active crossover and listened while using the bypass button to instantly switch back and forth. Although there is not supposed to be an actual gain stage in the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage, the result is that you get a volume increase with it in (or is it a loss on the bypass)? Hmmmm, more on this point later. So we had to juggle with the preamp remote to match the volume on every switch. This made it less than ideal to instantly hear the difference. Over the course of the evening, consensus was forming that qøl™ Signal Completion Stage outputs better music than the output from its bypass mode. What I heard was more coherent mid/highs and better (sound stage) depth definition with it. It was similar in improvement as the one I got when I added the first reflection point treatments. I remember talking to Ethan from Real Traps about hearing more details after adding the absorption panels and this was like that. It was also independent of the source: I heard the same difference from both CDs and LPs. One interesting fact was the "enhancement" of ticks and pops on a bad record. I played an old Appolo recording of "In the Upper Room" by Mahalia Jackson and it has some ticks and pops. These were very much magnified by the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage -- enough that the overall presentation was better without the qøl™ stage. The tonality did not seem to change much. Pre Colombia Mahalia still sounded powerful with or without the qøl™. I wonder how this fits into the bigger picture here....
Toward the end of the evening it occurred to us that the bypass mode on the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage may not be so transparent. If the bypass mode is not transparent, then the result of the direct comparison between the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage and its bypass loses its bearing. So we listened to a few tracks before (in both modes) and after completely removing the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage from my system. My impression is that the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage improved the music from having nothing. And nothing is better than bypass, meaning the bypass mode degrades music. I would need more time with the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage in my system to be completely sure, but my initial judgement is that it enhances music playback (in my system). If they streamline the interface without all the inputs and thereby lower the cost I would be all in. As it is, I may have to get one. The last impression of the eveing was that my system without it was lacking somewhat....
Thanks Charles for letting me hear it in my system and everybody else for sharing the experience.
P.S.
Black Cardigan (Charles?) and a bag of LP/CDs (doug?) were left behind.
-
It was cool meeting you guys. Woodsyi thankyou for being such a wonderfull host. The food the wine THE SYSTEM, oh my! The dual TT setup was quite something.
The jury may still be out on the Bypass mode. However IMO there is no need for it unless you must play LPs that are in poor condition.
We would perfer not to go back and forth as the brain has issues with the volume discrepancy created from proper phase. Like a subwoofer when phase is correct. Inserting Qol after a listening session or listening to Qol first then without.
Trying the tape loop as Doug suggested may just be a good thing to try. "ya miss me when your gone " I believe shows more.
As far as a smaller unit maybe. the qol can be used between source and Pre as well. That is the reason for the additional inputs. two outputs is really convenient if using a sub. Maybe two models ?? I'll ask.
Anyway had a great time and made some new friends, priceless.
charles
-
As far as a smaller unit maybe. the qol can be used between source and Pre as well. That is the reason for the additional inputs. two outputs is really convenient if using a sub. Maybe two models ?? I'll ask.
When I first made the suggestion I understood the switching was there, the point I was trying to make was that in all the demos I've attended and all the ones I have read about I've never heard of anybody using them. It is a functionality that adds cost to the unit and if nobody is actually using it in the real world it just might be a good idea to eliminate it in future models. Just an observation., that's all.
-
Tom, FWIW, I think your suggestion was/is right on the money.
-
Rim....
Did you take any photo's ? :thumb:
-
Guys BSGT has investigated the elimination of such. The cost savings was not enough to manufacture another unit.
The cost of the Qol is advertised at $3995 RETAIL. Talk to your dealer. BTW BSGT just received "Product of the Year" [ March issue ] Award from the Absolute Sound. Stero Times awarded it as well. Units wil be available again the first week of March. Sold out.
charles
-
Rim....
Did you take any photo's ? :thumb:
Syd, doug's better half did. I will see if I can get some pictures from her.
-
Guys BSGT has investigated the elimination of such. The cost savings was not enough to manufacture another unit.
I figured a much. My comment was really aimed towards a proposed change if they ever decide to make a "Son of Qol". IF you are re-engineering and retooling for a new model anyway this might be something you'd want to think about. But to do it as a mid model change to the existing unit would not be a very cost effective project.
-
Thanks so much to Rim and Doug for posting your honest and thoughtful responses to the Qol. It was really nice to hear the results of some fun comparing. :)
-Carl
-
:wtf: :pics?:
But regardless, a very insightful session neverless & it just makes me wish I had been present. :drool:
Cheers,
Robin
-
i sent rim some pics; not sure they are worth posting... 8-[
doug s.
Not everyone can be a Levi professional. 8) But the thought was there and that is cool. :thumb:
Cheers,
Robin
-
[smg id=1198]
[smg id=1197]
I uploaded 2 pictures but can't seem to put them in this post.
(edited by Carlman)
-
FWIW My CD player has 2 out-puts, and my pre-amp .5 dB volume control with individual levels retained by in-put, so I plan on doing, true by-pass, level matched, comparisons tomorrow when Charles brings the qol to my house ;)
-
FWIW My CD player has 2 out-puts, and my pre-amp .5 dB volume control with individual levels retained by in-put, so I plan on doing, true by-pass, level matched, comparisons tomorrow when Charles brings the qol to my house ;)
Hope you have your checkbook ready :-P :rofl:
Hopefully I can get a ride, still cannot drive at night.
charles
-
Hope you have your checkbook ready :-P :rofl:
Hopefully I can get a ride, still cannot drive at night.
charles
Well I do hope you can get there, we'll have 2 manufacturer/designers with us bringing products, and I really do want to hear the qol in my system. Sadly, the only big check I'll be writing this quarter is going to the IRS, and I could buy more than a qol with what I need to send them :cry:
-
if you are trying to link from that "other" forum, you cannot - it won't allow foto links to be wiewed on other sites. amhik. maybe you know someone over there that can get that changed? ;)
simply copy the links here, we can then click on them and see the pics.
thanks, rim
doug s.
the pictures are here at AN...
[smg id=1198]
[smg id=1197]
-
Thanks for the pics, Charles, Rim and Doug. Who's who? :-k
-
I'm the Guy on the right sitting on the couch. Les in middle and Paul on left. Great time, really good guys.
Les is one of our club members and Paul on the board of the DC DIY club.
charles
-
I have had my Qol burning in for quite a while now and gave it its first outing after about 500 hours with 4 audiophiles present.
First we tried it with some ML3 Reference speakers. To me and another person the difference, to be frank was staggering - clearer with wider and expanded sound-stages - it was switched in and out to confirm it.
What did the other two think? Well probably the most experienced person there was more circumspect - yes he heard what we talked about but was it better? The other guy was adamant - he heard the difference but preferred it without it engaged - rawer but more real he thought. Discussion ensured and the way we ended up describing it was with the device in it was like air brushing - nicer but perhaps a little artificial.
But now for something really interesting. There were some speakers there well below the standard of the ML3's. I had heard them before and to be blunt are pretty awful. I could reveal what they were but nothing would be gained by it except to say one guy who prepared a list of the best speakers of all time rated its slightly bigger brother as the 30th best speaker of all time - but as one guy that heard it said - you would be forgiven for thinking only 30 speakers were ever made. Anyway the difference it made with this speaker was above staggering - it was a quantum leap ahead - it actually sounded pretty good. What the fook. We disengaged it and the speaker returned to how I remembered it - rather ordinary. This was actually very unexpected. It was so unexpected the very experienced guy wanted to keep it longer to try and get to the bottom of it. Because I am heading down to another place here in Aus (Canberra) to help a friend install his Home Theater system I left it with him.
I suspect time will reveal whats going on but it really is fascinating.
Thanks
Bill
-
Bill curious to know where it was installed. After Preamp or before. Try it in both positions.
I would reccomend using an after market powercord if you did not. Makes a difference. As well as the same ICs if you can.
Another trick is to move ones speakers closer together anywhere from 6" to a foot. reduced toe in benifits as well. First listen will confuse you a bit as the presentation willbe more open and revealing. it will tell the recordingEngineers skills or lack there of. Especially pop recordings that are fooled with. Anything boosted or panned left and rigt will be exposed.
Glad to hear to are putting the qol through its paces. Enjoy the ride.
charles
-
Bill curious to know where it was installed. After Preamp or before. Try it in both positions.
We didn't use a pre amp - we direct connected the DAC to the Qol and used the volume control in Audirvana.
Thanks
Bill
-
bhobba, i am curious - when you switched the qøl in and out - were you listening thru the qøl's bypass, or were you bypassing the unit completely? imo, based on my auditioning of the unit, listening thru the qøl's bypass is not as transparent as listening with the unit completely bypassed. this can give misleading results as to how much better the qøl makes things sound...
also, on a somewhat related topic of how a processor can improve the sonics of a speaker, i was amazed how my deqx pdc totally transformed the sound of a pair of sansui sp2500's i picked up for $20 from a local craigslist ad. all soundstaging cues missing before totally snapped into place. on their own, the sp2500's are nice - relatively full-range, 98db-efficient w/an inoffensive diffuse full sound. w/the deqx, they are a different animal entirely...
Hi Doug
We did it both ways - removing it completely and using its internal bypass. We noticed it seems to add some gain.
Yea a DEQX is an amazing device and it does all sorts of stuff so its no surprise you found it made such a big difference. However the Qol does not muck around with frequency etc so its scope for improvement is more limited - yet on the rather ordinary speaker we tried it on (as opposed to the reference speakers we did the main listening on) the improvement was huge. It so surprised the guy that owned the system we were using it on he wants to keep it for a while while I am down in Canberra.
Thanks
Bill
-
Bill the amplitude is increased anywhere from .5db to 4 db depending on how out of phase the recording is. There is no gain stage. When phase is corrected volume is increased. Actually the volume is the way it should be when qol is engaged. Simllar to when a subs polarity is right. More volume.
Glad to hear your buddy was smitten over the qol. He is not alone. Have fun.
charles
-
Bill the amplitude is increased anywhere from .5db to 4 db depending on how out of phase the recording is. There is no gain stage. When phase is corrected volume is increased. Actually the volume is the way it should be when qol is engaged. Simllar to when a subs polarity is right. More volume. Glad to hear your buddy was smitten over the qol. He is not alone. Have fun.
As I said to me it was staggering as well. As soon as I get back from Canberra it will be heading to my system to stay except I now have told some guys I know who are now keen to try it and I of course will oblige.
Thanks
Bill
-
Hi Guys
I have finally got around to popping this into my system on a permanent basis - I had been waiting to get some decent cables first. Well I now have them and can confirm this thing to my ears is simply awesome. Sound-stage widens, everything has more air about it, more detail is present, the detail is cleaner and more defined. I can easily switch it in and out and I much prefer it with it in. I personally love it - simple as that.
I am trying to think of words to describe what I hear - and cant really do it. I read the TAS review and they hit it on the head - its illuminated from within - that's it - spot on. Vivid is another word that pops to mind.
The only thing is the battery is dead in the remote - at least I think its the battery.
Thanks
Bill
-
The other thing I will mention is I previuosly preferred listening with upsampling as much as possible - it revealed more detail to my ears. But I am finding with this device upsampling is simply too much to my ears - yea you get even more detail but it sounds artificial and even a bit sibilancy on some masterial - non upsampling sounds 'just right'. I conjecture thats because this device fixes up phase errors. This however is supposed to be where upsampling helps - you cant hear any nor indeed does upsampling add any frequencies above the original sampling rate but it is supposed to recover timing errors better ie phase that your ear is sensitive to hence the supposed increased detail. To me the combination of the two doesn't sound quite right. It doesn't seem to apply to stuff already recorded at a higher samplying rate - simply stuff upsampled.
Thanks
Bill
-
To my surprise adding a second QOl in the system was a well jaw dropping.
We were breaking in a unit for a customer in another system using a Sony CDP, passive Pre. I hooked it up [ from passive] to the QOL unit in between the Pre and Amps in the main system into the number [2] input. Tuned in on and was taken back by the sheer dimension of the sound. With Eric Claptons Unplugged CD track 13 we never heard the venue meaning the auditorium where recorded. Well not to that degree anyway.
Yes the Sonys character was evident after the initial listening so in went the Plinius. #*&%^$ now I want two.
While one is quite good enough adding the second was revelatory. Real as real can be for a reproduction. Never thought it would make such a difference.
charles
-
John Atkinson lays out how the Qol works in his review in current Stereophile mag. He read the patents and realized it is a modern take on the Blumlein Shuffle.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/Blumlein.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/Blumlein.htm)
And here's a white paper just for Scotty... :-P
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Stereo_shuffling_A4.pdf (http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resources/Stereo_shuffling_A4.pdf)
Alan Blumlein was the Nikola Tesla of our hobby. He invented stereo, and his inventions are still used today, especially in vinyl and tube amps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Blumlein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Blumlein)
-
John Atkinson liked it and is keeping the review sample. I wish I could put one in every system here at AN for free.
For me no component or anything to date can equal what QOL brings to the table.
The reviews have all been positive from 6 Moons to the Absolute sound.
It is rare occurrence when several reviewers agree, especially Sterophile and the Absolute Sound.
charles
-
Hi Richidoo
Just a note of thanks for posting the technical detail - really appreciarted - must aquant myself with it.
Hi Charles
Mate just love mine and cant live without it. But interestingly some people I demo mine to dont like it - they say its sort of like air brushing - yea in a Hi Fi sense better but maybe a bit too squeaky clean. Always interesting getting others opinions.
Thanks
Bill
-
Hi Richidoo
Just a note of thanks for posting the technical detail - really appreciarted - must aquant myself with it.
Hi Charles
Mate just love mine and cant live without it. But interestingly some people I demo mine to dont like it - they say its sort of like air brushing - yea in a Hi Fi sense better but maybe a bit too squeaky clean. Always interesting getting others opinions.
Thanks
Bill
That is surprising to hear as the QOL has no character of its own. Makes me wonder about the front ends used.
To date over 500 units sold with one return. Cannot please them all eh
charles