Qol Signal Completion Stage

[mdconnelly]

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.

[rollo]

  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..  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

 
 
 

[mdconnelly]

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...

[rollo]

  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
   
   

[_Scotty_]

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

[BobM]

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]

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 
   

[_Scotty_]

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

[rollo]

 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

[mdconnelly]

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! 

[tmazz]

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.

[_Scotty_]

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
                 

[rollo]

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
   

[BobM]

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?

[rollo]

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.