BSG Technologies Qol signal ...advertised in TAS,,what is it ?

[Bruce B]

Bruce: please re-read my comments. I did blind test it with another individual who, when he switched, adjusted the volume. Furthermore, he did not always switch it but told me to listen again, and I was still able to determine if it was engaged or not engaged. I agree that louder is almost always perceived as better.

A deaf person could pick this out blindly as much as the stereo field widens unnaturally.

 

[treitz3]

Bruce, it depends much on the speakers and the recording used. Gotta remember, Steve didn't even hear the difference engaged or disengaged when he auditioned it. He's not the only one. There is a difference on what is perceived with different speakers with this unit. Plasma type speakers have the least amount of effect, then IIRC planars, then ribbons and the most effect you will get from the Qol being with a boxed speaker. Then, you have to throw in how the recording plays into it. In other words, it's extremely variable. You most likely will not hear the same thing, even with the same recording, on different systems.

In the system I heard it on [100K system], it made the system. Without it, the system was a 2-D flop to me. Average upper end type Hi-Fi at best.

Tom

 

[mep]

In the system I heard it on [100K system], it made the system. Without it, the system was a 2-D flop to me. Average upper end type Hi-Fi at best.

Tom

And what pray tell was the $100K system that sounded like a "2-D flop" on its own?

 

[treitz3]

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...n-TAS-what-is-it&p=86319&viewfull=1#post86319

Hello, mep. It also had the newest Nordost cables [that's about all I can remember, it was a while back] in a room that was decently treated and yes, I was in the sweet spot the entire time. The separation while engaged between the instruments and the singers to these ears, had not been so clearly defined before within the sound stage/individual images. Might I be so bold as to say that each instrument and singer had their own sound stage that was separate from the others, no matter how close they were up on the perceived sound stage. Even though the individual images overlapped, the distinction between them were as clear as a bell. In other words, if you were to pick out a violinist up on stage. There was a harpist right next to her and three feet in front, during the performance, you could clearly differentiate where each one was up on the sound stage. Even though the images overlapped from the seating position.

Almost as if a separate speaker was producing each instrument, if you will. Each one with it's own sense of reflections that you would hear individually. With the Qol disengaged, this perceived illusion disappeared completely and though I could still tell basically where they were on the sound stage, the clarity and overlapping of the image went back to somewhat of a 2-D playing field. I sure do hope that makes sense. It's somewhat hard to describe but IMO, it's enjoyable. A few more things to go with my rig and I'll introduce it to my system. Life seems to keep getting in the way to budget for such a purchase.

Tom

 

[Bruce B]

It's somewhat hard to describe but IMO, it's enjoyable. A few more things to go with my rig and I'll introduce it to my system. Life seems to keep getting in the way to budget for such a purchase.
Tom

I can describe it for you.... a Bad Q-Sound...... to each their own I suppose.

I made a couple of recordings with it... I should post them and let everyone hear what this does!

 

[rbbert]

For those who use JRiver as their music manager, there are plug-ins to experiment with the mid-side technique mentioned by both JA and Bruce B (who was credited in at least one post I saw)

I personally was unimpressed with the demonstration of the qol at 2012 RAMF, but I was probably prejudiced.

 

[Bruce B]

Here are a couple of samples if anyone wants to hear.

ftp://pugetsoundstudios.com/
User: samples
PW: whatsbestforum


I'll only keep these up a day or so

 

[Andre Marc]

Here are a couple of samples if anyone wants to hear.

ftp://pugetsoundstudios.com/
User: samples
PW: whatsbestforum

I'll only keep these up a day or so

Awesome, thanks Bruce!!!

 

[treitz3]

Hello, Bruce. With all due and well deserved respect, this does not sound like what I heard on the system I referred too. What I hear over my monitor speakers with regards to processed -vs- unprocessed is nowhere near what I heard. A gross approximation/exaggeration thereof but nowhere close. I would imagine that anybody who heard the difference between the two samples [I only listened to just a couple of seconds of Schoolgirl] would choose the unprocessed.

Was this an example you made of bad Q or a recording of your speakers that you had at the time with the Qol engaged?

Tom

 

[audioguy]

Hello, Bruce. With all due and well deserved respect, this does not sound like what I heard on the system I referred too. What I hear over my monitor speakers with regards to processed -vs- unprocessed is nowhere near what I heard. A gross approximation/exaggeration thereof but nowhere close. I would imagine that anybody who heard the difference between the two samples [I only listened to just a couple of seconds of Schoolgirl] would choose the unprocessed.

Was this an example you made of bad Q or a recording of your speakers that you had at the time with the Qol engaged?

Tom

I listened to the Krauss example and that sounds nothing like the qol in my system. Not even close -- grossly exaggerated!! In the processed version it was very phasie (sp?) and her voice was indistinct as well. I would never consider owning anything that sounded that bad.

But as Bruce has said, each to his/her own and I like what the qol does in my system.

 

[Bruce B]

Hello, Bruce. With all due and well deserved respect, this does not sound like what I heard on the system I referred too. What I hear over my monitor speakers with regards to processed -vs- unprocessed is nowhere near what I heard. A gross approximation/exaggeration thereof but nowhere close. I would imagine that anybody who heard the difference between the two samples [I only listened to just a couple of seconds of Schoolgirl] would choose the unprocessed.

Was this an example you made of bad Q or a recording of your speakers that you had at the time with the Qol engaged?

Tom

These were 2 SACD's that I had and I recorded the output from my MPS-5. The unprocessed is the ripped (original) version and the processed is a capture into the Grimm AD1/Sonoma. Nothing added/subtracted.... it does give a phasey sound....

 

[audioguy]

I have now done a fair amount of listening to this product. I have NO idea if creates a more accurate rendition of what is on the CD (according to Bruce it does not and he would know better than I) but I can tell you for sure it makes listening to music a LOT more enjoyable. It expands the soundstage in all three dimension, but does not even marginally reduce image specificity. Every cubic inch of the front of my listening room (wall to wall, floor to ceiling and from about 1 foot in front of the speakers to the front wall, on some recordings is literally filled with sound --- not necessarily a specific instrument or voice -- just sound.

The only downside that I am still working on is that on some music, some instruments will move from the back of the soundstage just inside the speaker (with the QOL in bypass) to sounding like it is coming from the speaker when engaged, and since I have spent a small fortune to insure that does not happen, I will need to get that addressed. If that can't be addressed, I would not pay $400 for the product, much less $4000. I am going to work on toe in as well as moving the speakers a tad closer together (recommendation from BSG) and see what that does.

Stay tuned.