Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Gcsakakini, Glad you like the Qol. I have had mine for over a month. I could never go back now. I leave the Qol on all the time.
Did you happen to notice what I posted above? When I moved my speakers a little, they locked in place and the dyanmics really shined.
That's probably why the 6 moons review on the Qol was so confusing. They used 7 different unfamiliar systems that were'nt really dialed in.

I have had a QOL in my system for about a month (speakers are Maggie 20.1's). All I can say is that Robert Harley in TAS articulated my experience to a "T". EVERYTHING he said is true. I could not have said it better if I tried.

I’ve just read through this thread with considerable interest. I have not heard the QOL, but from what I can tell from this thread and from the information on the BSG website, QOL is designed to accomplish something very similar to Trifield, the signal processing developed by Geoffrey Barton and Michael Gerzon.

Although Trifield involves three channels rather than two, both Trifield and QOL manipulate the perception of the soundstage in two fundamentally similar ways...

1. WIDTH. The manipulation of “Width” expands the soundstage on the x axis. Trifield manipulates the perception of Width by calculating the sum and the difference of the L and R inputs, then amplifying one or the other. You can see a schematic of a typical Trifield circuit here. The Width parameter in the Trifield circuit is similar to the Mid/Side parameter described in the article that Onhwy61 mentioned, which says…

The M/S approach essentially considers it as being comprised of central and side elements. The Mid signal is the mono sum of both left and right, and basically describes those elements present in both channels. The Side signal is the difference between the two channels, and describes those elements that contribute to the stereo width… It follows from this that the balance between the Mid and Side signals determines stereo width.

Even though Trifield involves a third channel, the same basic principle determines the perception of Width.

2. DEPTH. The manipulation of “Depth” expands the soundstage on the z axis. Trifield manipulates the perception of “Depth” by adding group delay to one or more channels. Again, Trifield employs three channels whereas QOL employs two, but a similar principle seems to be involved.

Together, the manipulation of Width and Depth can create a very spacious soundstage, far more spacious than the speakers and the room would seem to permit. I know this from personal experience, as I have listened to Trifield extensively on my Meridian G68. In fact, I’ve been listening almost exclusively to Trifield for the past few months.

Meridian’s implementation of Trifield allows the user to set the values of Width and Depth, so he can tailor the soundstage to his particular room and taste. For my own taste, a small amount Width and Depth manipulation yields the best results.

The BSG website doesn’t reveal a lot of design details, except in a very abstract way. In his interview with RH, QOL's inventor Barry Stephen Goldfarb says this...

Essentially the idea was to get out of a single signal both the in-phase information and the out-of-phase information… I began to try to figure out a way of tricking the signal so that part of it would play and another part might be cancelled. I then tried layering different frequency paths. Let’s say I took a limited frequency band up to, say, 3kHz. I’d let that play. Then I would take another band-limited signal from 3kHz to 6kHz and put it in the opposite phase. Now they’re playing together. They’re not interfering because the two are not really playing the same frequency simultaneously, If you keep doing that with other frequency bands, it’s like weaving frequencies. A group of frequencies will be in-phase to a limited bandwidth; another group of a different bandwidth will be out-of-phase; and I would add these layers until the entire audio bandwidth from 20Hz to 20kHz was covered. That technique produces a whole audio signal… We call it in our patent “Phase Layering.”

The band-limited manipulation of phase is also found in Meridian's Trifield. Meridian's implementation of Trifield is digital, whereas QOL is analog, but again a similar principle seems to be involved.

None of these comments are intended to diminish the value of QOL. My own personal experiences with Trifield have led me to conclude that soundstage manipulation, when executed well, can yield very pleasing results. Judging from the owners who have contributed to this thread, it sounds like QOL’s execution is excellent.

I agree with the observation that the desirability of soundstage manipulation is, to a significant extent, recording specific. It is for that reason that, IMO, a little goes a long way.

Bryon

Interesting. I was playing around with different locations with my speakers and I noticed that depending upon their placement, my speakers sounded louder.

When I moved my speakers closer together (maybe 2 feet closer) the music lost some of its dynamics and sounded softer. When I found the right spot which was much wider, the music became more dynamic and seemingly louder.

I have never experienced this before. I mean, I have moved the speakers before in and out, side to side, to lock in the center image and bass and so on. But, never has the perceived loudness increased. I wonder if this was due to the Qol.

Any of you Qol owners noticed this?
I need to try this again without the Qol in the system.

Hawk28,

Have a read of the BSGT.com website for additional info.

Peterayer,

Ummm....which one? :) An example of one of my personal systems would be Cary tube gear , USHER BE speakers, and MIT cables.

oh..and mostly Fender CS guitars, basses, and equipment.

Setonaudio, What is in your personal system besides the QOL?

This topic has generated quite the buzz. I've read and skimmed through most of the posts, and I could be wrong, but how does the QOL differ in concept from the old, traditional graphic equalizer? Sounds like A Hi tech, futuristic, advanced improvement on a very old concept; a device that takes into account the limitations of one's listening environment.

Onhwy61,

I have not run across another product that has wowed me as much as Qol has. That said, I think this is the most enthused I have ever been by a product. High capacity music servers are another passion for us but that is to be expected as we are in the silicon valley. Oh, moving to SACD and higher sampling rates with digital music was pretty nice too...

Don't get me wrong, I have also been impressed with other product's value and performance but just not to this level.

Jazzerdave, if the QOL technology were implemented inside another component then one would have to approach the entirety of the device's sound. That would make it harder to isolate and discuss, but also might mask it.

In the end if QOL were a feature of another component it would have to be assessed like any other component, head to head with some other reference.

Would I listen to it again if it were incorporated into components. Absolutely. Who can say what would transpire on a venture to merge it with other devices? I'd be game to hear it. QOL may end up most powerfully utilized to elevate lower end electronics. If it could be leveraged to lift the performance of an entire field of Mid to Lower HiFi gear - not mentioning the separate component - it would be a powerful boon to the hobby.

Dolby was very powerful in concept and application, and I enjoyed it immensely in recording music. The QOL has potential to alter the listening experience in a pleasing fashion as well, so I don't think it's a throw away idea.

Now that I've started I may as well add...

I see no correlation between QOL and devices like the A.R.T. system and Lessloss Blackbody. I would recommend the latter for a trial but not the former products, certainly not for someone who wishes serious changes in a rig.

If by "system-dependent" it is meant that the QOL doesn't sound good with all music or all components - surprise, surprise. Most components don't. It takes a radically good device to sound superb with nearly everything it's mated with. However, I think of system-dependent more as operational limitations, i.e. flea amp mismatched with low effic. speakers. The QOL seemed consistent in operation in rigs I built both before and after preamp, with SS and tube amps, and with dynamic and ESL speakers.

In no way would I suggest the QOL fixes room issues. As the community can guess I'm not overwhelmed with most room correction devices for similar reasons as my reaction to QOL. I would not see QOL as a "room fixer" component.

I have to leave this topic; waaaay too much to do!

Setonaudio, are there other products you sell that rate an enthusiastic endorsement? Just curious, it might help put some perspective on your BSG comments.

Douglas_schroeder - Having read several reviews and comments from you, I think I have a firm grasp of your system building philosophy/preferences. While it's not all that appropriate for my budget, it does make plenty of sense to me. I haven't heard this device myself, so I can't really comment personally on the sound, but I have read a decent amount about it as the technology interests me. If the QOL circuit were incorporated into an update of one of your favorite integrated amps (which I believe is the ultimate goal of BSG Technologies), would you give it another longer listen? Do you think that might have alleviated your concerns about the loss of detail/resolution?

Milpai,

Why too much? If one feels strongly about something, why not express it.

As an audiophile, hifi junky, and musician, I think Qol is great and now have a hard time listening to my system without it. Maybe that is the musician in me with Qol finally brings out what I always thought was missing in reproduced audio.

As a Silicon Valley MM, being a dealer is fun... simply fun and I love selling products that i feel are worth selling.

Hope this helps clear things up for you...

Kclone, thanks for the comment...you are spot on!

I've been running thru various audio sites/forum boards discussing ongoing tweaks. What I'm finding is they can be divided into 2 camps: those that have a reasonable physical and psycho-acoustical basis, not dressed up in overbold claims, and esp. with reasonable discourse of methodology involved; they also seem to have consistency of positive comments. I would place units like the SpatialComputer Black Hole bass attenuator, and balanced power transformers in this category, with defined measured data stacking up with positive user consensus (and at a reasonable price for good measure).
In the other camp, we have the items that have limited discourse, resort to new age explanations not rooted in the physical world. Of course these units promise more than any other unit, as far as rewriting the whole rulebook on audio reproduction. Additionally, and coincidentally (?) these always seem to be the most expensive. In this camp I would place items such as Shakti Stones/Hallograph, ASI resonators, Lessloss Blackbody, Neutralaudio X-DREI, exotic cables predicated on unsupportable concepts, and my current favourite, and the subject of this thread: BSGT QOL.
Please, let's have a proper discussion on how this unit works, primarily from the manufacturer. Surely a decision to use an item long term has to be based in real world principles, and if the QOL qualifies, let's hear about it. I'm sure fuller discussion of how it achieves it's effects can be made without breaking commercial confidences etc.
I'm convinced that the bold, unquantifiable claims made by these items leads to such a divergence of opinions: some listeners will like the sound, become proponents for it and go with the quantum leap premise. Cooler heads will find variability in it's effects, some good, some not so, as a result move away from it, and then find the obtuse explanations and overbold claims even more queationable.
For me at least the growing consensus between early adopters, some of which have become dealers, and specialist reviews seem to be pulling in different directions, the only consensus being that the unit is v.system and even recording/individual song dependent. This just couldn't add to the sense of ease I need my system to provide me.
Looks like I may have 'put the cat amongst the pigeons'!

Marc777/Setonaudio
You guys seem to be blinded by the "QOL effect". Either that or you guys have poor interpretation skills. I have mentioned the positive virtues about QOL, equivalent of not having the room dimension into consideration when playing music. I am in the process of setting up my new music room, which is squarish (mentioned on another thread), and the QOL passed my thought that way. But I don't want to add another circuit in my system. The room treatments are my highest priority and seem more suitable, at least for now.

I would rather wait at least a year and read the user (not dealer or magazine) reviews before even thinking of investing in a product like QOL. I have read Ozzy's other threads and his review seems genuine. But I will wait for other too.

Setonaudio, don't get me wrong. Your enthusiasm for QOL is too much, for a QOL dealer. It seems as if you take personal offense if people do not think too much about QOL.

I'm sure there are plenty of units on back order since they are sold out. So there should be more people sounding off in a month or two that are not dealers. Really, when you think about it, would it really be in a dealers best interest to promote this thing? I mean some one might be thinking about upgrading speakers, cables, or anything but won't if the QOL improves their system enough not to try anything new. A lot of guys buy something new for the system yearly or every 6 months but this has the potential to slow all that down thus hurting dealer business.

I am not a dealer and have had a week with my QOL. I have done more evaluting and I and still very happy. I can't imagine pulling it out of my system at this point. So I doubt it will be a "nothing to see here" passing fad for me.

Now I am rolling in the floor with laughter. You guys must be miserable!

Onlywy61... I have made it known...a few times.

Like I stated prior... After the first time I heard Qol, I was a believer. I then asked BSGT to allow me to become a dealer.

hifigeek1, you should have a listen to one...it may change your opinion as to how one may become passionate about a technology.

I have to say though...since most if not all Qol owners are "overly exuberant" about the product...that should really allow readers to draw a positive conclusion about the product.

disclaimer1: I am a very happy Qol user and proud dealer.

I totally agree with Onhwy61. Let me add that there seems to be a few people in this thread that are a bit too over exuberant about this product, and leads me to believe that they might have a connection with the company beyond just purchasing their product. Not pointing any fingers here but it is a bit over the top. As with all fads, DBX etc. these types of devices will come and dissapear just as fast. As the police are sometimes fond of saying, "nothing more to see here folks, time to move on."

Setonaudio, please put a disclaimer on you postings.

Agreed Marc777,

Seems like some are trying to find reasons not to embrace a new technology and show how they can try to skin a cat cheaper.

I find this a bit odd because most embrace the slight, if any, improvements we get from all the little tweaks we constantly purchase. Be it enhancement in sound stage, texture, room issues, or whatever, they are all benefits you get from correcting for phase and is what Qol is all about.

Health foods are often more expensive than fast food. This is because healthy foods complete the human needs...not just try to solve the short term issue of hunger for the next few hours. Qol completes the signal and is not designed to solve a specific issue with a track, system, or room.

You detractors broaden my cheshire grin, especially those that quote reviews by others than themselves.

Thanks to all the responses on this thread. What I have derived from the messages I read was that, you can get very good sound from an untreated room using QOL, OR the QOL "effect" is like getting your room treatment in place, where everything sounds just like the recording engineer intended while recording the music. It was mentioned earlier that QOL throws the room out of equation. At the moment room treatment costs suits me more than the QOL. From the last few messages, it is also looks like room treatments will not be system or recording dependent, unlike QOL.

But with that ability, my question is then, why do so many recording's sound so crappy?

.

Simple, laziness or incompetence. That combined with a new generation that prefers lossy and/or compressed files where quality is not a priority, but convenience is allowing the music to be played on hand held devices suitable for multi-purpose uses.

My guess is that over time, this device will fade in the high end specialty arena but may become ubiquitous in mobile MP3 devices, HT processors and even TV's, phones and car radios. It might appeal more to the masses than to the high end purists. Time will tell.

Stephaen on the 6Moons site has written an extensive review trying the QOL between a variety of systems and listeners with fairly non-conclusive, and frankly, underwhelming results.
It seems that it's effects are subtle, but my biggest issues with the QOL arise in his conclusions. One is that it is VERY system dependent, album dependent and even song/recording technique dependent. How can one have long term consistent enjoyment if the effects are going to be dramatic one moment and possibly detrimental the next?
Additionally, I really have issues with the presence variation when the system is switched in and out. I fully understand the makers state there is no increase gain built in but such a spike in presence does not allow a true a-b comparison to be made.
Last of all I have philisophical issues with such bold claims of the groundbreaking revealing of hidden info being made but with such restricted discourse, so that the claim must be accepted at face value. My criticism applies not only to the QOL but other tweaks such as the Lessloss Blackbody which also claim much but deliberately eschew some explanation.

Ozzy, I think it's a matter of taste. For example, just about all instruments sound better with some reverb ( or space), but if you add too much, the instruments sound too far away and less intimate. Sometimes this is appropriate, mind you, or at the very least subjective.

The QOL adds a sense of excitement for sure, and even the manufacturer and reviewers suggest it works better on some material than others. At first I liked it, especially at low volumes, but when ipi started noticing it adding additional space to vocals and instrument solos such that it made them recede into the background more, it became evident to me that it was effectively changing the mix. This is all fine if you like it, heck there are no rules and this is all about enjoyment. I just wanted to try and point out that I don't think it is true to the source and that I thought it was interesting that an pro audio device exists that does what the QOL does and more at a cheaper price.

Madfloyd, I agree that a highly qualified Recording Engineer should be able to produce just about any type of effect that his recording board can create.
But with that ability, my question is then, why do so many recording's sound so crappy?
If he can produce the quality of the Qol in the recording process then do it!

Setonaudio,

I don't get your "correction" to Madfloyd. He has already stated above that he had the qol and returned it as he preferred his system without the device so describing how the effect can be reproduced by other means seems more than appropriate. I realize you profit from the sales of qol devices but I sure think it's ok for folks to report less than positive experiences. Some are gonna like it, some are not.

Madfloyd,

If I tell you, or better yet post on a forum, that I build computers and can make your laptop perform as good as a multi-processor server can, are you going to believe me because I am a computer geek? I am sure that would be a firm NO, as it should be.

Your statements are claiming fact and seem to be based on what someone wrote on a forum rather than by practice and experience. I think we just went through a long discussion on how this is not what the thread is looking for. Experience with the product and technical preference is the topic I think we were on.

Looking forward to hearing others experiences with the product.

Oh, so there is pro audio gear that does the same thing for less? Specific brand or company? Darn, wished I knew. The problem is there is not an thread on the forums that is making audiophiles aware of a speficic device that does what the QOL does. The OQL is one of those things that was at the audio shows, been reveiwed by a high traffic audio mag, and had a bunch of users and dealers buy the unit in a short amount of time that sounded off on it's merits. So had the pro auido gear been at the shows, reviewed by the press, and listening impressions been posted, then there may be no market or need for the QOL. But, that didn't happen thus opening the door for something like the QOL to enter the market and grab attention from audiophiles.

As far as the "purest" side of audio, I personally do not car what is in the chain. Sure I like less boxes and cables, but if anything improves the sound quality enough to be pleasing to my ears, I'm not against putting it into the chain.

The effect has already been discussed by an audio engineer in the WhatsBest forums.

The effect can also be gained using some pro audio hardware, purchased cheaper thn the QOL.

It's basically adding some 'sugar' on top, some thing engineer could have done during mixing if he desired.

All the QOL proponents out there ought not to take our cooler, skeptical thoughts about it to heart too deeply, like all components, if it works for you in your system, that's great.
The rest of us can muse as to it's technical merit, and in my opinion there has to be something more substantial revealed about it's method than the claim of a quantum leap fwd over stereo in the revealing of hitherto hidden information in the signal.
Too many contributors to varying forums incl. those involved in record mastering where mid-side processing is common, relay the QOL's uncanny similarity to this process, for this to be irrelevant.

Ozzy I totally understand your emotional response. I found myself getting fired-up after any criticism of the qol unit as if someone had trashed my best girl friend, the one that knows all the right moves. And like you feel those who do not like the qol either did not spend enough time with unit or had a faulty one. I listen to music much more and with much more enjoyment than before qol. Long live qol I need it every night.

Boy, after reading this entire thread, I sure wish I had made the effort to listen to my friend's Qol during his "in-home trial period". Unfortunately, I couldn't make it in time and he returned the unit before I could hear it or borrow it for my own system.

I read the same comments in Audionervosa by another so called "expert". Hogwash I say!
There is no phasey sound, it sounds all natural.
The Qol just sounds like the whole signal is now being heard. If the Recording has a lot of reverb in it , then the sound may sound deeper in that regards. If the recording has no special processing then the Qol just makes it sound more refreshing and open.
The Qol may be based on older technology or maybe not.

I'm finding the principle/effects of this device more obtuse the more it is being discussed, partially because without a dealer in uk/europe, free trial is inconvenient (no blame ascribed to BSGT), so I can only go along with opposing comments and interesting references on this thread.
I understand that many here gain real benefits in their systems, and the following is in no way a criticism of them. But it appears that the unit may well simply be a mid-side processor. This is borne out by contributors to another forum (Audionervosa) who have experience of record mastering and find they can duplicate the effects of the QOL with other equipment like the $1500 Rupert Neve Portico 5014, and feel that it adds an unwanted 'phasey' Q-sound type character to the signal (in effect after the record has been mastered).
So if the effects of the QOL can be duplicated by existing mid-side processors (at much lower cost than the QOL), can we not safely assume the QOL simply does this and nothing original otherwise. I'll bet 99% of A'goners weren't even aware of mid-side stereo processing ( I certainly wasn't). My tentative conclusion is that listeners with possible problem rooms (which would be good environments for Rives-type treatments otherwise), and systems that may sound a little flat and shallow in soundstaging, and maybe a little hard in the way of many high powered solid state/low efficiency speakers with complicated crossovers would benefit from the warmth/'wet' ambience that the QOL 'phaseyness' provides. Rooms/systems that are less problematic/livelier, with warmer/more effusive sound quality (poss. vinyl/tube based/full range crossoverless spkrs) may find this 'phaseyness' detrimental.
This final conclusion is borne out by a speaker designer who felt the QOL in a room benefited solid state amps, but not tubes, with the rest of the system/room identical.
I want to reiterate again this is NOT a criticism of those listeners with systems/rooms the QOL has benefitted, but at moment I feel the QOL is not likely to be the quantum leap beyond stereo it is being promoted as, and will be VERY system/room dependent.
I'm looking at a parallel unit (NeutralAudio X-DREI) that again fits between pre and pow, and aims to convert spurious square and triangle waves (detrimentally created by power supplies/dacs etc) to sine waves to declutter signal to spkrs and reduce load/improve 'intelligibility' (my take). I feel this may be a more interesting way to go.
Marc

What will happen to this company if everyone wants to send them back and get their refund as stated? just curious.

Could be a real disaster don't you think or even if something does wrong because these are so new with no history.

I say this because I know numerous whom have ordered and said if they don't like it they will send it back and get their refund.

Can't resend used units out either to clients who purchased new.

Any thoughts in relation to this

Ozzy,

I hear you with "Qol" fidelity. So does Robert Harley and everyone who has purchase a Qol or is eagerly waiting theirs to arrive. It has impressed so many critical and now "wowed" ears that BSGT is sold out of units.

Dealers are being told it will be a few more weeks before the US factory can catch up with the overwhelming demand and hopefully keep up with the growing number of orders.

You are one of the many fortunate customers to be enjoying this wonderful addition to your system and its completion of your music and listening experience.

Don't be too hard on yourself about the emotional writing. Music and how Qol brings it to you touches your soul and emotions the way the artist intended. It is understandable that you were and are on the emotional high that others customers are on.

Enjoy and remember to "Listen to your ears!"

I'm glad to see this bit of disagreement between two long time Audiogoners appears to have been remedied. When I asked Doug if he had actually heard the qol it was a sincere question, and I accepted his response as being just as sincere. While many, if not most of us might be a bit cynical of strangers with different perspectives than our own, on some level if this forum is to have any merit, we need to have some faith in the integrity of each other. Questioning the integrity, or calling out another should be done with the utmost caution and reserve.

Thanks Douglas, I look forward to the review.
I guess I am so impressed with the Qol unit, that I can't believe anyone else would not be.

Ozzy, all is forgiven; no problem. :)

I decided to recuse myself from the review of QOL due to recognition of a bias about definition/clarity in system building. It will be reviewed by another Dagogo.com reviewer. If I felt there was something inherently wrong with it I would not have recommended it for review by a colleague.

The development of my perspective regarding definition/detail is just that - a developing perspective. I'm not 100% finalized on it, and may never be. I wish to continue to use alternative devices in rigs to learn, to experience, etc. But the more I do so the more my principle is reinforced. So, should a product be judged strongly on that one account? I'm not sure at this time whether that would be proper, so I declined the review.

I neither wish to dismiss products out of hand, nor use them and hold them hostage to one criteria which is gaining ascendancy in my methodology. I am in the process of sorting out the paradigm regarding such devices. Is it proper to seek such devices when I know they may violate my principle? I do know it would be wrong to dismiss the category of such devices altogether, or to dismiss a product which influences many parameters of sound for one perceived shortcoming.

Or, perhaps it would not be wrong to dismiss such devices altogether, but would I then be objective in regards to manufacturers' proffered developed technologies and products? In my mind it's not simply a cut-and-dried situation. I attempt to use sensitivity and wisdom in making such decisions. I'm sure some will aggree and others disagree strongly.

I believe that such a decision does not preclude my discussing QOL, as one who has used it, in an unofficial manner, noting my principles applied in discussion of it, as I have done above.

Dev, were cool and I hope I didn’t offend Douglas either because he has been a long time Audiogonners who's information has been very helpful.

Actually, the Qol should have included some sort of high quality volume control. Be it passive or active. It already has enough multiple inputs and outputs.
With the addition of a volume control the Qol could have replaced my Preamp and the extra cable , thus taking more electronics out of the chain.

Hi Ozzy, your post arrived prior to mine.

Hi Spiritofmusic, maybe my post did not come across clear so I'll clarifiy.

What I was trying to convey was;

I have a pre-amp connected to my amp using one IC cable, now I place this Qol for example between the two along with adding a additional IC cable.

The latter to me is not as pure a signal, hope that clarifies.

Now the end result, well that's a whole different story and debatable.

Question for Douglas. Do you have a highly treated room? I'm just throwing this out there so it may mean nothing. Maybe people with already really really good rooms do not can not hear the necessity of having a unit like the QOL. My room is not the best, and for me, the QOL seems to take the room at of the equation to a certain degree. In other words, it has improved my system enough to not have to make improving my room such a high priority. Doesn't mean I still do not need to improve my room, but the increases in 3D sound, clarity, and air with the QOL is enough of an improvement to make me very happy Thoughts?

To disagree with Dev, it is one thing to change the performance (good or bad) of a component with a power cord/interconnect/tweak, and another to alter the actual signal with a whole new black box between pre amp and power amp. Indeed, the makers of the QOL say it is of a whole magnitude beyond a simple component tweak.
I repeat, Doug says he has heard it, praises certain attributes that it brings to musical presentation, but feels on reflection that it alters (reduces?) enough of the detail presented to make these changes not significant enough to counter the positives in signal changes.
I feel he's been balanced in stating it's pros, further input on it's cons would be illuminating.

Ozzy, I have known you for years and must say I was shocked with reading your last response. :-(

I believe you owe a sorry for your last posting, no problem debating but why oh why does it have to turn to this.

I appreciate individules providing their take on what ever it is and in the end if the item really interest me then it's up to me to try and make my own assessment.

Just because I like it doesn't mean you or others will be agreement nor the opposite, it's all subjective.

One area that is a fact and no one should be able to disagree with signal wise is if you add something then the signal is not as pure with out, example; adding another cable and/or a devise such as this Qol.

Possibly you would like to repost clearifying your past post.

Douglas, Sorry for my ranting. And yes, you did hit a nerve. It’s just that there are so many postings from so called "experts" that have never heard the Qol. When I first read Doug Schroeder posting it sounded like just another so called expert chiming in without really hearing it. Then when another poster asked if he had ever heard one then Douglas said, yes with multiple units. Why that wasn't stated in his first reply, I don’t' know.

I assure you I owned the Focus speakers just look at my previous reviews. But, the comment I made about the Whisper speakers was to show that we all have different tastes when it comes to our systems. And perhaps the Whisper speaker is not the right design to appreciate the Qol.

Douglas and Sabai, as one can tell, I sometimes don't agree with "Reviewers" and there comments should not be considered as fact. I just don't want people to form an opinion of the Qol without actually trying it.

I am wondering why there was no review of the unit in question if Schroeder listened to it extensively in several systems?

Shakey

Douglas says he has heard the unit, and we should all take that as read Ozzy, as with all statements on A'gon. He's listened to it on multiple systems, so his opinions have as much validity as those also who've auditioned it, but like it in their system.
His point that any additional components in the audio chain will have a tendency to adulterate the signal, and the listener has to decide whether the alteration in sound produced balances out the adulteration, surely is a statement of fact.
What Ozzy needs to consider is that this unit (together with a unit called the NeutralAudio X-DREI that I've initiated a thread on, but has had few replies) is the first in a long while that fits between pre and pow and hence directly affects the signal getting to the loudspeakers, hence has more facility for radical change in sound than mere interconnects/tweaks that improve/deteriorate individual component sound.
Douglas, you say you auditioned it, heard some improvements to sound produced, but ultimately returned it; can you describe the downsides in sound that fit in with your hesitation on the grounds of signal altered negatively above and beyond any improvements produced.
Regards, Marc

Douglas_schroeder, your comments are spot-on. Ozzy's reasoning is skewed and contradictory.

First he states:

"All you are saying is that more is less. That line we all agree."

Then he states:

"Don't discredit an item just because you have to add another set of interconnect cables."

In effect, he is saying "more is less" -- then is saying "more is more".

It looks like you hit a nerve. Disagreement is fair game. But Ozzy's use of the word "discredit" is clearly inappropriate. This is an attempt to discredit you by turning your observations and opinions into a personal matter.