Know anything about the BSG Technologies QOL?


Hi there, I just saw a local dealer advertising this on craigslist, They wont tell you anything about it except it works, it half sounds like snake oil and half sounds like it could be something.

They claim it is all analog and retrieves inner detail and has the "WOW FACTOR".

My guess after talking to the guy is is might be disgned around smoothing out microphone curves maybe? or sending out a ton of above 20KHZ info to do some pshycho acoustic/room type thing?

I'm just tripped out they wont tell you anything except, well set it up, if you like it awesome if not dont buy it.

I am genuinely intrigued to see if its truly real and if anyone has expreience. It would be nice to save a long drive to hear something or have something to look forward to on the drive.
128x128systembuilder
Is this where we are now -- mid-fi costs $10,000 - $20,000 and ultra-fi starts at $120,000? That must explain the dearth of outlets to buy anything hifi anymore, and the shrinkage of the market from one of hundreds of millions of people to a few hundred thousand.

But that's an aside. There are a lot of ways to spend $4,000 for a system improvement in this interest of ours, and I haven't heard a QOL yet. I will. Until then, I'm wondering whether it presents greater of lesser spatial realism. That is to ask, folks here are describing a "huge soundstage." What happens when the actual soundstage appropriate to the recording isn't huge?

And how do you get bigger dynamic spikes out your system with no more peak power output by your amp(s), making no other changes than adding QOL? Does it somehow make superwatts?

I had a conversation with Sean Casey, founder of Zu Audio, about the QOL a few days ago. He had a chance to hear one in a customer system at length, in a domestic setting. His view of it was that the QOL has limited value to a well-matched vacuum tube system, particularly SET. He didn't mention any spatial presentation advantages but then the system he was listening on is quite competent in that quality. He did spotlight the serious and valuable upgrade in tone density and tonal realism the QOL adds when a tonally lean solid state amp is used in a system, and he thought that for a SS devotee, the QOL may successfully address many of the system deficiencies, real or perceived, that lead to restlessness and dissatisfaction with gear, on the part of some owners. It may be an effective cure or at least antidote for audio nervosa. Sean also said something else I found interesting given other descriptions of QOL -- "it's not manipulating phase; it's a tonal thing, like a restoration, without alterning the frequency balance."

If we put aside theatrics and try to stay grounded in fidelity, what is its net value? I don't have any doubt that a given listener finds QOL satisfying for a particular aural itch, but does it get you closer to a sense of the musical intent or believability of fidelity, or not? That's what I want to know.

Phil
To Cobra: loudness in live music is a mysterious thing. e.g. The loudest a solo violin can play is about .02 acoustic watts. A bass drum could pump out 20. That is roughly 1000 time louder, yet ,subjectively both can compete because subjective loudness involves other things. I am sorry about quoting those prices, but for a well-heeled audiophile who will spend $4000 on a pair of interconnects, the additional expense for Qol would not amount to much (and, he/she can always return it). Long ago, before I started producing pro CD's, I gave up the idea of reproducing the actual live event. I was (and am) satisfied to put things back into the recorded event that have similar parameters. Even if we could reproduce the actual live sound, we don't have the physical presence of the musicians, 50% of that performer-audience relationship that often propels great performances in concerts.
>>loudness in live music is a mysterious thing. e.g. The loudest a solo violin can play is about .02 acoustic watts. A bass drum could pump out 20. That is roughly 1000 time louder, yet ,subjectively both can compete because subjective loudness involves other things.<<

Well, no foolin'. Sure perception in sound is different from emprirical performance. But loudness doesn't come free. If all other things are equal or consistent and one pre-amplification stage change is made, and it results in more dynamics or gain yet there is no change in amplifier output, something is amiss in the credit chain of this equation.

Most concert recordings are woefully short of the live listening experience, but occasionally, enough is captured and re-presented well enough to be a credible facsimile. When that happens I'm happy to hear it. But exaggeration isn't welcome..

Sure, the customer who spends $4K on interconnects will find the QOL's expense also incidental. I have two systems for which their cost dwarfs the expense of the Qol, but still, even if I'm in the mythical 1 or 2%, that doesn't mean I think it's a good thing for the industry at large to pin its business on more of me. Selling a metal box as a mystery rather than forthrightly outlining its operation benefits very few. In software, we have an axiom that patents and stealth are worth next to nothing. Your job in a technical innovation is to put it out there and then run faster in terms of technical iteration, than everyone coming after you. So you may as well explain yourself, clearly. Either you're serious about innovation as a treadmill mandate or you're not. When a company obfuscates its working methods as opaquely as QOL, I have to take the default assumption they are not serious about genuine innovation until I see otherwise.

But that's the minor point. For anyone who owns it, I want to know whether it gets them closer to a perception of musical realism or not. A huge soundstage characterization tells me nothing about the QOL's contribution to fidelity if the soundstage is huge whether that's the right presentation or not.

Phil
Phil,

As a technical person myself, I had many of the same thoughts and reservations you seem to have. I am not one for mystery but rather facts. I then did myself a favor and approached BSGT for an audition. Fact...I loved it and it did what it was supposed to do without diminishing the fidelity of the music. As a signal purist, this was extremely important to me.

I liked it so much that I immediately became a dealer and added it to my line of wonderful brands of gear and our line of custom music servers.

I have said this in a previous post and will say it again. I don't think BSGT is going to give their secret sauce to anyone, anytime soon. That said, do yourself a favor and have a listen. You may just be pleasantly surprised and inspired to listen to your entire music collection with Qol to hear what you have been missing all these years.

Ozzy, I am happy to hear you are loving the unit. That comment has not even started to get old to my ears.

If you or anyone is in the San Francisco Bay Area, I would be happy to audition a unit for you, at our shop or at your home. Just give us a call... setonav.com 510-279-2600
I don't think that the soundstage is larger than life. The way I would characterize it would be to say the there is the illusion of more air around the instruments. What I am evaluating are commercial CD recordings that I actually made myself. Since the BSG unit is so new, the one thing nobody can talk about yet is the synergy between it and other components, particularly loudspeakers. I suspect that really analytical transducers, like planars and electrostatics really benefit from this technology; while big box monsters, like the Wilson Alexandrias might not fare so well. All the controversy made stem from the synergy issue. After all, everybody knows about this problem in matching the right amplifier with the loudspeaker. That is why BSG offers the 30-day money back guarantee.