The "about qol" document tells you most of what you need to know: it's a sound processor that focuses on phase to try and "enhance" the soundscape, an attempt at a more sophisticated version of what a lot of these various boxes do to "improve" the bigness of the sound. Which may or may not work, depending on who's listening, and their system ...
Their goals are good:
" the brain picks up certain “cues” presented to our complex hearing system in the real world, that get lost in recordings for a variety of reasons. This “hidden and buried information,” as Klayman and others refer to it*, includes spatial and temporal cues. These kinds of cues do not merely tell our hearing system about the sound of the instrument, or instruments, we’re listening to, but also about other things that make up the “whole” sonic event. In the broadest and most marvelous sense, our hearing system in real life can capture and render the entire (physical) space in which the sound is occurring!"
and
"Hearing is an extremely complicated mechanical, biological, and neurological process.” He adds that “auto-correlation” of spatial and temporal differences enables our hearing system to apply many tools that clarify the sounds around us,” "
I didn't say that they've succeeded in any way in achieving their stated goal, just that they are aware of what's possible if the ear/brain is given sufficient clues in a decent manner. So what they're trying to do is help the playback system do a better job of presenting those auditory cues, whether they've been able to do that in a reasonably convincing way is up to others to decide ...
I didn't say that they've succeeded in any way in achieving their stated goal, just that they are aware of what's possible if the ear/brain is given sufficient clues in a decent manner. So what they're trying to do is help the playback system do a better job of presenting those auditory cues, whether they've been able to do that in a reasonably convincing way is up to others to decide ...
..... They appear to extract phase information via FFT and then do an algorithm on it....their audio example clearly states they are using a mono sound as the source and then it sounds (and scope shows phasiness) like in a larger venue, one might say opened up, and they claim that (true) regular recording does not keep track of phase (as in time shift). I mentioned this in your measurments thread concering THD not looking at phase.
can algorithm be use in the analog domain ? I am asking because according to the info on the site it says no digital manipulation...just asking !!
Would a potential side effect occur for poor recordings that are too hot/sibilance/reverb/delay-echo/etc, or even good recording that have certain ambience or audio effects?
By side effect I mean that these become more emphasised or even unnatural.
The other side of the coin is could it actually be positive instead for these.
Seems a risky unknown to me as music and the quality of recording/mastering varies so much, especially if it is $4k.
Cheers
Orb
The recommendation by RH and a perusal of the patent app. is enough to convince me that this box is a waste of money.
Does anyone on this forum really believe RH has any credibility vis-a-vis audio technology after his numerous published errors in explaining and comprehending basic electrical engineering principles?
A friend of mine was at the show today and spent some time with Richard Vandersteen and his wife and they both love the qol. Richard says it corrects phase abberations. FWIW
Well then I guess that I am losing it because me and my 3 friends spent 1/2 hour in the room with their remote in our hands so that we could quickly a/b between Qol and without. I sat in just about every listening position and all I can say is that if there is a change, for my ears it was just too subtle . My friends also left the room with question marks