Stereo Field Processing

Bruce B · Nov 9, 2011

Stereo Field Processing - BSGT QOL Signal Completion Stage

Had the opportunity to test out a BSGT "qol Signal Completion Stage" last night. I went to their website and tried to find out some information on what this box does. They charge $3995 and offer a 30 day trial.

BSG Technologies

Below is a photo of the unit. It sits between either your source and pre or the pre and amp. There are no settings besides on and bypass. I was listening to its effect and found I could recreate the same exact effect by using the mid/side settings on my console. It does increase gain and brings up all the "side" information from about 125Hz and above. I had put an SACD in my Playback Designs and also had the ripped DSD information in my Sonoma workstation and going through an analog loop from the console. I matched the gain and did quick A/B comparisons to see if I could emualte the effect. Anyone could do the same exact thing using a L+R/L-R/Mid algorithm.
That's it....??? For $4k? The company says it's completely analog, no digital processing and the company says the "qol" effect is patented. The effect reminds me of an exaggerated Q-Sound.... very phasey! Seems this is the only component that they make. Me thinks you need to save your money....

Bruce B · Nov 9, 2011

For a much cheaper (and better) alternative, use the Rupert Neve Stereo Field Editor. The effect is variable where you have greater control over the effect. Also, you can vary the depth and other cool features.

Rupert Neve Portico 5014 Stereo Field Editor

amirm · Nov 10, 2011

Thanks Bruce. It is disappointing to hear that it doesn't perform better than other cute but quickly tiring stereo effects processing.

Bruce B · Nov 10, 2011

amirm said:
Thanks Bruce. It is disappointing to hear that it doesn't perform better than other cute but quickly tiring stereo effects processing.

The bad thing is they claim it's an ambience/music recovery system:

"we have simply found a way to extract information already present in recordings, but otherwise hidden in conventional reproduction. Our technology enables COMPLETE capture, transmission, and reproduction of such information, including elements that, until now, have remained hidden and buried in electronics, and unavailable to the listener"

All it is is a stereo field editor that mixes in an out of phase signal. You can see it on the o-scope demo they have on their site.

[video]http://www.bsgt.com/technology-information/oscilloscope-view-of-qol/[/video]

dallasjustice · Nov 11, 2011

would the so-called Harmonic Linearizer fall into the same category?

http://www.fmacoustics.com/c_dom_fm_133_233_harmonic.html

ted_b · Nov 11, 2011

Thanks Bruce!! I was gonna order one for inhome 30 day. I'd been talking with them for some time since RMAF.
Ted

Bruce B · Nov 11, 2011

dallasjustice said:
would the so-called Harmonic Linearizer fall into the same category?

http://www.fmacoustics.com/c_dom_fm_133_233_harmonic.html

It sounds like the same exact thing with greater control of the frequency spectrum.

EDIT: Looks like they took out full-page spreads in both Stereophile and TAS this month...

arthurs · Dec 3, 2011

Thanks Bruce. The Rupert Neve looks like it might be fun to play around with. There are QOL users out there who are quite taken with it's effect. It appears the Neve would give one more precise control over how much or how little they wanted to introduce the effect and adding gain isn't mandatory as it appears it is with the QOL. I'm probably going to get one just for the fun of it and to learn something. (technically challenged user so always like learning something new)

Bruce B · Dec 3, 2011

arthurs said:
Thanks Bruce. The Rupert Neve looks like it might be fun to play around with. There are QOL users out there who are quite taken with it's effect. It appears the Neve would give one more precise control over how much or how little they wanted to introduce the effect and adding gain isn't mandatory as it appears it is with the QOL. I'm probably going to get one just for the fun of it and to learn something. (technically challenged user so always like learning something new)

Congrats! You'll have lots of fun with it, that's for sure.

DonH50 · Dec 3, 2011

What's next, another Aphex Aural Exciter? I can hardly wait... NOT!

Thanks Bruce, nice job figuring this one out! - Don

Revel Salon 2 · Jan 8, 2012

There is a review in this month 'absolute sound' magazine....Robert Harley was very impressed with it...a good review with an interview with the designer..

Robin Hood · Jan 11, 2012

Bruce B said:
For a much cheaper (and better) alternative, use the Rupert Neve Stereo Field Editor. The effect is variable where you have greater control over the effect. Also, you can vary the depth and other cool features.

I'm not sure if feeding the rear L+R speakers some manipulated output from the Portico 5014 in conjunction with the unaltered stereo signals to the front L+R speaker system would recreate something better sounding than the typical DSP processing in A/V receivers for surround sound. So for someone with a multichannel audio system, what is the best way to create surround sound from stereo analog or digital sources?

audioguy · Jan 11, 2012

Based upon the Harley review, it seems to me that the new Lexicon piece, based upon what I heard at CEDIA, would provide a more realistic solution. Also, the designer said he didn't want to sell boxes but rather have existing hardware companies imbed the technology into their platforms. And which companies does he envision doing that?

Robin Hood · Jan 12, 2012

audioguy said:
Based upon the Harley review, it seems to me that the new Lexicon piece, based upon what I heard at CEDIA, would provide a more realistic solution. Also, the designer said he didn't want to sell boxes but rather have existing hardware companies imbed the technology into their platforms. And which companies does he envision doing that?

The problem with the Lexicon, or some other unit with digital processing, are the necessary conversions from analog to PCM digital to analog, which for me just messes up a lot of what is so good in pure analog. Obviously digital to analog conversions are great but for me analog to digital conversions at less than 24/176.4 PCM leave a lot to be desired. I don't know if there are digital processing units that operate entirely at 24/176.4 or higher PCM or DSD64 or DSD128, but if not I would prefer to stay all analog like the QOL or Portico 5014 for analog signals.

MadFloyd · Jan 13, 2012

Crap. Wish I read this thread before I ordered one.

Robert Harley's review was very convincing and I figured that BSGT wasn't advertising, but it sounds like I didn't do my due diligence.

Robin Hood · Jan 14, 2012

MadFloyd said:
Crap. Wish I read this thread before I ordered one.

Robert Harley's review was very convincing and I figured that BSGT wasn't advertising, but it sounds like I didn't do my due diligence.

That may be a premature assessment. In most stereo setups the QOL will be impressive. Furthermore I believe there is be a 30-day return policy if you are not impressed or believe the difference in SQ is not worth the price.

Robin Hood · Feb 10, 2012

arthurs said:
Thanks Bruce. The Rupert Neve looks like it might be fun to play around with. There are QOL users out there who are quite taken with it's effect. It appears the Neve would give one more precise control over how much or how little they wanted to introduce the effect and adding gain isn't mandatory as it appears it is with the QOL. I'm probably going to get one just for the fun of it and to learn something. (technically challenged user so always like learning something new)

So was it fun or was it a disappointment?

NorthStar · Feb 10, 2012

This sounds like a 'guitar effect pedal'. No? ...Stereo Field Processing.

Robin Hood · Feb 16, 2012

Bruce B said:
Congrats! You'll have lots of fun with it, that's for sure.

Robin Hood said:
So was it fun or was it a disappointment?

Bruce, it doesn't seem as though arthurs pursued the Rupert Neve Portico 5014. However I noticed that the pro audio 5014 has balanced I/O. What are your recommendations for connecting the 5014 between a consumer audio preamp and amp that both have unbalanced RCA I/O? In your opinion will the complexity of such connections with the 5014 diminish the "QOL-like" sonics that have been praised in several reviews?

Bruce B · Feb 16, 2012

Robin Hood said:
Bruce, it doesn't seem as though arthurs pursued the Rupert Neve Portico 5014. However I noticed that the pro audio 5014 has balanced I/O. What are your recommendations for connecting the 5014 between a consumer audio preamp and amp that both have unbalanced RCA I/O? In your opinion will the complexity of such connections with the 5014 diminish the "QOL-like" sonics that have been praised in several reviews?

Not a problem since it has gain adjustment. With good solid connections, you will still enjoy the full effect.

Stereo Field Processing

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Attachments

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Attachments

Banned

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert

New Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Similar threads