BSG Technologies Qol signal ...advertised in TAS,,what is it ?
- Thread starter Revel Salon 2
- Start date
Hi Bruce,
yes I read your information and that was great and thanks for sharing, I would like to read from a few other experienced individuals who have taken the time and put it threw it's paces and report back their findings also.
Don't know if any of you ever watched that TV program where individules would actually take the time to prove if it's true or a fake, think it was called Myth Busters! Something like that but very cool.
We did not take it completely out of the system. We just used the bypass option on the unit itself.
Hi treitz3,
I don't agree with just pushing the by-pass on the unit it's self because it's still within the chain, best way would be as I mentioned above "it being the most purest way" no second guessing then, no added IC's etc. Personally this is the only way I will do any comparisons in my own set-up. I would be glad to demo one of these if someone wants to provide one and I would then report my findings but I'm not about to drop x amount of dollars on something that I'm very skeptical about. How many hours does the unit actually need for break-in? no one really knows this because it's a new product so the 30 day trial really isn't enough if the unit it's self isn't fully broken-in. Also being so new where will it really benifit "offer it's effect" the most and what are the differences placed in specific areas of the chain.
my 2-cents worth anyways
According to the patent application, what the QOL does is mix back into the input signal phase-shifted high- and low-passed segments of that signal at fixed levels. I think the application even spells out the crossover frequencies and mix ratios. All of this would be trivial to reproduce in the digital domain.
Although I have not heard the unit or a digital implementation thereof, I suspect the spaciousness is much like what one hears when listening to planar dipole speakers on edge -- a set-up many Magnepan owners seem to like. Similarly, I recall a system that used small front satellite speakers to reproduce L-R and R-L difference signals and which added much spaciousness with appropriate recordings. IIRC, the Hafler system was much like this but used rear satellites.
Although I have not heard the unit or a digital implementation thereof, I suspect the spaciousness is much like what one hears when listening to planar dipole speakers on edge -- a set-up many Magnepan owners seem to like. Similarly, I recall a system that used small front satellite speakers to reproduce L-R and R-L difference signals and which added much spaciousness with appropriate recordings. IIRC, the Hafler system was much like this but used rear satellites.
Polk tried with the SDA's and Carver did it with the SH. This implementation was leaps and bounds from what I heard above both. It wasn't like MG's, a ribbon speaker or planars. Allow me to explain. A guitarist wasn't three feet wide. You could tell where they were strumming as opposed to changing notes within the sound scape. In other words, it didn't just "throw" sound out to sound spacious and enveloping. It did however, enhance the performance in a very pleasing way.
Granted, I have not spent days or months with this unit and with certain systems and configurations things may change. What I am saying is that on the system I heard it on and during the time I had with it, the Qol did a really nice job and truth be told? Made that system.
Granted, I have not spent days or months with this unit and with certain systems and configurations things may change. What I am saying is that on the system I heard it on and during the time I had with it, the Qol did a really nice job and truth be told? Made that system.
I have been using a burned in BSG Qol in my system for about a week. I don't think that a demo at a show would suffice to hear what the unit is doing. I first did a 200hr. break in (unit was a demo and already had about 100 hrs. on it). Since my system has been the same for at least 2 years, I know it well. I used recordings that either I mastered myself or which I have used in the past as demos. I would say that the increase in soundstage clarity and imaging was remarkable. I would suggest trying the 30 day trial, assuming that you use the first week to burn in the unit and subsequently leave the thing on all the time. Also, use XLR interconnects and a good power cord (as short as possible)
Remember that Harley has a tendency to parrot marketing hype and has limited technical understanding and nil engineering background, so I take everything he says along these lines with a handful of salt. Recall that he once wrote a review of what he thought was the first commercial up-sampling CD player and, while practically lifting ad copy verbatim, rhapsodized over the sonics (of course) and the sota technology while being completely unaware that the lowly Sony Discman (among many other products) had been doing this for at least a decade. I guess the >$5000 price tag kept him in thrall.
REG swears that RH has good ears, and as his colleague, I suppose, he has to defend him. I don't know about his hearing, but I mistrust every syllable printed under his byline.
REG swears that RH has good ears, and as his colleague, I suppose, he has to defend him. I don't know about his hearing, but I mistrust every syllable printed under his byline.
My advice would be not to read about it and see what you can do about auditioning it. This Qol is definitely a controversial piece of gear and reviews are seemingly all over the map. Time will tell but I would advise just trying it out before discounting it altogether. You ears might just thank you. If it doesn't float your boat, there is nothing wrong with that. Relying on just reviews, especially from ones whom you question does no good. I'm actually surprised that I read his review as I do not usually read reviews but with what he had to say about the sonics was for the most part, spot on to my observations.
The only thing that I did not experience was the collapse of the sound stage with it disengaged. Yes, it shrank quite a bit but it did not collapse...at least in the meaning of "collapse" I think of.
The only thing that I did not experience was the collapse of the sound stage with it disengaged. Yes, it shrank quite a bit but it did not collapse...at least in the meaning of "collapse" I think of.
I am currently demoing one of these. It is an interesting piece. Blind testing is the only way to audition it and the volume needs to be adjusted. I ran a test signal through it when active and in bypass mode and there is about a 1.5 to 2 db difference. I took it to a friends house this last weekend and placed it in his equipment rack which is located in a room behind his listening room so we were able to do the blind listening. It clearly both widens and deepens the sound-stage and really does make the listening experience more enjoyable. I also disagree with Bruce on exaggerated sound stage. Not even close to exaggerated. Is is more accurate? Don't know and don't care since (a) I was not in the room where and when it was recorded and (b) my view of a home audio system is to provide an enjoyable listening experience and not to re-create the live performance, which is impossible in the home - as far as I'm concerned.
Notice: Anyone who auditions this piece and eagerly switches between bypass and engaged will love it but in that case, you are mostly hearing the volume increase/decrease - louder (certainly by this amount) almost always sounds better.
Will I keep it? Still don't know, but probably. It certainly works better on some recordings than others. I have some multi-mic'd acappella recordings where the improvement (or for those of you who don't think this is an improvement, at least a difference) was pretty spectacular. This is the recording that is very spacious that I first used to listen:
If the product were $1000, I would keep it in a heartbeat. My guess would be that their strategy would be to convince SSP companies, DVD manufactures or preamp manufacturers to imbed the technology into their products --- which the very successful approach Audyssey utilized.
I would say this: the "difference" this $4000 box makes is much larger by many orders of magnitude than going from, for example, a $5,000 preamp to a $9,000 preamp. I have neither and still struggle with spending this kind of money on any audio “thingie” which doesn’t mean I won’t buy one).
And for those that did not hear any difference, that was my initial experience as well. Once I figured out what it was doing, it was easy to hear the changes even in a blind environment. The real questions one must ask are: (1) do I perceive the changes as an improvement or just a change and (2) if an improvement, are they worth $4000?
Notice: Anyone who auditions this piece and eagerly switches between bypass and engaged will love it but in that case, you are mostly hearing the volume increase/decrease - louder (certainly by this amount) almost always sounds better.
Will I keep it? Still don't know, but probably. It certainly works better on some recordings than others. I have some multi-mic'd acappella recordings where the improvement (or for those of you who don't think this is an improvement, at least a difference) was pretty spectacular. This is the recording that is very spacious that I first used to listen:
If the product were $1000, I would keep it in a heartbeat. My guess would be that their strategy would be to convince SSP companies, DVD manufactures or preamp manufacturers to imbed the technology into their products --- which the very successful approach Audyssey utilized.
I would say this: the "difference" this $4000 box makes is much larger by many orders of magnitude than going from, for example, a $5,000 preamp to a $9,000 preamp. I have neither and still struggle with spending this kind of money on any audio “thingie” which doesn’t mean I won’t buy one).
And for those that did not hear any difference, that was my initial experience as well. Once I figured out what it was doing, it was easy to hear the changes even in a blind environment. The real questions one must ask are: (1) do I perceive the changes as an improvement or just a change and (2) if an improvement, are they worth $4000?
Last edited:
When I have the original recordings that I did and KNOW what the soundstage is like, this unit exaggerates the field. There is no way you can blindly test this thing when it increases the gain. You're always going to like the louder signal.
This is just a smoke and mirrors box that is NOT true to the source.... period!
Bruce, what i find rather disconcerting is that several big time reviewers have recommended this unit
because they "like" what it does to the sound...and these are reviewers who claim to be on a quest
for the most transparent, neutral, uncolored sound.
Thenagain, this reviewer completely trounces it. More proof that you cannot take the voodoo element out of high end audio.
http://hometheaterreview.com/bsg-technologies-qol-signal-completion-stage/?page=2
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.
Thanks, I will have to read that one...I read Harley's and Atkinson's-
From JA's SPhile review:
It's difficult to sum up my reaction to BSG's qøl Signal Completion Stage. On the one hand, I liked what it did to every recording I played through it. So much of the live event doesn't make it through to a two-channel recording, and the Signal Completion Stage usefully increased stereo's sense of envelopment. The answer to the fundamental question a reviewer must ask—"Does the product make the sound better?"—is an unequivocal "Yes." But it did appear from my measurements that the qøl process is primarily a variant of the well-known shuffling technique, and in that context, its $3995 price seems high.
However, the Signal Completion Stage is a well-engineered product made to a high standard, and its four pairs of inputs offer a lot of flexibility. I wish only that it had a volume control so that, in addition to the qøl processing, it would become a full-function line preamplifier. Alternatively, a basic, single-input version could be less expensive.
I know this sounds like a cop-out, but you must audition the effects of qøl for yourself—something made easier by BSG's 30-day, money-back guarantee for direct sales of the Signal Completion Stage. Whether the improvement in sound quality is worth the price asked will, even more than usual, be an individual decision.
My sentiments exactly only I would not even suggest it is an improvement (since there is no way for me to be able to hear the original recording performance). But it is a significant change that I find most appealing.
Similar threads
Members online
- Argonaut
- DW101
- nafis
- Abolive
- analogsa
- Odd Harry
- Inline Six
- agencal
- Ken_loves_classical
- fxg
- Lynnot
- Johan K
- dennis h
- micha b.
- Achilles
- Adcc
- mtemur
- morricab
- emergency
- thekong
- the sound of Tao
- admin1959
- luca.pelliccioli
- hogen
- kimurastanley
- kostas6a3
- Mark212121
- Dunc69
- Audio Quack
- digit_linn
- bally_le1
- fbs
- Azjya
- Crom
- Emilzebira
- SOS
- Emorante
- Rob77
- Beltane_sun
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |