Know anything about the BSG Technologies QOL?

So I was lucky enough to play around with a QOL in my system and here are my subjective impressions:

The build quality looks very good - along the lines of, say, Pass. It's designed to be flexible - e.g. if you have an integrated amp, you could put this between all your sources and the pre, but I believe the best way to use it is inbetween the pre and the amps, which is what I did.

As mentioned in reviews, there is a bypass button which you can toggle via remote but with the QOL enaged the perceived volume is louder so it's hard to A/B without the usual volume bias.

Listening impressions: I'm going to approach this from the standpoint of what my (amateur audio engineer) brain tells me is being changed by the QOL. First of all, the bass is pretty much unchanged. If I remember correctly, it only affects 125hz upwards. Everything above that frequency is louder - which changes the overall tonal balance to some degree. I found this mostly for the better in my system - at least at low to moderate volumes. I have plenty of bass, so more mids and highs (at least the degree to which it's augmented) seems good. It feels like it makes copies of all the information and mixes it back in with the original signal resulting in a presence/volume boost. Almost akin to 'double tracking' vocals and instruments (common recording practice to make a more palpable image) however in this case its doing it to the entire mix, not just an instrument. That means the ambience (or plain old reverb) is getting a boost as well.

The main effect to my ears is a more 'wetter' presentation. It adds 'space', as if the image was being projected in multiple directions instead of one. I suspect this is what people refer to as 'more like live music'. It IS engaging - no doubt about it, but it does come at a price: not all recordings suit this effect. For example, one of my test tracks is a Carpenters tune (yes, I do admit to listening to the Carpenters) where Karen's voice has plenty of reverb. With the QOL her voice is swimming in it and suffers from some intelligibility loss. It may still appeal to some folks - not like it sounds bad in any way, but imo it changes the character of the mix. Some track that had reverb did sound good - a Patricia Barber tune that has finger snapping sounded excellent and Patricia's voice, which already has gobs of reverb still sounded good. It varies. Classical music sounded good, as did jazz and rock (although I would still say this depends on the material). What I did find that some busy songs with instrument solos resulted in the solos being more buried in the mix (as if the engineer added reverb to it) where I prefer the more dry presentation.

Keep in ming that my Wilson speakers are very 'dry' sounding, especially in the upper frequencies. The QOL was never edgey and sounded quite smooth, despite the highs being more pronounced. I don't think I'd like this device in a very 'live' room.

The bypass switch is mandatory imo - and I think also in the manufacturer's. They warn that when playing vinyl, if an LP is noisy one may want to disengage QOL because it will emphasize the surface noise. While I haven't tried vinyl yet, I believe this to be true because with QOL engaged I can hear tube rush from my preamp at my listening position (where normally I cannot). It's truly being 'loudened' (and of course the frequencies for tube rush is midrange).

Ultimately I found that more and more I preferred my system with the unit in bypass mode.

My suggestion about A/B comparisons is that you should use recordings that you know extremely well. In the What's Best Forum there was a lot of talk about whether the bypass mode really took the unit out of the equation. My experience with about 70% of the recordings I used was that the changes were profound. There were a few recordings where not much happened, but there was no recording where the sound got worse. If you read the blogs, there is a lot of skepticism, but if your system has been the same for a long time, the addition of the Qol unit will make an instant (good or bad) impression on you. I think that a lot of criticism has to do with whether the results are accurate" or just euphonic (a little like all the discussion of "tube" sound). My take on this is that live instruments have a certain amount of randomness (chorus effect due to minor phase delays, even when instruments play together). When the music goes through a microphone, recorder, and finally your loudspeakers, everything becomes phase coherent. The Qol "restores" the effect of the original phase shifting. Whether this is the same as the original is the sticking point. Does that really matter, if the reproduced sound regains the character of the original , live sound. Isn't this the same thing as why many people prefer the "sound" of LP's. A good LP with its RIAA curve (which mimics the decaying acoustics of many concert halls, which usually do not project much above 15kHz) seems to be more musical. After all, recorded sound is merely an "impression," not a totally accurate rendering of a live event (I am referring to live classical or jazz recordings, made with all the musicians in the same room at the same time, not pop, which is never "live.")

I have also posted my review of the BSG Qol after 7 days of continuous use in the Audiogon section under Preamps.

BSG Qol Review February 2012.

I received my Qol unit late in the day last Saturday via Fed Ex. The Qol unit was very cold when I unpackaged it so I let it rest. Still, I was curious as heck so I did manage to play it for about 30 minutes that night.
I installed the Qol between My Pass XP-10 Preamp and Pass Labs X350.5 Amp. I was fortunate because I had another set of balanced interconnects just like my others and a Synergistic Tesla Power cord just like my others and I even had a 1A spare HIFI Tuning fuse available.

First impression, I thought it sounded kind of bright and with limited, if any, sound quality improvement.
The next day on Sunday, I played the Qol for a while, but again, I thought it was kind of bright sounding. I attributed it to needing some break in time. I then hooked the Qol up to a tuner and continuously played music 24/7 even when I was not actually listening to my music.

Well, I am a little embarrassed to post this but what the heck.
My earlier thoughts about the Qol sounding a little bright and the sound quality lacking turned out to be because I am using way too many speaker tweaks.
I found that the spades of my AudioPrism ground controls were touching the copper body of my Walker HDL Links, (On both L and R sides). In essence it was shorting out. It must have occurred when I was rerouting some of the cabling. Once I separated them the brightness went away, the sound quality greatly improved and the soundstage expanded every which way. I could actually hear that change occur when I was behind my speakers.
I wonder if I should just remove all of my speaker tweaks? Maybe later.

Since then, I have continued to break in the Qol by continually playing music through it. I believe the sound quality is still improving. So, anyone who says it is plug and play is not getting the full potential of the unit. Not sure how long the break in should take but 200 hours seems to work best for most electronic components.

Well my room also has problems that were preventing me from fully enjoying the Qol.
The Qol is certainly a different animal than what I have been used to. The Qol needs open area to do its magic.

So first off, I have had in my room for about a decade Argent Room Lenses.
For those unfamiliar to this room correction item, they are made with 3 pipes attached to a stand called dark matter. Anyway, the pipes are designed to work as a Helmholtz Resonator. There are 3 of these units in the room. Two were flanking the outer side of the speakers and one in the center of the room. These units worked fantastic, especially before my basement dedicated room was finished and I installed defined walls.
The Room Lens captured the side reflections and defined the soundstage.

Anyway, the Qol unit works almost the opposite by expanding the soundstage. So, I removed the Argent Room Lens from the room and played some music, and yes, the soundstage opened up.

The other problem I had was my Eggleston Andra 2 speakers were extremely toed in. The Toe in angle was so much that the image was directed to the center of my head. The music sounded like Olivia Newton John had her tongue in my ear. Not necessary a bad thing, but not correct for the recorded soundstage.
Well these speakers weigh 215 lbs and have 2” Audio Point spikes on them making it very difficult to just change the toe in angle.

I found that Herbie Labs sells a glider designed for Speaker spikes and with this glider I could move the speakers. So I ordered a set of them.

I received the Speaker spike Gliders a few days later and I went about reducing the amount of toe in. After the change, the soundstage became enormous.
I now have my speakers just about at a 90 degree angle and 36” from the side walls. But I will continue to experiment with placement further.

Well now it is almost 7 days later, how does the Qol sound? One of the big benefits of the Qol is the change in dynamics. I mean it is actually hard to find a volume set point to just leave alone. The music can go from soft to loud in a heartbeat. Funny, that even though the music appears to be quite louder, my Pass Labs Amp meter moves very little. This indicates to me that the increased dynamics is not pulling anymore current from my Amp.

With the Qol engaged, the music takes on a natural sound and image. The soundstage becomes very wide and deep. My speakers virtually disappear. I know that is said all the time, and before the Qol I thought my set up was awesome, but with the Qol you can hear deep into the recordings. The center image is the best I have ever heard. I can now hear background singers clearer and my toe tapping has increased.
The frequency extremes are heard with an authority. What I mean by that is that they are no longer buried in the mix but sound like they were part of the intended sound, if that makes sense.
Not all recordings were as hyped up as others. I guess each recording has its own reverb, echo, and different out of phase anomalies.

So the $4000 question, is it worth the money ?...
Well, if you want the deepest, widest soundstage and the wildest dynamics your components can handle, what price is that worth to you?
For me, it’s a keeper, no question.

I think that Ozzy's observations concur with mine. Luckily, I have a big, open area for my speakers (75 ft. long space with the speakers in the middle. I have mentioned in a few blogs that the distance and toe of the speakers might have to be adjusted. The edges of my Sound Lab M-1 PX's are about 6 feet apart, with about a 15 degree toe in. The illusion of greater dynamics and loudness I also noticed, and I had to set my default volumes about 9 db lower. As to whether the thing is worth $4000, well in a mid fi setup, where the whole expense is about 10-20,000, I don't know; but, in an ultra high end rig (over $120,000), the benefits outweigh the cost (a 5% investment, much like exotic interconnects, except the Qol will do a lot more).

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