This review page is supported in part by the sponsors whose ad banners are displayed below

Now what if the truthfulness of one or more of those—or any other for that matter—speaker designs was slightly, moderately or severely incoherent in the time domain? Those kinds of designs exist without a doubt. What might this do to the accuracy of the intended phase shift or phase layering (dialed into the qøl circuit by careful listening one presumes)? As Srajan put it in another email, we have everything from the ‘we don't care coz you can't hear phase’ speakers to the whole minimum-phase 1st-order brigade to the zero-network widebanders. With a wildly time-incoherent speaker design, we have to add additional phase rotation on top of what the device does intentionally. Conceptually the outcome would seem quite arbitrary or impossible to predict when those two stages (qøl + loudspeaker) add up.


And we haven’t even begun to comment on the inevitable influence of various electronics, cabling, software and rooms/speaker placement. About the latter I will say that with the device engaged one can ‘tighten up’ the focus of center fill whilst retaining the typically open and airy spatial effects of the technology by simply (in the case of some speakers) moving them a bit closer together and/or increasing toe-in. Make sure to try this especially if the device’s efforts to address recorded phase anomalies turns out to be too phase-y for your liking. One other thing to note—and this seemed to be almost ubiquitous across systems in which we deployed the device—was that the 'sweet spot' for listening became less critical.


In all settings we did some quasi-single blind testing. That’s code for non-scientific. I pushed the active/bypass buttons on the remote while others listened. In all but two of the settings the four frequent listeners occasionally failed to concur reliably whether or not the unit was in active or bypass mode. In each mode there also was occasional consensus that differences were heard and what they were. Sometimes these descriptions tended to focus on intelligibility; sometimes on tonal balance or harmonic density; sometimes (most often in fact) on stage size and ambience; and sometimes a combination of two or three of the above. When the device was active, it was not uncommon that one or two of the listeners could tell no difference at all when differences in gain were small; or when large differences were mitigated via a remote volume control used in conjunction with the device’s own remote.

In short, it did make a difference in every system. Two of the four frequent listeners remarked on a gain in mid-bass presence almost regardless of system. Two also commented on a slight loss of overall transparency when the unit was introduced into the system as opposed to being completely out. Whether listeners liked the difference once the device was in place was also influenced by software, recording technique/quality and system configuration. In some cases listeners reported a ‘muzak’ effect, meaning some homogenization from recording to recording occurred. In other instances they were surprised by improvements to the 'open-ness' of the sound/performance. Equally surprising—in the same instances—were the improvements in dynamic range, such that requests to turn the volume down on songs we had just heard at the reference bypass volume were not unusual.
screen captures of company's online oscope presentation: original signal left, qøl signal right
One telling data point emerged as we were checking out the MA Recording Krushevo. Here we have Vlatko Stefanovski and Miroslav Tadic on guitars recorded with only two omni mikes inside the large stone monument of the Makedonium. As Nelson Brill’s review put it, "… your system will be tested to its maximum to convey the glorious decay of this last punctuated note reverberating off the stone walls of this unique rounded acoustic space ad infinitum. I have never heard such wonderful ambience of both recorded space as well as the body of the instruments employed." With the device engaged we noted that the attack of guitars seemed slightly blunted and the decay (found throughout all of the pieces but especially prominent at the end of most songs on this album) audibly shorter.


This did not surprise me. I am of the school which believes that the fewer microphones are used, the better our chances are of being left with more correct phase. To my ears, the spatial relationships heard in this recording were understood more properly without the device because we are used to the perceptions we make with two ears. The resultant sound reached our ear-brains in a focused and coherent spatial and harmonic picture. Multi-miked recordings are another ball of wax however. They generally tend to rob us of phase-real perspectives. If the time domain of the recording is incorrect, life-like spatial information and realistic tonal or harmonic information are negatively impacted. Both spatial and harmonic accuracy are always linked to more correct recorded/playback phase.


So I am left with seeing no way for this device to being equally 'right' in terms of ‘the absolute sound’ nor 'pleasant' on each and every recording. As mentioned, in our experience a really well-engineered purist recording can actually suffer. On the other hand less-pure recordings augmented by the qøl™ technology can—more frequently than not—deliver seemingly more life-like and ambient-rich 'wet' sound. Speaking of recordings, physically trashed LPs need not apply for the treatment (unless you really like more surface noise added to your existing surface noise). Otherwise stick to bypass mode. Don’t ask me how I know. I swear I don’t own any roughed-up LPs. I just borrowed a couple. Yeah, that’s it.


Summing up. I have read words like ‘staggering’ and ‘profound’ to describe the improvements brought forth by the qøl™ Signal Completion Stage. That was not my experience. That does not make me deaf however. In many cases the incremental changes made the sounds emanating from my system bigger and prettier in terms of warmth and fullness, which in turn made it easier to listen to — and yes, sometimes more emotionally engaging. That's a wonderful thing in my book. As often as not, our listeners focused on a fuller and bigger presentation; improved dynamics, intelligibility and placement of instruments; heightened information retrieval from corners and sides of stages; and greater overall ambience. Even so, based on the experiences of listeners with positive leanings, not one asked how they could obtain a qøl unit. Whether the differences are worth the asking price thus seems to be another question altogether. I wouldn’t mind having one on hand for long-term experimentation. The expense is simply beyond my ability to rationalize in terms of being a necessity to make my system deliver the goods I crave. I know, I know. It's only expensive if you can’t afford it. For the ones who can, have at it! I encourage you to decide for yourself. As I’ve said many times before, when it comes to putting together a system that transports you to where you want to go, there is no the absolute sound, only your absolute sound. In closing, I want you to know that bsg technologies has a very reasonable proposition. You can try the device, at home in your system, essentially risk-free for 30 days. The usual very reasonable conditions apply.
Manufacturer's comment: We appreciate the time Stephæn put into considering BSG Technologies' qøl™ Signal Completion Stage, but the listening methodology confused us.

Our brand-new technology was approached with great breadth (7 systems, the reviewer and a "listening panel" of at least four!) but very little depth. When trying to hear and understand a controversial, brand-new technology, it would be better to "go deep". Long-term listening to a single well-known system or two, using well-known recordings, by a single knowledgeable critic, would reveal more than Stephæn's "survey". Moreover, we request that listeners compare the sound of a system with qøl™ to live sound, not to "old stereo" paradigms. There was no semblance of that in the review.

Moving from the general to a few specifics:
1. The concern with "level matching" effectively turned off our technology. The way to get past the possible preferential prejudice created by the 0.5dB to (in extreme cases) 5.0dB volume increase is to listen past it over time, not to switch back and forth. As an analogy, think of a Jack-in-the-Box, but change the design so it has a zipper around the top. If you completely unzip Jack, out pops "stuff". But, if you only partially unzip Jack, out pops nothing. Stephæn and friends, in their level-matching zeal, repeatedly closed the zipper. And, as we've said before, qøl™ does not amplify - 2V in equals 2V out. There is a difference in volume that is not the result of amplification but the result of revealing more information. (An orchestra will sound very different in an anechoic chamber compared to a concert hall. That will remain true regardless of level matching.) And what qøl™ does goes beyond soundstaging and imaging to include tonal clarity and dynamic nuance. We've been told on at least four occasions that only with qøl™ could musicians hear backing tracks they believed had been "left on the cutting room floor"; likewise, only with qøl™ could those musicians detect the nuances of sound from their particular instruments, as opposed to a more general instrumental sound ("my" Stradivarius, rather than "a" Stradivarius or even "a" violin).

2. On to recordings... we have acknowledged that qøl™ will do more for some than others. This doesn't mean qøl™ is wrong or inconsistent. It's the recordings that are inconsistent. In most collections, purist recordings add up to, at most, 3 percent. Are we going to ignore an opportunity to hear more from the remaining 97%? Moreover, the use of "purist" Blumlein mic's (or others, such as cardioid and hyper-cardioid) no longer assures purity. Today's "purist" mic's often include switching capabilities, filters, frequency cut-offs, etc. The live event may be sacrosanct, but that does not translate to the recorded capture of it.

3. We won't go on, but we'd like to make one more correction: The Editor referred to inventors; qøl™ has only one inventor, Barry Stephen Goldfarb.

We encourage everyone to audition qøl™ and we make it easy to do that.

Happy listening,
Larry Alan Kay
CEO
BSG Technologies, LLC

Warranty: When delivered in original condition, in original packaging, from bsgt or a bsgt authorized dealer and used in normal conditions, shall be free from manufacturing defects in material and workmanship for three (3) years from the date of original purchase.
Quality of packing: Excellent.
Reusability of packing: Appears reusable several times.
Quality of owner's manual: Everything you require.
Condition of component received: Flawless.
Completeness of delivery: Complete.
Website comments: Useful.
Human interactions: Professional and friendly.

bsg technologies website
Enlarge!