Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

To build on Chayro's post, I have an SPL Qure parametric equalizer which has the Qure processor. In addition to the normal 3 bands of parametric EQ the Qure processor messes with the signal's phase and adds a mid/hi boost which is intended to clarify vocal/instruments and reduce digital harshness. It also adds around 1-2 dB to the signal. I personally don't like the effect and never switch it into the signal path, but if is definitely noticeable.

I'm not saying that the SPL Qure is the same as the QOL device, but just pointing out that phase manipulation devices are fairly common and do have a sonic effect.

On the BSGT website there is an oscilloscope reading of a mono audio signal before and after the QOL process. Clearly the after picture is no longer a mono signal. Could somebody please explain.

On 2/1 I posted a question. Does anybody have an opinion?

It's not snake oil, but it's not something revolutionary either. From the paucity of info available from the manufacturer it appears to be a mid/side processor. Read this article for an understanding of the M/S process. I believe Alan Blumlein described this in the 1930s.

A summary of M/S is that it breaks down a left/right stereo signal into a mono mid channel and 2 side channels. The stereo image size can be increased or decreased by how the side stereo signals are mixed back into the mono mid signal.

The Manley Backbone is a mastering studio preamp that has built in M/S processing. The Rupert Neve Field Editor is an outboard M/S processor that offers extensive control in manipulating the stereo width and depth.

Being that M/S processing has been extensively used by mastering engineers for decades and is also readily available as DSP plug-ins in most recording/mixing software, I don't see why high end, audiophile oriented manufacturers would want to incorporate the QOL process into their products.

Setonaudio, not sure I fully understand your post. I agree that audio engineers fix the stereo perspective and wet/dry balance of mixes and that there are now devices/processors available to the listener that can further manipulate these elements. My point about QOL being an M/S processor is that it allows comparisons to other M/S processors regarding effectiveness and value. For instance, the SPL M/S Master offers studio quality performance and control flexibility for approximately $2,000. At the other end of the price spectrum is the $50 PSP SterePack DSP plug-ins. Is the QOL better than these other products? I have no idea. But at least interested people can make a comparison without being held back by the idea that what the QOL accomplishes is only available from BSG.

Setonaudio, please put a disclaimer on you postings.

Setonaudio, are there other products you sell that rate an enthusiastic endorsement? Just curious, it might help put some perspective on your BSG comments.

It is not a distortion device, it is a signal processor. This is a signal processor that's a distortion device.