Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

I've read both new reviews and after having been able to listen to a QOL for a few hours, I don't agree.

I found QOL effects seductive but not more realistic. Spatially, it does perceptually enlarge the sonic stage but more by pulling apart the center and compressing placements toward the left and right extremes than by actually enlarging it. Anything left in the center suddenly has a lot of space around it, whether that's natural or not. Front to back dimensioning is more of an actual asset but here QOL makes you a first row listener regardless of what would be natural for the performance or consistent with your habits if listening live. It also presented height dimensioning too large to be authentic in almost every case. And human voices sound like they originate from three-foot throats resonating into 16 foot chest cavities. In fact overall this was the most distracting aspect of QOL -- its in-your-face presentation even when a more distant perspective is natural or known to be in the recording itself.

Tonally, I heard QOL introducing seductive distortions to natural sound that are easily enjoyed for being ultra-vivid, but saturated of tone and texture beyond what's heard from real instruments even up close. I thought QOL sound was highly entertaining and so of course its greatest advantage was Blu-Ray cinema sound. There is some merit to the observation that phase coherence renders aural events more revealed and precise. But again it forces a guitar-is-6-inches-from-your-ear experience with string plucks and wood resonance that no one hears other than the player, and even then he or she doesn't hear THAT from a playing position.

So on balance I believe reviewers, so often unmoored from the sound of actual music played in real spaces, are seduced by the magnified and overwrought presentation rendered by QOL, rather than judging its contribution to convincing fidelity. It is a highly entertaining contribution through aberration, and I can see it making some category of modest systems more engaging through a kind of hallucinogenic euphonic bloom. No doubt fun for some. But if you already have a tonally truthful, realistically resolving system, my advice is to put $4,000 into more music or something else on the gear side that's genuinely advancing of musical truth. QOL is a funhouse mirror for your recordings. You have to seriously consider how long it is before that gets old.

Phil

Peterayer,

I heard QOL in two systems, one of which I wasn't familiar with much of the gear. The bulk of my time with it was in a meticulously built system in a Rives-designed room, and I was highly familiar with the gear. This was a six figures system of very high resolution, accuracy and convincing tonality. While my comments derived from this audition, my responses to QOL were same hearing it through an unfamiliar hifi too.

I should add that the owner preferred listening with QOL in the loop though he hears what I noted and whether just entertaining or real to him, he likes it. For me QOL was mostly euphonic splash which was a distraction from sonic realism. I can understand why a friend who heard it thinks it has value adding tone to hifi powered by lean solid state amps.

Phil

>>The better the system the more the Qol will impress.<<

I don't agree with this. My experience listening to QOL on a few systems is the opposite. The perceived gains of having a QOL in the system tend to be more favorable on less resolving, more modest hifi circumstances. The better the system, the more QOL's overwrought spatial distortions are revealed.

>>Next, using the Qol will require moving your speakers closer together...<<

I'd heard this advice before hearing QOL. On one system it wasn't feasible to move the speakers at all, and anyway they were as close together as could possibly be useful for stereo in the room. But on two other systems, moving the speakers closer together was easy, so I indulged the suggestion incrementally. I found no change in QOL's introductions of spatial distortions, just some differences of type, dimension, direction and scale. In some respects spatial distortions became weirder with *any* reduction of the space between speakers, from already optimum non-QOL placement for stereo.

>>You will need another interconnect that is at least the equal of your other interconnects.<<

OK, sure. Did that.

No less disturbing to sense of fidelity for me than the spatial anomalies were the tonal aberrations. I considered all the tonal aberrations euphonic but further from realistic for every instrument and voice. And I agree that when pushed, QOL sounds like it clips or develops strain before anything else in the system does. Though I could understand why some people were drawn in. Same with the spatial distortions. Very entertaining in a funhouse mirror sort of way. Tonally, everything is over-vivid. QOL was to me very engaging temporarily for over-the-top upsizing of sources. As I wrote before, I think QOL is a hoot for Blu-Ray movie soundtracks when you want more of that cinema sound bombast and unreal space from HT2.0 in your house.

What I liked least about QOL was the way it zoomed you in for a first-row listening assault regardless whether first-row perspective was appropriate to the music, the performance, the recording. For me, I think I could listen to *any* system and recommend a better way to spend $4,000. For anyone trying to determine whether the audition is worth the time, dig into the archives here of people with opinions and triangulate whose perceptions are best matched to yours. If you're like me you will pass. If you're like Ozzy you'll embrace QOL and be happy you did.

Phil