Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Koestner, creative thinking; I like that. I suggest you do that experiment. Let us know if you fry out anything in the signal path! :)

The QOL is no different than any other device which is non-necessary in the signal path (i.e. passive networks on cables, power conditioning/filtering, etc). It offers potentially increased sense of separation between instruments and a more 3-D sounstage, but at the cost of an absolute reduction of clarity/definition due to the component and extra set of cables being added to the rig.

It is not a 100% additive device, but is also subtractive in nature (as are these others referenced above). Every potential owner/user must determine if the effect it offers is worth more than the electronic overburden it imposes upon the rig. Just as responses will vary in terms of whether a DAC with level control should be used with an outboard preamp, so also reactions/conclusions will vary in terms of the efficacy of the QOL.

To date the only devices I can recall which have been virtually 100% additive without a noticeable subtractive effect has been Opamp upgrades and certain brands of cables.

The QOL imo does have efficacy in terms of manipulating the soundstage and perception of spatial relation and level of instruments/voices as they are heard in a recording. Some will conlcude it is an absolute necessity to achieve SOTA sound, while others may disagree. I believe the dividing line in regards to personal acceptance of it will be determined by whether one accepts the additional (i.e. additional, though non-necessary) signal processing or less.

I am not interested in arguing my observations, and YMMV.

I conducted my assessment of QOL in my own room with multiple systems.

Sabai, thanks; I try to be clear but also balanced in my assessment of products. I returned the unit for the reasons stated above.

Sabai, yes, your system is at a good place in terms of definition/detail when you can hear such things. One of the attributes of the QOL is that it does tend to add more of that 3D or "rounded" nature to the images.

Spiritofmusic, yes, it's frustrating to have limited access to components! There are many times I am frustrated by how many wonderful looking devices are across the pond, so to speak, with virtually no chance of my being able to use them.

But, do not despair, since there are many ways to build a great system. In fact, I learned that there are SO many ways to build rigs that I had to develop my own set of rules to do so for what I feel is maximum results.

Looking at the NeutralAudio X-DREI, it seems interesting, but I assure you, as I did with the QOL, it cannot be added to the system without some degradation of the signal. It's simply impossible to ADD components without more processing and the associated losses which result.

I think this X-DREI would have to be assessed just as the QOL; you would have to hear it in your own rig to know if it's benefit outweighed the loss of its insertion along with a set of cables into your rig.

There is no way of telling how the unit would sound/what it would do to the sound of the rig without hearing it, so I will not speculate on that. After glancing at the 6 Moons article it strikes me as a device I could live without.

One last thought to help prospective owners/readers; look at how many "add-ons" are used by the reviewer. You can tell a lot by the nature of the systems a reviewer builds. i.e. Does the reviewer use extensively tweaks? Do they use a lot of 'extras' for incessant fine tuning? Some do, some don't.

Personally, I have a very high threshold for what I spend my time on. I have eschewed the majority of what some may consider worthwhile tweaks. Half of them make no difference, and the other half make so little difference that they are a waste of time, imo.

Case in point, one of my good audio friends the other night surprised me by showing up with a CD Mat device. I had actually used it previously years ago with several cdp's and returned it to the manufacturer as I was uninterested in it. It was completely ineffectual on tray type cdps and marginally effective on top loaders. Weird; there was not complete consistency in that regard.

My friend thought it would be a surprise, but I told him it had already failed my Law of Efficacy. We tried it, and it took about one minute and two track selections for him to say, "Ok, that's enough," meaning it failed miserably.

He was right; it actually detracted from the sound quality. It has taken him years, but he now is finally beginning to trust his ears immediately in terms of what works and what doesn't. In other words, if it doesn't sound FAR better in the first few seconds it likely will not sound better no matter how much time you give. Break In will not matter, time will not matter - the device will not be sufficient to please long term.

A device had better sound fantastically better immediately, or else it likely will not impress me. I urge every audiophile to NEVER accept marginal improvements. ALWAYS demand in EVERY change a HUGE, mind-blowing upgrade. There are limitless improvements available and you only hurt yourself if you settle for less than shocking, perceptually huge improvements.

I would know very quickly if the X-DREI passed or failed my Law of Efficacy. I usually know it within a minute or two. If it passes, then I have to REALLY slow down and assess why, how, etc. it is having such a profound effect and how I can harness it's power.

But, again, don't worry if you can't get a particular device! There's a LOT of ways to make a killer rig! :)
Anything, source, cables, amp, pre, speakers - any of them can yield stupendous gains in sound quality. Don't worry over what you can't use; spend time putting together what you can use to get fantastic results.

I have been using monoblock integrateds for years now and have compared them to some extremely high end pre/amp combos, always favorably. Why? Because of the elimination of an entire component and set of cables. It's not that the mono integrateds are the world's best, or absolutely perfect. No, but it IS due to the elimination of the extra noise and signal loss which adding another component and set of cables would cause.

The shortest signal path has a VERY profound influence on system building, FAR more than most audiophiles know or want to believe.

Now, what if you had a flat sounding preamp? or a rather lifeless amp? Would QOL or X-DREI be appealing? Most likely. But if you have an extreme system the shortcomings of adding that extra component are evident, no matter what they call the technology. Then it is simply a question of, "Do I like this better," and the tradeoff will be usually definition for dimensionality.

The Black Hole device gains due to not being in the signal path; it also loses due to not being in the signal path. In other words, it doesn't potentially add to the amount of processing and diminish the signal further, but it also cannot impose a change upon the signal to improve it. It is perhaps the opposite of the QOL or X-DREI in that it suffers none of the drawbacks of these other devices, but cannot confer the same potential benefit as these others.

We come down to the simple truth that the best way to alter the sound is with the signal path, but it's also the best way to screw it up. Hence, there are many good designers but fewer superb designers; many good system builders but fewer superb system builders.

I can't comment on the Black Hole device as I have not heard it, but the principle is surely worth consideration. The Legacy Whisper DSW (reviewed) which I use has a rear facing driver which operates out of phase for similar purposes, to physically treat the bass wave interaction with the head wall. There is an obvious benefit to be gained in the opinion of some speaker designers/users with such a system, and it does not impact the signal of the mains. However, for many devices which are out of the signal path I find their effectiveness is an order of magnitude less helpful. I would much rather spend my time trying devices like QOL or X-DREI than work with objects outside the signal path.

Regarding power; I have found that power supplies are critical when it comes to component design. However, many power filters/conditioners are also subtractive/additive, as they harm the signal as well by being in the signal path.

Obviously, it's not recommended that you go without a power protection device like a power bar. You do so at your own risk.

Ozzy, I take it you didn't like my assessment? That's ok, you're entitled to your opinion as well. :)

Sadly, careless insinuations like, "I suspect you didn't even try one," end up hurting you, not me. I typically work with manufacturers directly, not dealers. I could, if I wished, provide copies of both the delivery and return of the unit, but I don't care to provide you with personal information. If you don't believe me, so be it.

What's ironic about your post is that we also disagree on the Legacy Focus vs. the Legacy Whisper. If I were to take your approach to disagreement I might insinuate that you have never owned the Focus, for surely no one could come to such a conclusion if they had! But that would be a bit callow, wouldn't it?

Finally, perhaps you meant to say "discount" in your last line, verses your word selection of "discredit." If I wished to discredit QOL my posts would have been quite different. :)

Ozzy, all is forgiven; no problem. :)

I decided to recuse myself from the review of QOL due to recognition of a bias about definition/clarity in system building. It will be reviewed by another Dagogo.com reviewer. If I felt there was something inherently wrong with it I would not have recommended it for review by a colleague.

The development of my perspective regarding definition/detail is just that - a developing perspective. I'm not 100% finalized on it, and may never be. I wish to continue to use alternative devices in rigs to learn, to experience, etc. But the more I do so the more my principle is reinforced. So, should a product be judged strongly on that one account? I'm not sure at this time whether that would be proper, so I declined the review.

I neither wish to dismiss products out of hand, nor use them and hold them hostage to one criteria which is gaining ascendancy in my methodology. I am in the process of sorting out the paradigm regarding such devices. Is it proper to seek such devices when I know they may violate my principle? I do know it would be wrong to dismiss the category of such devices altogether, or to dismiss a product which influences many parameters of sound for one perceived shortcoming.

Or, perhaps it would not be wrong to dismiss such devices altogether, but would I then be objective in regards to manufacturers' proffered developed technologies and products? In my mind it's not simply a cut-and-dried situation. I attempt to use sensitivity and wisdom in making such decisions. I'm sure some will aggree and others disagree strongly.

I believe that such a decision does not preclude my discussing QOL, as one who has used it, in an unofficial manner, noting my principles applied in discussion of it, as I have done above.

Jazzerdave, if the QOL technology were implemented inside another component then one would have to approach the entirety of the device's sound. That would make it harder to isolate and discuss, but also might mask it.

In the end if QOL were a feature of another component it would have to be assessed like any other component, head to head with some other reference.

Would I listen to it again if it were incorporated into components. Absolutely. Who can say what would transpire on a venture to merge it with other devices? I'd be game to hear it. QOL may end up most powerfully utilized to elevate lower end electronics. If it could be leveraged to lift the performance of an entire field of Mid to Lower HiFi gear - not mentioning the separate component - it would be a powerful boon to the hobby.

Dolby was very powerful in concept and application, and I enjoyed it immensely in recording music. The QOL has potential to alter the listening experience in a pleasing fashion as well, so I don't think it's a throw away idea.

Now that I've started I may as well add...

I see no correlation between QOL and devices like the A.R.T. system and Lessloss Blackbody. I would recommend the latter for a trial but not the former products, certainly not for someone who wishes serious changes in a rig.

If by "system-dependent" it is meant that the QOL doesn't sound good with all music or all components - surprise, surprise. Most components don't. It takes a radically good device to sound superb with nearly everything it's mated with. However, I think of system-dependent more as operational limitations, i.e. flea amp mismatched with low effic. speakers. The QOL seemed consistent in operation in rigs I built both before and after preamp, with SS and tube amps, and with dynamic and ESL speakers.

In no way would I suggest the QOL fixes room issues. As the community can guess I'm not overwhelmed with most room correction devices for similar reasons as my reaction to QOL. I would not see QOL as a "room fixer" component.

I have to leave this topic; waaaay too much to do!