Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

I have been listening to the QOL for a week in my system. For details on the system pls see the audiogon systems section. The QOL is set up after preamp and before amps via xlr connections. Here are some subjective and objective observations (generally corroborated by more than one listener):
-when we ran a signal sweep we got the exact same frequency response but 2db higher
-although I have not measured it, perceptive change in volume is different between recordings and ranges well above 2db on occasion
-the stereophile comment of instruments sounding like they are “illuminated from within” is our own experience also
-soundstage grows significantly both in width and in height. My speakers are 4 meters apart and throw a 6m stage usually, with this device we get another meter (3 ft) depending on recording. That is not subtle
-where I differ with some of the positive reviews is that this change in stage comes with two negatives: imaging and depth. The sound is a bit more flat and imaging detail in this system is worse. The tight controlled and “you are there” instruments we hear normally become very pleasing to the ear but a bit more diffused. I think it is subtle enough that in a less resolving system it may not be noticed but here it is obvious and it is a real issue since this extra believability is quite important for a lot of recordings
-the main effect I get is an increase in ambiance. My ears feel like they do when I play an out of phase recording (eg in XLO’s test CD). I therefore assume some out of phase information is added. The in phase info is not lost obviously, hence the greater sense of envelopment in ambiance. The cost of this is what I described earlier
-the effect differs from recording to recording. In general it is a pleasing improvement but sometimes not (especially where specific instruments are prevalent and the loss of imaging is bigger)
-I find the built quality to be the equivalent of a $300 CD player with the exception of the larger faceplate. The buttons are terrible and the device tends to send surges of signal when turned on and off (my other equipment doesn’t do that). The circuity looks very simpe to replicate and my guess is that it is very very cheap to make (this guess is not corroborated by any expertise, just the fact that the amount of electronics and their quality are much less than what you would find if you opened a cd player from pioneer)
-the s/n ratio is much lower than my other equipment so that is not good. I assume the best implementation will be if and when preamp makers decide to stick this in the preamp itself

correction: I was not suggesting that the quality of the electronics is lower than that found in a pioneer, that was a typo. Just that there isnt much there and therefore that the cost of this must be quite low. That is a good thing obviously if this device ends up being popular but it makes the $4k price a surprise.

Ozzy,
I want to make sure that your passionate support of this product doesnt end up giving the wrong impression by putting words in my mouth.
-I didnt say that I was "disappointed" by the product. Instead, I listed my subjective listening experience and that of other very experienced audiophiles
-I thought that was particularly important as some in this thread had said that very high end systems may have different experiences with this product. I have no idea why that would be but I assumed it might be interesting to some people to hear what we hear
-The loss of imaging is because the instruments become less "tight" and in some recordings that reduces the believability of the instrument itself. The overall effect would therefore be going against what some of us purist audiophiles seek
-However, why this is happening is another issue. It could be that this is the greatest invention since sliced bread but its somewhat low built quality and the insertion of more cables and hardware are causing the result I reported. Even Harley admitted in his review that on bypass the piece causes some sonic change (which obviously cant be for the better!)
-Which is why I repeat that the best way to implement this technology would be for the preamp manufacturer to include it in a much more high end piece of equipment with better signal to noise ratios
-As for built quality, there it is not a subjective issue. This is not built like a $4k piece of equipment from the cheap buttons to the cover which is so thin it warps and resonates. I assume one can better significantly the performance by improving on its transformer etc. In any event, I think us customers should be honest about this stuff and cause manufacturers to build better products. The margin on this one must be offensive to our intelligence.
-I am very glad they have tried to come up with something new and the 30 day waranty (which I dont know if it applies outside the US) is a great way for people to try this out. I am guessing this means some people may end up with used equipment (?) but I would be happy with that tradeoff.

So there is no disappointment here. It is an intriguing piece of equipment and I look forward to seeing how it will perform when and if implemented in a real high end application.

Ozzy, I am curious although not ready to insert it full time in the system. Setonaudio, agreed on the connections and I had noted the faceplate earlier. Also, I am pretty sure that US manufacturers are perfectly capable of producing this technology at very competitive prices and hope they will. Maybe also add a decent remote!

Hi guys. I must also express surprise Teajay that you report small differences. I found the changes in my system to be quite significant although not necessarily for the better. It is indeed recording specific and one of the main differences is the perceived change in volume that each recording may get to. I got the same at my dealer's system which couldn't be more different than mine.
Ozzy, I sent it back. I also had discussions with other audiophiles that have cost no object systems. They all sent it back. Their experience was very similar to mine, i.e. that the main drawback is the loss of imaging detail, flattening of depth and a shift in the tonal hues of the instruments themselves. I repeat my view that in a system where resolution and imaging is not 10/10, this may not be easy to hear and therefore the enveloping feeling of the qol may be seen as an overall positive. It may be a good algorithm for car radios etc and maybe one day they can figure out how to deal with this drawback for high end.

Hey Ozzy,
The qol required me to add one Valhalla XLR. However, I don't think that matters at all since my comparison is not with and without qol, it is with qol on and on bypass. So the cable was always carrying signal and would have had its effect either way. I wish I could say cables (other than maybe power) can make such a difference but in my experience they don't...

Bryon is right and it almost feels like one cant say anything that is not completely positive about the qol without becoming inundated with passionate responses which try to find flaw in that opinion. I find that amusing and of course one has to assume that some people have lost the ability to be objective. Of course I am referring to other threads ;-)

A few points additional to what I said earlier:
-I find the ratio of returns information to be somewhat misleading as I know of more than one audiophiles with systems worth north of $0.5 million who have listened extensively to and did not purchased the device. They didn't buy but shared or borrowed from dealers. That was the case with me also
-I am very interested in the technology. It does read somewhat arbitrary eg why would the perfect ratio apply to this algorithm? (btw I am not suggesting it is arbitrary-I have no idea-I am saying it seems arbitrary to me since I dont have the technical knowledge)
-claims that this is as important as the invention of stereo are exaggerated and frankly hurt the credibility of the argument in favor of the technology
-this technology has the huge advantage that it certainly sounds nice in less accomplished systems. I would love to have this in my car, phone etc and I assume that is where great potential lies. Or put it inside preamps etc and take advantage of their lower s/n ratios, superior power supplies etc
-But how can one really patent this. I am no lawyer but this does look very hard to secure. Good luck
-I continue to think that their offer to return the device after a month's trial is wonderful and should be taken advantage of from US audiophiles. In Asia we are able to have dealers offer equipment for trial anyway

And by the way, at some point I will do another trial and spend more time with it. It is an intriguing product.

Michael

Ron, although people do debate whether the effect is a good or a bad thing, it does seem to be a very noticeable one, certainly when trying at least 2 or 3 recordings. In my system I hear a lot of out of phase ambiance which makes it sound like I am more enveloped in the music. A bit like listening to an out of phase signal whilst still listening to the in phase signal. You can rarely miss that effect. The stage gains about 2 feet in a stage that is otherwise 13ft or so. Again very noticeable. I also find that what people call forward is actually a diminution of depth and an increase in the size of individual instruments. Instruments do sound more illuminated from within (as RH said) but that is at the cost of loss of imaging and positioning accuracy. When I did a simple sweep I got a 2db difference across the spectrum but consistently. In different recordings however I get perceived differences as much as 5db estimated. Results do indeed vary with recordings, quite substantially. The usual reaction of seasoned audiophiles is WOW this sounds better, wow etc etc. After about 3 or 4 tracks people lose that initial enthusiasm and become more critical about the issues I mentioned. I completely understand why people with less resolving systems may not suffer from that and I also understand the enthusiasm given the magnitude of the effect. My system is also not limited by cost (you can see it here on audiogon) so I pretty much know when my neighbor is shaving. In my case, I didnt go further in my auditioning to compare dynamics etc. The loss of imaging is a big deal for me. Plus a pair of Ypsilons just arrived and I am rather spending my time comparing them to my system instead...

Interesting, I didn't try it after the source because I use both analogue and digital and wanted to avoid the extra switching. I wonder why that would make any difference if the claims of the manufacturer were accurate. The mystery continues!