Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

What is SCS or what does SCS stand for?

Teajay, "minor changes", Wow! Have you had your hearing checked lately?
Just kidding, what kind of speakers are you using?

Ozzy, I have not moved my speakers since I got my QOL, but I would not be surprised that the differences you found were due to the QOL adding phase info. In the owner's manual, I think they recommend less of a toe-in for the speakers.
Mihalis, I share your concerns about the build quality not befitting it's 4K price tag.
Teajay, On some recordings the changes are "minor" but on others, especially orchestral, the changes can be dramatic and ususally makes things more wet, not drier.
Kclone, SCS stands for "Signal Completion Stage"

After reading all of the posts in this thread, I must say that I have experienced some of the negatives and all of the positives expressed above. For me, the QOL/SCS is a keeper as it benefits outweighs it drawbacks, and there is no guarantee that this technology will ever be available in a pre-amp or whatever. The QOL/SCS has added flexibility to my system and also when watching movies, I find that the phantom center channel mode is significantly improved.

Hi Ozzy,

The two speakers I have been reviewing the SCD with are MG-20's on MyeStands that are bi-amped along with a pair of speakers from Lawrence Audio called the Cello. The Cello has turned out to be one of the finest box enclosure speakers that I have ever heard, regardless of price. It is a five driver 3.5 vented design that uses two eight inch cone woofers along with Air Motion Transformer drivers for the midrange and high frequencies along with a ribbon tweeter used as a super tweeter. It is rated from 32Hz to 40 kHz, with the sensitivity (2.83V/1m) 90dB. It retails for $18,000.

Ozzy, I think this device is very recording and system dependent, along with how sensitive the listener is to phase. Since as you know you get a 30 day auditioning period, why not try it and see if it floats your sonic boat, as it did for you, but sunk mine.

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.