Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

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!

I found I like it better after the source as well. Of course those with Integrated amps do not have a choice.

Dear Mihalis and Lwin, Thank you for your posts. At the suggestion of Pipedream, I installed the QOL after the source whereas before I had it between the pre-amp and amp. That one change has made a great difference in the overall presentation and enjoyment of the music. My amps, preamps are Ypsilon ( very resolving). So, any difference to the sound is very noticable. Yet, this QOL has changed the sound I think for the better. I haven't lost the resolution yet some "presence" is now apparent. Got just over 250hrs of breakin and ordered the Hi-fi supreme fuse. The jury is still out but now leaning slightly on keeping it. Have about 2 1/2 weeks to decide. I agree with both points of view about the merits of resolution and musicality. thanks Ron

In my response yesterday I may have sounded a little elitist when I stated that if you amp. preamp or speakers cost less then the Qol you would be better off spending your money elsewhere. I would like to clarify that. If you have an amp.preamp or speakers that you can sell for say $2K take that money, combine it with the $4K you were going to spend on the Qol & trade up. It is a buyers market & for 4-6K$ you could get some wonderful gear for that kind of money. In the 40+ plus years I have been in this wonderful hobby, I have constantly traded up.Like most of you I am not one of these 1% types that can just go out & purchase whatever I feel like.I trade up when it is an improvement & when I can afford it.With that out of the way, I would like to talk a little more about the Qol.What finally convinced me to purchase it was I spent a couple evenings just simply listening to music I knew very well.I ignored the bypas completely. Sometimes the Qol is not the most accurate sounding piece but most live performances have "errors' as well.What conviced me was the fact that in my system it has a very relaxed believable musicality to it.It gets me a little closer to being there. However one persons wine is another's vinegar. A wine I might call a fruit bomb somebody else might call a hedonostic delight. If you can afford one give the Qol a try and listen for yourself. Just because somebody may have a system that costs more then the average house & does not like it or they don't want to put another "filtering" cable in their system that is their opinion and they are entitled to it.The 30 day trial is very reasonable & will give you ample time to use the best sound testing device you have"your ears".

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...

My response is for those who like me saw the ads and curious as to whether or not this is worth trying out. Also kudos to Robert Harley who called it as he heard it knowing there was going to be some controversy to put it milidly.His article convinced me to give it a try.I installed the Qol between my preamp& amps.The first thing I noticed was the increase in volume which makes comparisons problematic because the louder volume source will tend to sound better. The second thing I noticed switching the bypass on or off and adjusting the volume was there were some changes in the sound and soundfield but nothing at that point that would get me to spend my money. After a couple hours, I decided that since it was a new unit, I would give it some time to break in. I shut down my amps & ran music through it for 2 days 24/7 before I sat down for another listening session. Again working with the volume differences, I went back & forth with the bypass switch.Things were getting interesting.The soundstage, width ,depth & height had noticeably increased. The music had an additional richness to it. There was more air around the instruments and overall the sound was simply more natural.Simply miked acoustic music that is well recorded has a live truthfulness to it. I ran it another 24 hours after this session and had friends over. My buddy is a skeptical electric engineer. His wife loves music but thinks we are a little crazy. After 5 minutes she said ," you don't need to tell me when it it is on or off, I can tell instantly. The soundstage is bigger and everything sounds better". My friend the double E took his time but by end of the evening he encouraged me to buy it. I spent a couple more good listening sesions before making up my mind to purchase one.To me it gets me that much closer to the live event. With some recordings you might not notice much of a differenc and with others you will have a smile on your face. I never heard anything I never noticed on a recording before but the presentation was different in a positve way. Background vocals that previously buried in the mix were delightfully involving. The same went for drums and cymbals that sounded much closer to real then before.If you are considering trying a Qol, I encourage you to do so with one caveat and that is if either your speakers, amp or preamp cost less then the Qol I would wait a while because there are a lot of good changes you make make to a system for $4K. For the record my system is not in the $250K I saw in another response but I could buy a new top of the line Corvette with the money I spent on it.

Rnwong,

Your experience with the SCS, from your post on 4/10/12, is exactly what I heard in my system. I tried it in two positions, source/preamp-preamp/monoblocks, and it did not make any difference. I'll be submitting a review on the SCS for my website hometheaterreview.com, which will not be very postive towards its performance. Personally, I would not spend the 4K on this device, as it did nothing I find to be an improvement in my system.

Dear Pipedream,
Thanks for the advice. As of yet I am not hearing that big of a difference with the QOL compared to my regular system. I do have it installed between the preamp and amp. My system is approaching $250K so subtle differences are easily revealed. I would like to hear from others who are on the "fence" as to what they were hearing that convinced them one way or the other to keep it or return it. Thanks Ron

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

thanks Bryon nice to be here.

For me the bypass mode is moot. Just no reason for it IMO. Yes I agree with that. Qol vs. non Qol.
Bypass mode is not the same as direct, period. When Qol is engaged though the affect wrought far outweighs anything else.
It takes at least 300 hours to sound its best. Bummer yes but worth the wait.
Is it installed after the preamp ?

Currently have the QOL on trial. Having heard it after 100 hrs of break-in wanted to get experience from others who have had it longer. What I am hearing is in the by-pass mode the sound is "veiled" and dose not reflect a true " un-QOL" sound. When I removed the QOL from the system the sound was much better from the by-pass mode and in my ears not that far different with the QOL in the "chain". So, a better comparison may be QOL versus non QOL rather than "bypass". What say you? Thanks.

A couple years ago, when I made the transition from lurking to participating, I had no idea how rewarding it would be. It's been great fun to share my experiences and hear about other people's experiences. I've learned a great deal from other participants, and I've met some very kind people along the way.

So welcome to Audiogon!

Bryon

Well said Sir. I'm new to posting here. Not much of a forum person.

Thank you, Pipedream, for you post. I am in agreement with you that sound quality and listener enjoyment are far more important considerations than principles of design or details of implementation. My interest in design and implementation is a result both of my desire to increase listener enjoyment and my interest in technology, both audio technology and technology more generally. That seems to be a fairly common motivation among A'gon participants.

Having said that, I will acknowledge that, in spite of the wide range of reasons why people post about various products, they can be grouped into two broad types: those who habitually post about products they like and those who habitually post about products they don't like. The first group is usually looking for ideas and information. The second group is usually looking for trouble.

IMO.

Bryon

Bryon my comments were not directed towards you. I agree with you 100%. My comments were directed to those who offer opinions of said gear without hearing it in their systems. Or simply dismissing it because of promotional verbage. Asking how it works is just dandy. There are those who need to know "how" great, no issues here. Just for me it does not matter. The end result no matter how described or implemented is the final test. We could go into detail how, why and so on. I feel it is moot.
The qol is a game changer. In over 40 years now hearing all types of systems and devices there have been contenders but no cigar until now. HRS, Carver, Hafler and so on have produced products that offer only a glimpse of what Qol can offer.
We have never been closer to the live experience until Qol entered our home. At $3995 it was a stretch which my wife reminded me of almost everyday. Then when heard she has changed her tune. She stated "great no more purchases coming along now that we have this". I responded and said "got that right" but ya know that Weis DAc is looking good. The door slamed and we were back to normal. Go figure.
Anyway not trying to start any flame wars. Whomever you are listen to one in your system and judge for yourself.

"Don't have any familiarity with Trifield, but note that regardless of spatial stuff, qøl™ also widens dynamic range, reveals more detail and more harmonics"
..........................

Larry,your description of the qol's influence on the musical signal sounds just like the very same thing my ears hear using the Harmonic Recovery System of yester-year.John Sollectito of SCE was the developer of said unit.Your description from above is exactly what I hear with the HRS in line. It recieved great reviews from reviewers and users alike.

>Audiogon is a place for the free exchange of ideas and information.<

Not really.....

I haven't heard the unit, but I'm considering a trial. My hesitation is that I set my system up to achieve sound reproduction that is true to the original recording. That's been my personal definition of the absolute sound so far. It seems to me that if the QOL effect is better or more realistic, then some similar process would have been applied to the original recording (assuming its a good recording).

Very interesting speculation, Bryon. Two brief points in response:
1. By a broad definition, everything is a processor. No signal gets through anything, even a one inch piece of wire, completely unaltered, so everything "processes." We actually process less than any preamp, phono preamp, amp or CD player, DAC, or many cables. And much less than any transducer (speaker or phono cartridge).
2. Don't have any familiarity with Trifield, but note that regardless of spatial stuff, qøl™ also widens dynamic range, reveals more detail and more harmonics. However, back to spatial. In life, sound radiates spherically and the ear-brain interprets all of that. With hi-fi, it radiates hemi-spherically. With qøl™, you're back to the full sphere and the ear-brain hears that as being more like the real thing. That's what a few are hearing when they say the images seem to be more forward.
Larry

To date, exactly 3 of more than 120 sold have come back. There is one more currently thinking about it. In at least one instance the reason was financial, not performance related. 3 (or 4) out of 120+ is not bad in our estimation.

I suspect any product with a return privilege would be hard pressed to do as well.
Larry Kay

04-01-12: Pipedream
Not for anything but why does this matter ? Whatever it is doing or not doing is moot to me...
Just do not see the need to now how it does what it does. Really guys without a home demo all is moot. How can we put down something not heard in ones system ?

My post was motivated by nothing more than curiosity. I am not putting QOL down. If you read my comments on this thread on 2/27, you will see that I own a Meridian preamp that, like QOL, can manipulate the soundstage. As I mentioned in those comments, I enjoy the effect. So although I haven't heard QOL, I am favorably disposed to the idea. That puts me in the camp of likely supporters, not detractors.

As for my motives for asking, I happen to be an audiophile who enjoys knowing how things work, within the limits of my technical competence. For you, knowing how something works may be "moot," to use your word. I would invite you to consider that what is moot to you may be of interest to others.

Also, it's strange to me that you would challenge a person who asks a manufacturer who has already elected to participate in a conversation to talk about his product in a substantive way. Even if my comments were intended to be challenging - which they were not - it is perfectly within the limits of civil discourse to ask a manufacturer for the principles of his design and even the details of his implementation. The manufacturer is free to share as much or as little as he likes. Several well regarded manufacturers are very willing to share, and do so regularly, like Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere, Bobby Palkovic of Merlin, Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio, and Duke LeJeune of AudioKinesis. And since I'm already stating the obvious, let me also say...

Audiogon is a place for the free exchange of ideas and information. That's what I asked Larry for. Ideas and information.

Bryon

Not for anything but why does this matter ? Whatever it is doing or not doing is moot to me. Having a Qol in our system now for over 8 nonths we are closer to the live event. Much more emotional impact. More information.
Just do not see the need to now how it does what it does. Really guys without a home demo all is moot. How can we put down something not heard in ones system ? Open eyes not shut maxamizes ones experience. You need not believe the marketing hype fair enough however everything and everyonr desrves a fair shot.

03-30-12: Psag
My question is directed to those who claim to have some idea what the QOL is doing: Is it something that could be done during the recording and mastering process? If so, then it would seem to qualify as a distortion device; i.e., something that changes what was originally intended.

03-31-12: Larryakay
It is neither a distortion device nor a processor. It's "revealer" of information that has been stuck inside all signals. That information is natural and part of every live sound we hear. It's the distortion BY OMISSION in all other equipment that is the problem qol solves.

I suppose it depends on how you define 'distortion.' If 'distortion' is any alteration to the musical information of the RECORDING, then QOL certainly seems like it introduces distortion, though it may very well be pleasing distortion.

If 'distortion' is any alteration to the musical information of the EVENT the recording represents, then an argument can be made that QOL does not introduce distortion, but rather corrects it, the rationale being something like... Although QOL "distorts" the signal, the signal itself is a distortion. QOL alters the musical information of the RECORDING so that it more closely resembles the musical information of the EVENT. In other words, QOL distorts distortion, making it sound less, uhm, distorted. Whether or not distortion that corrects distortion should itself be considered distortion is a philosophical question I will leave the reader to ponder at his leisure.

In all seriousness, the idea of correcting distortion with distortion is, IMO, perfectly valid, at least as an abstraction. A good analogy would be the anamorphic film format, in which the image distortion on the film negative introduced by the camera lens during capture is "corrected" by the image distortion of the projector lens during playback. Without the anamorphic lens on the projector, you wouldn't want to watch the movie. QOL is like the projector lens, at least according to the manufacturer. I haven't heard it. Which brings me to...

Larry - I've read the information on your website, and on 2/27 I posted some comments on this thread in which I said that QOL seemed a little like Trifield, though of course Trifield is 3 channel and typically implemented digitally, whereas QOL is 2 channel and implemented analog. What QOL and Trifield seem to have in common is (1) the manipulation of the perception of width, by deriving the difference between the L/R channels and amplifying it, and (2) the manipulation of the perception of depth, by adding some kind of frequency specific phase delay. Of course my comments about the methods by which QOL manipulates the perception of width and depth are purely speculative.

I understand that QOL may involve some proprietary technologies, but I'd be very interested to hear anything you are willing to share about HOW it manipulates the perception of width and depth. If you are reluctant to share the specifics of implementation, perhaps you would be willing to share the generalities of design, beyond the metaphors already discussed.

Bryon

P.S. Whether QOL's soundstage manipulation should be considered a form of 'processing' is, I submit, a philosophical question with the same chance of being answered as the question of whether distortion that corrects distortion is itself distortion.

If the qol solves these inherent problems with the signal, revealed what has been forever omitted, why then have some people bought the device, inserted it in their systems and listened and then decided to return it?

It is neither a distortion device nor a processor. It's "revealer" of information that has been stuck inside all signals. That information is natural and part of every live sound we hear. It's the distortion BY OMISSION in all other equipment that is the problem qol solves. Why do you persist in thinking that the old signals had and have nothing wrong? That they are complete and perfect? After all, they have the same limitations they've had since the days of Edison, Bell and Tesla, when they were invented, as they've never been been rendered in a better way since then. Until NOW, with qol.
Happy listening,
Larry Kay
CEO-BSG Technologies

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

My question is directed to those who claim to have some idea what the QOL is doing: Is it something that could be done during the recording and mastering process? If so, then it would seem to qualify as a distortion device; i.e., something that changes what was originally intended.

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...

No real helpful info. on my part(just like Shakeydeal!) However I appreciate Ozzy sharing his enthusiasm for this product. Where else are you going to hear about it in real world conditions. Many that have not found it to their liking I don't disagree with. How ever I don't think it is because your system is perfectly neutral causing the 'qol' to show all it does to or for a system. We all pick components no matter how neutral we think they are by balancing what we have with what we are getting otherwise it is just going to be noise to each of us if it doesn't meet our criteria. I appreciate that it sounds like Ozzie hit upon something, the 'qol' device, that works extremely well for him and that just may be of assistance to others also. Thanks Ozzie. Keep your enthusiasm and thanks for sharing.

Haven't heard it, but I bet it's just like what Mihalis describes. More crap in the signal path that reduces resolution and transparency.

No thanks.....

Shakey

Mihalis, I see you have some interconnects that cost more than the Qol.
What type of interconnect did you use with the Qol. You know that the Qol is in the signal path and a lesser interconnect than what you are used to would result in the conditions you descibed.
Anyway, you have a mighty fine system, but I still like the Qol.

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.

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.

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.

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

What is SCS or what does SCS stand for?

I have had the qol device in my system for over two weeks and found at best it made very minor changes on some recordings soundstages and placement of players on the stage. I did not find these changes to be a significant improvement compared to when the SCS is put into bypass.

Regarding timbres or tonality I experienced that the SCS at times kinda dried out the overall sound of my system.

Finally, even in bypass mode I did not find this device to be totally transparent, it added some amount of noise and took away some of the purity of my systems overall clarity.

I'm a staff reviewer for hometheaterreview.com and the
auditioning of this piece will be presented as a formal review in the next few months on the website.

another huge plus for the QOL is you can go out and get an integrated amp or preamp that does not have input select on it's remote since you can just hook all of your sources into the 4 inputs on the QOL. A lot of the good preamps and integrated amps have remote volume control but not input select.

Same message I left on the Tech Talk section.

Oddiophool, the 6 moons review was poorly written, I couldn’t tell if they liked it or not.
Suffice to say I find all their reviews too flowery with little substance. The Qol needs to be listened with the volume left alone instead of constantly fiddling with it like they did in the review. The dynamics is one of its main virtues.
Plus they tried it in so many systems with so many different listeners. Terrible way to do an analyis.

Ozzy wrote: "They used 7 different unfamiliar systems that were'nt really dialed in."

FYI: The various systems were familiar to all to the listeners. IOW, each listener had previous, extensive experience with each of the systems that were used for the evaluation. All of the systems were dialed in, as well.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/bsgtech/1.html

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!

Mihalis,

Great review...the thread appreciates your pennies.

But, I am with Ozzy on the build quality. It may not be as stout as a $4000 SS amp but it is much, much nicer than a $300 CD player that is usually made with a plastic face and other cheap parts. BSGT seemed to have picked very nice connectors and a heavy chassis. At a 25lb shipping weight, I would hardly call it a lightweight component. At this weight, it would compare to many of the Sonic Frontiers components that were often noted for being well built and stout.

As for price and internals, well... they are made in the USA and I am sure that is adding to the cost of production. My two pennies, I would rather see my money spent on American goods, made by American hands, stimulating the US economy, than save a few buck on product made offshore.

disclaimer: I am a Qol dealer.

Mihalis, So are you keeping the Qol?

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.

Mihalis, It's a good thing you can send it back. You would have been disapointed if you had to keep it.

I however, really enjoy the Qol in my system and I have neither of the negatives you mention. I also think it is a very good looking unit with very good inputs and outputs. The bottons on my unit seem to be well made, so I am not sure what your complaint of them is, but they are rarely used because my Qol is always on.

I certainly don't doubt that you were not impressed by the Qol, but I'll keep mine.

Mihalis, thanks for the informative review.Based on your opinion of the QOL unit one can be a little more subjective in making a purchase decision. As all things audio,listening is the final arbitror.

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.

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