Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Gcsakakini, Glad you like the Qol. I have had mine for over a month. I could never go back now. I leave the Qol on all the time.
Did you happen to notice what I posted above? When I moved my speakers a little, they locked in place and the dyanmics really shined.
That's probably why the 6 moons review on the Qol was so confusing. They used 7 different unfamiliar systems that were'nt really dialed in.

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.

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.

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.