Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

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.

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, So are you keeping the Qol?

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.

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!