Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

I'll offer my opinion as well but may be a little off topic. I was a MIT user for 14 years and decided to do some practical experimenting after numerous music lover said that these cables were choking my system. So, I took them up on their offer and was blown away with the results in my system. Sure MIT has a jump factor in soundstage and imaging but to me that's it, I found low level detail, shading and ambiance to sound artificial. After spending 8 years in England, most of the audiophiles I met there described MIT sound as "Hi-Fi-ish" and unnatural sounding.

Unsound makes a good point. Has Doug even heard the device in question?

Shakey

I conducted my assessment of QOL in my own room with multiple systems.

Douglas_schroeder, I find your comments and observations direct and to the point -- very helpful. After listening to the QOL in your system, does this add up to a component you will consider adding to your own system -- or not?

In response to Onhwy61,

Every recording engineer deals with the objective of creating an appropriate middle and side for stereo imaging. And, the range of subjectivity used in choosing this mix varies greatly from one individual to another. Stereo imaging is essential in the "placement" of instruments, vocals, etc. However, there is another critical element associated with the reproduction of sound, and that is the mix of direct and reverberant sound, the timbre quality of the room and instruments. Qol addresses this essential part of the recorded signals, to open them in the acoustic space as required to convey information buried in the signal otherwise.

The inventor of the intermittent wiper fought tremendous legal battles over the novelty of his patent. Comparing the Qol technology to an M/S processor is like comparing the words "it," "best," "worst," "time," "of," and "the" to the sentence: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Identifying components is far simpler than assembling them into art.