Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Question for Douglas. Do you have a highly treated room? I'm just throwing this out there so it may mean nothing. Maybe people with already really really good rooms do not can not hear the necessity of having a unit like the QOL. My room is not the best, and for me, the QOL seems to take the room at of the equation to a certain degree. In other words, it has improved my system enough to not have to make improving my room such a high priority. Doesn't mean I still do not need to improve my room, but the increases in 3D sound, clarity, and air with the QOL is enough of an improvement to make me very happy Thoughts?

Hi Ozzy, your post arrived prior to mine.

Hi Spiritofmusic, maybe my post did not come across clear so I'll clarifiy.

What I was trying to convey was;

I have a pre-amp connected to my amp using one IC cable, now I place this Qol for example between the two along with adding a additional IC cable.

The latter to me is not as pure a signal, hope that clarifies.

Now the end result, well that's a whole different story and debatable.

Dev, were cool and I hope I didn’t offend Douglas either because he has been a long time Audiogonners who's information has been very helpful.

Actually, the Qol should have included some sort of high quality volume control. Be it passive or active. It already has enough multiple inputs and outputs.
With the addition of a volume control the Qol could have replaced my Preamp and the extra cable , thus taking more electronics out of the chain.

Ozzy, all is forgiven; no problem. :)

I decided to recuse myself from the review of QOL due to recognition of a bias about definition/clarity in system building. It will be reviewed by another Dagogo.com reviewer. If I felt there was something inherently wrong with it I would not have recommended it for review by a colleague.

The development of my perspective regarding definition/detail is just that - a developing perspective. I'm not 100% finalized on it, and may never be. I wish to continue to use alternative devices in rigs to learn, to experience, etc. But the more I do so the more my principle is reinforced. So, should a product be judged strongly on that one account? I'm not sure at this time whether that would be proper, so I declined the review.

I neither wish to dismiss products out of hand, nor use them and hold them hostage to one criteria which is gaining ascendancy in my methodology. I am in the process of sorting out the paradigm regarding such devices. Is it proper to seek such devices when I know they may violate my principle? I do know it would be wrong to dismiss the category of such devices altogether, or to dismiss a product which influences many parameters of sound for one perceived shortcoming.

Or, perhaps it would not be wrong to dismiss such devices altogether, but would I then be objective in regards to manufacturers' proffered developed technologies and products? In my mind it's not simply a cut-and-dried situation. I attempt to use sensitivity and wisdom in making such decisions. I'm sure some will aggree and others disagree strongly.

I believe that such a decision does not preclude my discussing QOL, as one who has used it, in an unofficial manner, noting my principles applied in discussion of it, as I have done above.

Thanks Douglas, I look forward to the review.
I guess I am so impressed with the Qol unit, that I can't believe anyone else would not be.