Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Ozzy, I think it's a matter of taste. For example, just about all instruments sound better with some reverb ( or space), but if you add too much, the instruments sound too far away and less intimate. Sometimes this is appropriate, mind you, or at the very least subjective.

The QOL adds a sense of excitement for sure, and even the manufacturer and reviewers suggest it works better on some material than others. At first I liked it, especially at low volumes, but when ipi started noticing it adding additional space to vocals and instrument solos such that it made them recede into the background more, it became evident to me that it was effectively changing the mix. This is all fine if you like it, heck there are no rules and this is all about enjoyment. I just wanted to try and point out that I don't think it is true to the source and that I thought it was interesting that an pro audio device exists that does what the QOL does and more at a cheaper price.

Stephaen on the 6Moons site has written an extensive review trying the QOL between a variety of systems and listeners with fairly non-conclusive, and frankly, underwhelming results.
It seems that it's effects are subtle, but my biggest issues with the QOL arise in his conclusions. One is that it is VERY system dependent, album dependent and even song/recording technique dependent. How can one have long term consistent enjoyment if the effects are going to be dramatic one moment and possibly detrimental the next?
Additionally, I really have issues with the presence variation when the system is switched in and out. I fully understand the makers state there is no increase gain built in but such a spike in presence does not allow a true a-b comparison to be made.
Last of all I have philisophical issues with such bold claims of the groundbreaking revealing of hidden info being made but with such restricted discourse, so that the claim must be accepted at face value. My criticism applies not only to the QOL but other tweaks such as the Lessloss Blackbody which also claim much but deliberately eschew some explanation.

My guess is that over time, this device will fade in the high end specialty arena but may become ubiquitous in mobile MP3 devices, HT processors and even TV's, phones and car radios. It might appeal more to the masses than to the high end purists. Time will tell.

But with that ability, my question is then, why do so many recording's sound so crappy?

.

Simple, laziness or incompetence. That combined with a new generation that prefers lossy and/or compressed files where quality is not a priority, but convenience is allowing the music to be played on hand held devices suitable for multi-purpose uses.

Thanks to all the responses on this thread. What I have derived from the messages I read was that, you can get very good sound from an untreated room using QOL, OR the QOL "effect" is like getting your room treatment in place, where everything sounds just like the recording engineer intended while recording the music. It was mentioned earlier that QOL throws the room out of equation. At the moment room treatment costs suits me more than the QOL. From the last few messages, it is also looks like room treatments will not be system or recording dependent, unlike QOL.