Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

A few of my comments on the Qol.

First off everyone thinks that there systems are very resolving so to me that has nothing to do with whether you will be impressed by the Qol.
The better the system the more the Qol will impress.

Next, using the Qol will require moving your speakers closer together otherwise you will get the effect of too much extreme right or left. I didn't have to move mine much, perhaps 6" each but that totaled a foot closer. Depending upon your room and how far apart your speakers are to start with you may have to move them even closer together.

You will need another interconnect that is at least the equal of your other interconnects. Otherwise you are not hearing the full potential.
I am using mine with my HiDiamond Interconnects and power cords.

And finally, the cost of the Qol makes us not want to like it. I know I was trying to figure out how it was not to my liking so I could save my money. But in the end, I had to give in to the fact that the Qol really added a dimension to the music that brought it closer to real live music sounding.

I couldn't be happier with the Qol.
But as what has already been posted "to each his own".

Don't let other opinions make your decision to not try it.

Ozzy,
I wish you well in your pursuit of happiness.

>>The better the system the more the Qol will impress.<<

I don't agree with this. My experience listening to QOL on a few systems is the opposite. The perceived gains of having a QOL in the system tend to be more favorable on less resolving, more modest hifi circumstances. The better the system, the more QOL's overwrought spatial distortions are revealed.

>>Next, using the Qol will require moving your speakers closer together...<<

I'd heard this advice before hearing QOL. On one system it wasn't feasible to move the speakers at all, and anyway they were as close together as could possibly be useful for stereo in the room. But on two other systems, moving the speakers closer together was easy, so I indulged the suggestion incrementally. I found no change in QOL's introductions of spatial distortions, just some differences of type, dimension, direction and scale. In some respects spatial distortions became weirder with *any* reduction of the space between speakers, from already optimum non-QOL placement for stereo.

>>You will need another interconnect that is at least the equal of your other interconnects.<<

OK, sure. Did that.

No less disturbing to sense of fidelity for me than the spatial anomalies were the tonal aberrations. I considered all the tonal aberrations euphonic but further from realistic for every instrument and voice. And I agree that when pushed, QOL sounds like it clips or develops strain before anything else in the system does. Though I could understand why some people were drawn in. Same with the spatial distortions. Very entertaining in a funhouse mirror sort of way. Tonally, everything is over-vivid. QOL was to me very engaging temporarily for over-the-top upsizing of sources. As I wrote before, I think QOL is a hoot for Blu-Ray movie soundtracks when you want more of that cinema sound bombast and unreal space from HT2.0 in your house.

What I liked least about QOL was the way it zoomed you in for a first-row listening assault regardless whether first-row perspective was appropriate to the music, the performance, the recording. For me, I think I could listen to *any* system and recommend a better way to spend $4,000. For anyone trying to determine whether the audition is worth the time, dig into the archives here of people with opinions and triangulate whose perceptions are best matched to yours. If you're like me you will pass. If you're like Ozzy you'll embrace QOL and be happy you did.

Phil

I think the QOL will find a happy home in car stereos, TVs, telephones and radios. In other words, in mid-to-low-fi environments. Isn't that the eventual plan of the designer?

Peterayer,
I would differ from your point of view on qol's purpose of mid-to-low-fi environments. We will have to define this "mid/low-fi". What may seem "hi-fi" to me, may be "low-fi" by your standards. The reason being "affordability".
At the same time, I also disagree with Ozzy's comments that the better the system, the effective the qol is.

Following this thread, I have concluded that qol introduces a "perspective". Some folks like it and some folks don't like it. Neither is right or wrong. It depends on what perspective you are seeking. I have a doubt that there are some folks who may have been impressed with qol. But the very idea of "yet-another-circuit" in the system may have put them off - psychologically. This may be the reason why products like qol do good in the market, but are not very popular.