Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

I've been running thru various audio sites/forum boards discussing ongoing tweaks. What I'm finding is they can be divided into 2 camps: those that have a reasonable physical and psycho-acoustical basis, not dressed up in overbold claims, and esp. with reasonable discourse of methodology involved; they also seem to have consistency of positive comments. I would place units like the SpatialComputer Black Hole bass attenuator, and balanced power transformers in this category, with defined measured data stacking up with positive user consensus (and at a reasonable price for good measure).
In the other camp, we have the items that have limited discourse, resort to new age explanations not rooted in the physical world. Of course these units promise more than any other unit, as far as rewriting the whole rulebook on audio reproduction. Additionally, and coincidentally (?) these always seem to be the most expensive. In this camp I would place items such as Shakti Stones/Hallograph, ASI resonators, Lessloss Blackbody, Neutralaudio X-DREI, exotic cables predicated on unsupportable concepts, and my current favourite, and the subject of this thread: BSGT QOL.
Please, let's have a proper discussion on how this unit works, primarily from the manufacturer. Surely a decision to use an item long term has to be based in real world principles, and if the QOL qualifies, let's hear about it. I'm sure fuller discussion of how it achieves it's effects can be made without breaking commercial confidences etc.
I'm convinced that the bold, unquantifiable claims made by these items leads to such a divergence of opinions: some listeners will like the sound, become proponents for it and go with the quantum leap premise. Cooler heads will find variability in it's effects, some good, some not so, as a result move away from it, and then find the obtuse explanations and overbold claims even more queationable.
For me at least the growing consensus between early adopters, some of which have become dealers, and specialist reviews seem to be pulling in different directions, the only consensus being that the unit is v.system and even recording/individual song dependent. This just couldn't add to the sense of ease I need my system to provide me.
Looks like I may have 'put the cat amongst the pigeons'!

Milpai,

Why too much? If one feels strongly about something, why not express it.

As an audiophile, hifi junky, and musician, I think Qol is great and now have a hard time listening to my system without it. Maybe that is the musician in me with Qol finally brings out what I always thought was missing in reproduced audio.

As a Silicon Valley MM, being a dealer is fun... simply fun and I love selling products that i feel are worth selling.

Hope this helps clear things up for you...

Kclone, thanks for the comment...you are spot on!

Douglas_schroeder - Having read several reviews and comments from you, I think I have a firm grasp of your system building philosophy/preferences. While it's not all that appropriate for my budget, it does make plenty of sense to me. I haven't heard this device myself, so I can't really comment personally on the sound, but I have read a decent amount about it as the technology interests me. If the QOL circuit were incorporated into an update of one of your favorite integrated amps (which I believe is the ultimate goal of BSG Technologies), would you give it another longer listen? Do you think that might have alleviated your concerns about the loss of detail/resolution?

Setonaudio, are there other products you sell that rate an enthusiastic endorsement? Just curious, it might help put some perspective on your BSG comments.

Jazzerdave, if the QOL technology were implemented inside another component then one would have to approach the entirety of the device's sound. That would make it harder to isolate and discuss, but also might mask it.

In the end if QOL were a feature of another component it would have to be assessed like any other component, head to head with some other reference.

Would I listen to it again if it were incorporated into components. Absolutely. Who can say what would transpire on a venture to merge it with other devices? I'd be game to hear it. QOL may end up most powerfully utilized to elevate lower end electronics. If it could be leveraged to lift the performance of an entire field of Mid to Lower HiFi gear - not mentioning the separate component - it would be a powerful boon to the hobby.

Dolby was very powerful in concept and application, and I enjoyed it immensely in recording music. The QOL has potential to alter the listening experience in a pleasing fashion as well, so I don't think it's a throw away idea.

Now that I've started I may as well add...

I see no correlation between QOL and devices like the A.R.T. system and Lessloss Blackbody. I would recommend the latter for a trial but not the former products, certainly not for someone who wishes serious changes in a rig.

If by "system-dependent" it is meant that the QOL doesn't sound good with all music or all components - surprise, surprise. Most components don't. It takes a radically good device to sound superb with nearly everything it's mated with. However, I think of system-dependent more as operational limitations, i.e. flea amp mismatched with low effic. speakers. The QOL seemed consistent in operation in rigs I built both before and after preamp, with SS and tube amps, and with dynamic and ESL speakers.

In no way would I suggest the QOL fixes room issues. As the community can guess I'm not overwhelmed with most room correction devices for similar reasons as my reaction to QOL. I would not see QOL as a "room fixer" component.

I have to leave this topic; waaaay too much to do!