Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

So what is going on here? In Europe, we're not easily able to access a unit for trial so are observing others' experiences.
I get the feeling that the equivalent of a change in soundstaging, increase in presence (akin to increase in volume/gain) and revealing/emphasis on ambient cues is leading to most listeners' enjoyment of the unit. Whether this is an alteration of the signal is a matter of opinion, as is whether it is an actual improvement over plain unaltered stereo.
I've just installed a SpatialComputer Black Hole bass attenuator which has integrated bass from my Zu Definitions 2's. This has also opened up my soundstage leading to more ambient cues becoming apparent etc. I would call this an improvement, although unlike the QOL, it isn't in the chain of the signal before it gets to the speakers.
The interesting quetion is whether this perceivable change is an improvement still over a period of time. Time will tell, I guess.

The QOL is no different than any other device which is non-necessary in the signal path (i.e. passive networks on cables, power conditioning/filtering, etc). It offers potentially increased sense of separation between instruments and a more 3-D sounstage, but at the cost of an absolute reduction of clarity/definition due to the component and extra set of cables being added to the rig.

It is not a 100% additive device, but is also subtractive in nature (as are these others referenced above). Every potential owner/user must determine if the effect it offers is worth more than the electronic overburden it imposes upon the rig. Just as responses will vary in terms of whether a DAC with level control should be used with an outboard preamp, so also reactions/conclusions will vary in terms of the efficacy of the QOL.

To date the only devices I can recall which have been virtually 100% additive without a noticeable subtractive effect has been Opamp upgrades and certain brands of cables.

The QOL imo does have efficacy in terms of manipulating the soundstage and perception of spatial relation and level of instruments/voices as they are heard in a recording. Some will conlcude it is an absolute necessity to achieve SOTA sound, while others may disagree. I believe the dividing line in regards to personal acceptance of it will be determined by whether one accepts the additional (i.e. additional, though non-necessary) signal processing or less.

I am not interested in arguing my observations, and YMMV.

Douglas_schroeder, is your post based upon actual use with the "qol", or on preconceived philosophy re: all optional devices in the audio chain?

Not to get too far off topic but I was struck by a comment Douglas made above. Your ears must be hearing some way different stuff than mine when it comes to networked cables. My experience is with MIT stuff so can't really comment on others but I've had the exact opposite result in that they present absolute resolution and clarity, not sacrifice it. As a matter of fact, I recently changed cables and it was the biggest upgrade I have experienced in 30+ years...mostly resolution and clarity along with dynamics, imagine and all that goes with.

I don't have any personal experience with the qol and not too much interest. My only exposure is a very good friend who had one on demo and returned it preferring his system (quite a fine one) without.

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.