Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Madfloyd,

If I tell you, or better yet post on a forum, that I build computers and can make your laptop perform as good as a multi-processor server can, are you going to believe me because I am a computer geek? I am sure that would be a firm NO, as it should be.

Your statements are claiming fact and seem to be based on what someone wrote on a forum rather than by practice and experience. I think we just went through a long discussion on how this is not what the thread is looking for. Experience with the product and technical preference is the topic I think we were on.

Looking forward to hearing others experiences with the product.

Setonaudio,

I don't get your "correction" to Madfloyd. He has already stated above that he had the qol and returned it as he preferred his system without the device so describing how the effect can be reproduced by other means seems more than appropriate. I realize you profit from the sales of qol devices but I sure think it's ok for folks to report less than positive experiences. Some are gonna like it, some are not.

Madfloyd, I agree that a highly qualified Recording Engineer should be able to produce just about any type of effect that his recording board can create.
But with that ability, my question is then, why do so many recording's sound so crappy?
If he can produce the quality of the Qol in the recording process then do it!

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.