• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Topping D70s MQA Review (DAC)

Grooved

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
679
Likes
441
In my experiences over the last couple weeks with mqa on Tidal shows that mqa Masters have more dynamic range and better sound stage. You cannot always hear it's easily in every single song; but it is quite obvious in many tracks especially those from classical musicians. The ability to capture string instruments is specifically the most noticeable in my opinion.
There is also the addition of more depth to certain vocals but not all.
However they have to be played straight to an mqa capable device. Using tidal for the first unfold does not result in better audio quality. Comparing Tidal versus Spotify extreme quality shows no difference unless using an mqa Master through an MQA DAC.
I spent a couple of hours of critical listening on some of the most complex and hard to reproduce tracks that I know of which I know are also masterfully recorded.
The difference is apparant on Tidal MQA through my Topping EX5. Makes no difference on the DX7 with Tidal first unfold. However the quality wasn't worse than that of Spotify extreme quality. Which is OGG VBR 384kbps Q10 encoding from my past inspections (through desktop client).
Tidal "hifi" was worse than Spotify extreme in 2 tracks in specific parts, so I would say it is pretty comparable.
To me this makes MQA the first real SQ upgrade I've seen in 5 years since I got my nice high end headphones and DAC+Amp setup.
Now I know there is Qobuz which supposedly has high nitrate Flac streaming; but their library is much smaller... In my limited testing with my friends DAP; I couldn't say the songs I picked are as good as Spotify Extreme... However it's not a true apples to apples as I didn't have Qobuz on my workstation the way I do with Tidal and Spotify.

What your experience shows me is that Tidal MQA sounds more different than any other sources you compared, including Spotify, Tidal while in Flac or MQA not decoded, and maybe Qobuz, more than anything else

What I find strange is that you don't some tracks where you can find which version it is between Spotify and Tidal non-MQA.
I have several tracks where get 100% ABX result, between Spotify at its max quality and Tidal with FLAC.
There's also a difference between a standard FLAC and MQA with only the decoding done (without rendering), even if I agree there also another difference between decoding only and decoding+rendering.

Now, MQA should even not be compared to standard FLAC or OGG/AAC. It's presented like a HiRes option, so it should be compared with Qobuz or Amazon HD for example.
You should find differences, and it's correct that you can find the sound stage changed, but I would call it "wider", not "better".
It can be a preference for me, so better for me, but it doesn't mean "better" is correct for everybody.

And the problem on this is that even if you like it better, it's no more the width that was decided while creating the master. It's just simple as that.
I can change the width of tracks I own, and like it better, but it's my problem, it's for me, but creating a version with more width and telling it was what the master should have been is a lie, and it's what sound engineer don't like.
It's not their master, and the only possibility for it to happen would be if MQA had decided to sell encoders instead of converting tracks after the master was created.
The way MQA is used now is like offering a different master, and I'm not sure that the possibility to use MQA devices during the creation of the track will happen because the cost of the encoders may be way too much for all studios.

I always thought it could have been an interesting technology, but that it's not used and promoted the right way.
 
Last edited:

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
What your experience shows me is that Tidal MQA sounds more different than any other sources you compared, including Spotify, Tidal while in Flac or MQA not decoded, and maybe Qobuz, more than anything else

What I find strange is that you don't some tracks where you can find which version it is between Spotify and Tidal non-MQA.
I have several tracks where get 100% ABX result, between Spotify at its max quality and Tidal with FLAC.
There's also a difference between a standard FLAC and MQA with only the decoding done (without rendering), even if I agree there also another difference between decoding only and decoding+rendering.

Now, MQA should even not be compared to standard FLAC or OGG/AAC. It's presented like a HiRes option, so it should be compared with Qobuz or Amazon HD for example.
You should find differences, and it's correct that you can find the sound stage changed, but I would call it "wider", not "better".
It can be a preference for me, so better for me, but it doesn't mean "better" is correct for everybody.

And the problem on this is that even if you like it better, it's no more the width that was decided while creating the master. It's just simple as that.
I can change the width of tracks I own, and like it better, but it's my problem, it's for me, but creating a version with more width and telling it was what the master should have been is a lie, and it's what sound engineer don't like.
It's not their master, and the only possibility for it to happen would be if MQA had decided to sell encoders instead of converting tracks after the master was created.
The way MQA is used now is like offering a different master, and I'm not sure that the possibility to use MQA devices during the creation of the track will happen because the cost of the encoders may be way too much for all studios.

I always thought it could have been an interesting technology, but that it's not used and promoted the right way.
Honestly it depends on the songs themselves. There are lots of "MQA Masters" on Tidal which are 16/44.1 and with those there is basically 0 difference between that & Spotify Extreme. A few tracks are very slightly better, but it isn't obvious the way it is with some other tracks that have 96K, 88K, 384K MQA Masters. The thing I think is wrong is that Tidal marks all these as "Master" but really so many of them are just 16/44.1 MQA conversions which sound just like regular files anyway.
I haven't spent too much time comparing Tidal "HiFi" Vs Spotify but in the tracks I did compare gave me no difference. This is because OGG VBR 384kbps q10 is as close to FLAC as you can get. OGG VBR is already an amazing codec in and of itself but conversions with the q10 option just mean that the most quality is to be preserved @ encoding time... that + 384kbps and you almost have yourself a FLAC.

There are also tons of older songs which are labeled as MASTER but really these are not encoded in high res either... they are more 44.1k tracks which are just "remastered" into MQA (my DAC has a light for this) and it shows them mostly in Blue which means they are remastered tracks... I tried a few of these with Tidal Master vs Tidal Hifi and didn't hear a difference... There were a couple others where the soundstage was slightly "wider" and channel separation was slightly better, but the difference was ever so slight... so it is mostly gimmicky in those cases.
Also in all of those songs; there is no difference vs Spotify.
I can say the same so far about Armin Van Burrens entire catalog & basically everything from his label; Armada Music. Everything they have on Spotify sounds the same as Tidal (at least everything I have tested) as nothing is in "Master" so its all just "Hifi" which isn't basically ever going to be better than Spotify Extreme/VHQ.
 

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,862
Likes
2,215
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
I’m of the opinion that mastering matters more than resolution. Digital audio theory would assert that a properly dithered 16 bit CD stream would be be sonically indistinguishable from a higher resolution file. However, the remastering process can introduce qualitative differences in the recording. I even have some LPs that I prefer to their digital counterparts, largely due to remastering differences, in my view.
 

Grooved

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
679
Likes
441
- There are also tons of older songs which are labeled as MASTER but really these are not encoded in high res either... they are more 44.1k tracks which are just "remastered" into MQA (my DAC has a light for this) and it shows them mostly in Blue which means they are remastered tracks...
Blue is supposed (it was proved that some track got blue dot without having real approval) to be the one that are authenticated, not remastered.
And green is more to say it's MQA encoded but they can't be sure it comes from the original master, or are sure it's not the original master

I believe that all the 16bit MQA track (called Master in Tidal app too, but clearly shown as 16bit in Roon for example) have all green dot.
Blue is only in the 24bit tracks, but there are also green ones in the 24bit
 

Grooved

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
679
Likes
441
There are also tons of older songs which are labeled as MASTER but really these are not encoded in high res either... they are more 44.1k tracks which are just "remastered" into MQA (my DAC has a light for this) and it shows them mostly in Blue which means they are remastered tracks...
Blue is supposed (it was proved that some track got blue dot without having real approval) to be the one that are authenticated, not remastered.
And green is more to say it's MQA encoded but they can't be sure it comes from the original master, or are sure it's not the original master

I believe that all the 16bit MQA track (called Master in Tidal app too, but clearly shown as 16bit in Roon for example) have all green dot.
Blue is only in the 24bit tracks, but there are also green ones in the 24bit
I’m of the opinion that mastering matters more than resolution. Digital audio theory would assert that a properly dithered 16 bit CD stream would be be sonically indistinguishable from a higher resolution file. However, the remastering process can introduce qualitative differences in the recording. I even have some LPs that I prefer to their digital counterparts, largely due to remastering differences, in my view.
If all tracks that have been remastered had a clear "remastered" mention, it would be simpler. Some albums are clearly showing it, some don't
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
I’m of the opinion that mastering matters more than resolution. Digital audio theory would assert that a properly dithered 16 bit CD stream would be be sonically indistinguishable from a higher resolution file. However, the remastering process can introduce qualitative differences in the recording. I even have some LPs that I prefer to their digital counterparts, largely due to remastering differences, in my view.
Well Mastering definitely matters, in the world of Rap music; there are tons of horribly mastered tracks that sound like utter trash. There are also some classical musicians that have horrible mastering and everything sounds really really bad despite the resolution recorded at.
However I think that higher resolution recordings do indeed have benefit especially without mastering. I've tested this with my phone many times and 24/192k recording in my videos on my phone are really realistic and standard 16/44.1 miss plenty of background details. Now I know this is a phone (or phones, because I've tested it on multiples) but without me doing anything the 24/192k comes out really nice. I've tried 24/96 as well and I think I still like the 192k better even if I am not entirely sure why.
Blue is supposed (it was proved that some track got blue dot without having real approval) to be the one that are authenticated, not remastered.
And green is more to say it's MQA encoded but they can't be sure it comes from the original master, or are sure it's not the original master

I believe that all the 16bit MQA track (called Master in Tidal app too, but clearly shown as 16bit in Roon for example) have all green dot.
Blue is only in the 24bit tracks, but there are also green ones in the 24bit
Blue is supposed to be an original / Original Auth like you mentioned.
Green is MQA encoded yea, many of these green tracks are 44.1K on Tidal as well.... making me think they just took the standard FLAC release and put it into MQA to claim master status.
Then there is Magenta? I haven't come across a magenta track yet though? Or Magenta is if I have software do the first unfold and then the DAC is only doing the final unfold?

Blue is supposed (it was proved that some track got blue dot without having real approval) to be the one that are authenticated, not remastered.
And green is more to say it's MQA encoded but they can't be sure it comes from the original master, or are sure it's not the original master

I believe that all the 16bit MQA track (called Master in Tidal app too, but clearly shown as 16bit in Roon for example) have all green dot.
Blue is only in the 24bit tracks, but there are also green ones in the 24bit

If all tracks that have been remastered had a clear "remastered" mention, it would be simpler. Some albums are clearly showing it, some don't
Yup, there needs to be distinction. Since the 44.1k "MQA Green Masters" are literally 99% the same as their "Hifi" or "Spotify VHQ/Extreme" counterparts.
 

caught gesture

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
443
Likes
936
Location
Italia
Off we wander into the boondocks of hi and higher res music. ABX results count and anecdotes don’t. Your wife in another room claim will definitely be treated as a red flag.
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
Off we wander into the boondocks of hi and higher res music. ABX results count and anecdotes don’t. Your wife in another room claim will definitely be treated as a red flag.
Not sure how this is relevant tbh

Even most ABX results are just tossed out, so there is never a consensus on anything. Welcome to why most of the audio world is a total scam and will forever be this way.
 

Angsty

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
1,862
Likes
2,215
Location
North Carolina, U.S.
Well Mastering definitely matters, in the world of Rap music; there are tons of horribly mastered tracks that sound like utter trash. There are also some classical musicians that have horrible mastering and everything sounds really really bad despite the resolution recorded at.
However I think that higher resolution recordings do indeed have benefit especially without mastering. I've tested this with my phone many times and 24/192k recording in my videos on my phone are really realistic and standard 16/44.1 miss plenty of background details. Now I know this is a phone (or phones, because I've tested it on multiples) but without me doing anything the 24/192k comes out really nice. I've tried 24/96 as well and I think I still like the 192k better even if I am not entirely sure why.

Blue is supposed to be an original / Original Auth like you mentioned.
Green is MQA encoded yea, many of these green tracks are 44.1K on Tidal as well.... making me think they just took the standard FLAC release and put it into MQA to claim master status.
Then there is Magenta? I haven't come across a magenta track yet though? Or Magenta is if I have software do the first unfold and then the DAC is only doing the final unfold?


Yup, there needs to be distinction. Since the 44.1k "MQA Green Masters" are literally 99% the same as their "Hifi" or "Spotify VHQ/Extreme" counterparts.
There could be a myriad of reasons why a 24/192 recording on a phone could sound different than a 16/44.1 recording, but I was referring to a professional recording with algorithmically correct dithering applied.
 

Grooved

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
679
Likes
441
Green is MQA encoded yea, many of these green tracks are 44.1K on Tidal as well.... making me think they just took the standard FLAC release and put it into MQA to claim master status.
If they do like Amazon or Qobuz, "HiRes" starts at 44.1kHz but with 24bit.
If the track comes from a master that was done at 24/44.1 there's no reason to have more than 24/44.1
So a 24bit MQA at 44.1 can be converted from the real master, and get blue light. But there are also the 16bit MQA, always green light, that were added since less than two years, unfortunately replacing more and more standard 16/44.1 FLAC (but it's not always the case until now, there still a lot of standard FLAC), and I suspect these ones are not done from any master but only the FLAC/CD version

Then there is Magenta? I haven't come across a magenta track yet though? Or Magenta is if I have software do the first unfold and then the DAC is only doing the final unfold?
Magenta comes from a software decoding and the DAC doing only the rendering, yes.

Yup, there needs to be distinction. Since the 44.1k "MQA Green Masters" are literally 99% the same as their "Hifi" or "Spotify VHQ/Extreme" counterparts.
Don't generalize, the green master can be:
- 16/44.1 (the decoding will change it to 88.2/24, but it doesn't mean there's more data)
- all the 24bit files (that can also be blue)

You see it a lot because even if you select the Master option, it also shows the tracks/albums that you can see if you choose the Hifi option. So it shows you a lot of albums with two "Master" versions. Try both, because the first appearing can be the 16/44.1, and the other one the 24/"44.1 or more"
With Roon, you can clearly see it, but in the Tidal app, there nothing showing the difference between both version.

Regarding the resolution (for all services), we could really only use 16/44.1, but even if they try to sell HiRes by saying it's sounds better, the only reason I see to use higher than 16/44.1 would be to "prove" that you get the equivalent of the master, so the original sound.
And as the master are done with any resolution, depending a lot of parameters, like some converters can work better at a specific sample rate than at the other ones for example, which could mean that recording and/or mixing and/or mastering was done at 88.2 because of that, and not because they want you to hear 40kHz frequencies.
There a technical choice during the production, and it may nothing to do with the marketing way to present the high resolution of an album.
 
Last edited:

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
Don't generalize, the green master can be:
- 16/44.1 (the decoding will change it to 88.2/24, but it doesn't mean there's more data)
- all the 24bit files (that can also be blue)
Ah I didn't realize. Both of my new DAC's don't show bit depth the way my original DX7 showed it... Sucks really so I can't know if it is in 24b.
With Roon, you can clearly see it, but in the Tidal app, there nothing showing the difference between both version.
So Roon can see the difference in the same Tidal tracks but Tidal's own app doesn't show it? That is absurd lol

If they do like Amazon or Qobuz, "HiRes" starts at 44.1kHz but with 24bit.
If the track comes from a master that was done at 24/44.1 there's no reason to have more than 24/44.1
So a 24bit MQA at 44.1 can be converted from the real master, and get blue light. But there are also the 16bit MQA, always green light, that were added since less than two years, unfortunately replacing more and more standard 16/44.1 FLAC (but it's not always the case until now, there still a lot of standard FLAC), and I suspect these ones are not done from any master but only the FLAC/CD version


Magenta comes from a software decoding and the DAC doing only the rendering, yes.


Don't generalize, the green master can be:
- 16/44.1 (the decoding will change it to 88.2/24, but it doesn't mean there's more data)
- all the 24bit files (that can also be blue)

You see it a lot because even if you select the Master option, it also shows the tracks/albums that you can see if you choose the Hifi option. So it shows you a lot of albums with two "Master" versions. Try both, because the first appearing can be the 16/44.1, and the other one the 24/"44.1 or more"
With Roon, you can clearly see it, but in the Tidal app, there nothing showing the difference between both version.

Regarding the resolution (for all services), we could really only use 16/44.1, but even if they try to sell HiRes by saying it's sounds better, the only reason I see to use higher than 16/44.1 would be to "prove" that you get the equivalent of the master, so the original sound.
And as the master are done with any resolution, depending a lot of parameters, like some converters can work better at a specific sample rate than at the other ones for example, which could mean that recording and/or mixing and/or mastering was done at 88.2 because of that, and not because they want you to hear 40kHz frequencies.
There a technical choice during the production, and it may nothing to do with the marketing way to present the high resolution of an album.
I understand this, but in my personal experiences; recording things at 24/96 or 24/192 has resulted in a more realistic recording. I am not speaking about music in particular (although I have recorded various live performances in different qualities with my phone and found the same 24/192 being the best) but just in videos that I record. My phone has a hifi audio option attached to the video recording settings.
I thought that in general music can definitely go beyond 16 bit's (but not necessarily all the way to 24 bits because the noise floor is way under what we can hear) so having something that is like ~20b is the most ideal? I read some papers on this before, but I am not an audio engineer. I engineer software instead (and not audio software).
However it is useful to point out that they could have 24/44.1 recordings instead of 16/44.1. However there is basically no difference in these 44.1 recordings (as I mentioned above). I have gone back and forth between them and Spotify (since it is easy to find the same song and set the same time) and toggle between players.

The "Hifi" Tracks on Tidal though can be 24/44.1 too though can't they? Or is it restricted to 16/44.1? It says "Lossless CD Quality" so... I assume FLAC?
 

caught gesture

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
443
Likes
936
Location
Italia
Not sure how this is relevant tbh

Even most ABX results are just tossed out, so there is never a consensus on anything. Welcome to why most of the audio world is a total scam and will forever be this way.
How relevant is your anecdotal talk about playback on your phone when the thread is about a Topping DAC review? Also, where did you find your statistic that most ABX results are tossed out?
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
How relevant is your anecdotal talk about playback on your phone when the thread is about a Topping DAC review? Also, where did you find your statistic that most ABX results are tossed out?
Playback on my Phone? We have been having a conversation here for a few pages about MQA because I just upgraded my DAC to this one to use it for MQA.
You can see that even on this forum; there are many people who have tossed out ABX results; including Amir himself because it is all about "understanding how to test" as an example. So it becomes more and more and more impossible to "prove" anything without serious time invested along with a group of people who are scientifically inclined in this industry. Which basically won't ever happen and as such the term "ABX testing" might as well mean "STFU because I don't care what you have to say".

I have done some actual ABX testing with friends in our local headphone meets with a few different products. Doesn't really matter because its not like people will care about my results and if I don't provide sheets of data to go along with my findings (which of course I didn't produce) it doesn't matter.
 

caught gesture

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
443
Likes
936
Location
Italia
Playback on my Phone? We have been having a conversation here for a few pages about MQA because I just upgraded my DAC to this one to use it for MQA.
You can see that even on this forum; there are many people who have tossed out ABX results; including Amir himself because it is all about "understanding how to test" as an example. So it becomes more and more and more impossible to "prove" anything without serious time invested along with a group of people who are scientifically inclined in this industry. Which basically won't ever happen and as such the term "ABX testing" might as well mean "STFU because I don't care what you have to say".

I have done some actual ABX testing with friends in our local headphone meets with a few different products. Doesn't really matter because its not like people will care about my results and if I don't provide sheets of data to go along with my findings (which of course I didn't produce) it doesn't matter.
But you think your anecdotal findings matter enough to post about?

I've tested this with my phone many times and 24/192k recording in my videos on my phone are really realistic and standard 16/44.1 miss plenty of background details. Now I know this is a phone (or phones, because I've tested it on multiples) but without me doing anything the 24/192k comes out really nice. I've tried 24/96 as well and I think I still like the 192k better even if I am not entirely sure why.
Your words, or am I missing something?
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
But you think your anecdotal findings matter enough to post about?

I've tested this with my phone many times and 24/192k recording in my videos on my phone are really realistic and standard 16/44.1 miss plenty of background details. Now I know this is a phone (or phones, because I've tested it on multiples) but without me doing anything the 24/192k comes out really nice. I've tried 24/96 as well and I think I still like the 192k better even if I am not entirely sure why.
Your words, or am I missing something?
This doesn't have anything to do specifically with mqa. We are talking about the viability of high bit rate and high sample rate formats in general as mqa is one of those and a selling point or at least marketing point of this product.
 

caught gesture

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
443
Likes
936
Location
Italia
This doesn't have anything to do specifically with mqa. We are talking about the viability of high bit rate and high sample rate formats in general as mqa is one of those and a selling point or at least marketing point of this product.
Blimey, talk about going round in circles. You wrote about hearing the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on your phone. It’s there, just up the page. It’s anecdotal with no testing and it has nothing to do with a Topping DAC.

Obviously this discussion is going nowhere and I am becoming as guilty in polluting a thread. Enjoy your music!
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
Blimey, talk about going round in circles. You wrote about hearing the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 on your phone. It’s there, just up the page. It’s anecdotal with no testing and it has nothing to do with a Topping DAC.

Obviously this discussion is going nowhere and I am becoming as guilty in polluting a thread. Enjoy your music!
Enjoy yours too buddy!
 

Lupin

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Messages
575
Likes
960
I'm of the opinion that when it comes to MQA the color of the LED on the DAC is the deciding factor on how one perceives MQA music. :)
 

Grooved

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
679
Likes
441
I'm of the opinion that when it comes to MQA the color of the LED on the DAC is the deciding factor on how one perceives MQA music. :)
It's certainly a bit right ;)
Now, if don't have Roon or UAPP,... it sometimes helps knowing which version of an album, between 16bit and 24bit MQA, you are launching, because the Tidal app won't show it. Once save in your favorite albums, it will always play the 24bit ones, that may end be a bit better than the 16bit ones (some sound really bad)
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
I'm of the opinion that when it comes to MQA the color of the LED on the DAC is the deciding factor on how one perceives MQA music. :)
Well my new DAC doesn't have any colors. I can still tell the difference. This D70S here doesn't have colors, which is what I bought.
I can tell the difference in some tracks with higher sample rates, those without higher sample rates; the differences are too small in MOST tracks. I have heard a difference in a couple tracks, but I spent several hours A/B testing and if I have to try that hard; the differences are too small to matter.

This is also why I got my wife (who actually went to music school and plays Violin) to come do some blind testing to see if all the things I heard could be attributed to any sighted bias even with sample rates. Turned out my wife picked out the same tracks I did 9/10 times. In lower sample rate tracks (44.1 mostly); my wife picked them out 6/10 times.... 50/50 is a guess so... In the second round she picked correctly 4/10 times. So that balances to 50/50 (but the set of tracks was different). Which to me proves that there is no real difference in most tracks with lower sample rates.

I think the reason that "greens" have less of a difference is that MOST of them were just 44.1 tracks.... There were differences in a couple and my wife was able to pick out the difference in one of the ones I selected for her... However some greends are also higher sample rate and some of those also have a difference.

However with a D70S; you can't tell if its a "green, blue, magenta" track at all AFAIK. Since there are no MQA lights... the screen says MQA and that is it. I don't see any other logos or anything that would designate the type of MQA.
However this DAC is slower and less clean about going in and out of MQA mode vs the SMSL SU-8S. Maybe because that DAC has the new ESS chip that natively supports MQA.. but it is about twice as fast as the D70S in switching into MQA mode and many of the times the switch is silent or near silent where the D70S has crack/pop sound when it switches over; which happens in the first couple seconds of the song. When I pause or skip a track I through it again. Only with gapless playback / automix does it not happen as I play through playlists.
 
Top Bottom