Translation for a review from the forum with the name of Erji and web link is as below:
Why the water is so clear? Just because there is unfailing wellspring flows over. That was my anticipation and is my expectation for the QA660 since I'd heard of it.
It'd been just here before me after wait and hope for quite long time.
Keywords of QA660
There were quite a lot complaints for the appearance of QLS products. Actually the products from QLS were defined with provincial or knockoff, just like unfinished products or outdated semiconductor radios. How about QA660 then? It seemed to be designed not too bad and huge progress had been made, especially when it was read closely rather than by the fotos. I'd rather the surface was hairline anodized than semi-gloss paint, which made the QA660 not shining in the fotos.
It is on the front panel. It would be recognized as TFT by somebody, actually it is made of OLED. OLED can give out light positively. Nice lightness and contrast can be acquired. The contents on the screen can be read from some paces away since QA660 was designed as desktop digital turntables. Along with the remote control it would be quite convinient for operation. UI can be accepted by me, may someones esle not. It is quite remarkable and maybe somebody would name it as knockoff.
It is quite good with nice manufacture and from the first touch. I would think that it is better than the case of QA660 (Do not be angry, Clark). There are more than enough keys on the remote control though. I thought a remote control for TV set deliverred to me. Can't it be a minimalist? I did a discussion with Clark (who created the QA660) for the design of remote control. He asked, do you like a hierachical menu and to fight with the screen? IF no, the hot keys will help you. Yes, they do. I can make blind operation with hot keys after some while. It looks that QLS is minimalist on both software and operation. I received it yesterday evening and it is really easy and simple for operation. I told my friend that it is esier than on PC, who was together with me for the experience.
What made me glad is the boot time of QA660. It is quite speedy to be on board. It takes 1 or 2 seconds to reach the interface of play after I plugged the 16G SD card in to the jack and powerred on the machine. It is faster than expected, let alone to compare with QA350/550.
I have tow gears which can play 24bit/192k WAV files, one is QA660, the other is BBP 101 Plus. QA660 is better in comparison. It should be manually selected when applying the BBP 101 Plus. QA660 can recognize the bit rate automatically and display the info on the screen. WAV files can be played nevertheless what bit rate is. Also I
tested APE, FLAC and MP3. APE can be supported only for normal. FLAC can be played upto 24bit/48k. The sound of APE and MP3 is not so good since the shortage of MP3 and APE need decopression and play at the same time. FLAC is better than the mentioned twos, no big difference with WAV in my combinations. So WAV is the best, FLAC is recommended if other lossless files needed.
QA660 has more than enough output ports. 2 BNC coaxicals(voltage and current), 1 RCA, 1 loslink, 1 AES and 1 IIS. There are 6 output ports on the rear of QA660 totally. QA660 can connect with most of DACs that can be found currently. Someone who plays the headphones and spearkers together will not need worry about not enough ports and the troublesome of plugging and unplugging.
Just comments briefly first. The gear'd just run about hours, not quite in mood. And I'd just had the fisrt sound and not known it well. Just the initial feeling. I paired QA660 with QA100 and F1000 as the power supply. Quiet backgroud, comfortable sound and no lose of details. QA660 got it. I felt nice from the first sound. It is lush and airy. It was called advanced joy by cyber friend from the Forum. It is a quite big progress compared to QA550. The sound is so transparent and I really enjoy the Chinese folk music snugly. The viberation from the strings of urheen. QA660 is worth of the expectation as the first sound. I tested RCA and BNC1 both. There is a slight difference, RCA is more energetic and BNC1 is more gentle and full of emotion. The ports can be selected under the genre and style of music. I didn't test the BNC2 and loslink just supports upto 24bit/96k. RCA and BNC1 are commended as an initial conclusion.
I'd just expierenced QA660 for hours. It is not enough to get to know something new. I will finish the framework analysis and AB comparison one month later. I will know it well then and a complete QA660 will be presented. Please wait for the second half of QA660 impressions.
Edited by estudiendo - 12/19/12 at 3:21am