Good stuff! Yes,I've heard a Duet via analogue out for a quick listen
and I wasn't impressed.Interesting it's very close to the Touch via
digi out.
--
Ali Tait
Ali Tait's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?u
Interesting! I received my Touch last night and within 5 minutes had it
playing. It took me longer to get it out of the box than to get it
playing music!
The first thing I did was plug the Touch into my Oracle DAC1000 right
next to my Duet, synced the Touch with the Duet, level-matched them and
Sorry,typo,I'm doing this on my phone.It's the CD62.
--
Ali Tait
Ali Tait's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37387
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77145
___
cool, sounding better and better!
What arcam?
couldnt find a cd63!
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77145
Just the CD 63,but I also have a Marantz CD94 MKII that has had it's DAC
section removed so is just a transport,and I'd say the Touch sounds
better than it.
--
Ali Tait
Ali Tait's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/mem
Good stuff Ali..
what Arcam you got again?
Just trying to get a comparative feel for the Touches Analogue out
quality..
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604
View this thread: h
Interesting stuff guys.I have an Audionote Dac Zero,with which the touch
sounds substantially better than via it's analogue out.The analogue is
still good,and both sound better than my Arcam with the dac.
--
Ali Tait
Ali T
me either! :)
all smilies firmly in place..
And your right, if you can directly switch between sources it's alway
better.
What surprised me a wee bit was the similar sound quality between the
sb3 and the Touch via digital out.
I think m modded beresford caiman dac is quite transport sensitive
go
Merlinwerks;533788 Wrote:
> Easy guys :)
>
> I was definitely not questioning the results, actually I'm not
> surprised by them. I just wanted to confirm that both tests (SB3 vs.
> Lavry and Lavry vs. Touch) were done the same way. I really believe
> that if more people had the ability to insta
mlsstl;533700 Wrote:
>
> I will reiterate that this is just my experience and other people can
> and will reach different conclusions. I only compared them for the
> purpose of making an equipment choice for myself. I make no
> representation of scientific rigor or universal application.
Gazjam
mlsstl;533516 Wrote:
> Sorry I wasn't clear. Let me try again.
>
> 1. The Lavry sounds like the Lavry whether I'm using the SB3 or the
> Touch as the digital source for the DA-10.
>
> 2. As such, my original comments about the analog output of the Touch
> compared to the Lavry still stand. On
give the guy a break!
thats twice he's said it was all IMHO etc etc :)
Im sure as the days go on there will be more equally as good audio (not
audioPHILE ;)) comparisons.
Id be checking the Audiophile forums for that.
--
Gazjam
Merlinwerks;533696 Wrote:
> Out of curiosity, when you previously compared the analog out of the SB3
> vs Lavry, did you conduct the test the same way as the comparison of the
> Lavry vs Touch? i.e. Level matched and with the ability to -instantly-
> switch between the two.
Yes.
--
mlsstl
---
Out of curiosity, when you previously compared the analog out of the SB3
vs Lavry, did you conduct the test the same way as the comparison of the
Lavry vs Touch? i.e. Level matched and with the ability to -instantly-
switch between the two.
--
Merlinwerks
---
mdconnelly;533473 Wrote:
> So... you mean you couldn't tell any difference between the Touch with
> Lavry DAC versus the Touch with analog outs? (earlier you said that
> the Lavry was quite an improvement when coupled with the Sb3 so I want
> to make sure I understand what you mean by 'with eith
Boulderguy;533028 Wrote:
> The touchscreen is obvious of course. Specifically, I'm curious about
> things like this -
>
It's in my bathroom now and I love it there because it's the only one
of my Squeezeboxes on which I really don't _have to_ use a remote -
which is what I need in a bathroom.
Boulderguy;533028 Wrote:
> Does it eliminate the 2-10 sec delays so common with the server? Having
> the music collection reside on the SB is my primary motivation for
> getting a touch, is it worth it?!
2-10 second delays, what are you running your server on ??
--
andynormancx
Yes, it will.
Gazjam;533451 Wrote:
> bloody hell..
> I had heard the Touch sounded goodbut thats a great Dac its up
> against!
Keep in mind that is just my opinion. While I love good music played on
a fine stereo, I've never been one to chase that last fraction of
[insert buzz word here].
I would probab
mlsstl;533469 Wrote:
> I couldn't tell any difference at all using the Lavry with either
> source.
So... you mean you couldn't tell any difference between the Touch with
Lavry DAC versus the Touch with analog outs? (earlier you said that
the Lavry was quite an improvement when coupled with the
mdconnelly;533449 Wrote:
> But what about the Touch & Lavry compared to the Touch with analog out?
I couldn't tell any difference at all using the Lavry with either
source.
--
mlsstl
mlsstl's Profile: http://forums.slimd
or all in the head? :)
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=77145
_
mlsstl;533436 Wrote:
> ...However, I'm sure others will disagree with that thinking, but that's
> fine by me. When I have to strain to hear the difference between two
> pieces of equipment, that's a sign for me to let go of the issue and
> just enjoy the music.
And fact is, that in the end, it i
bloody hell..
I had heard the Touch sounded goodbut thats a great Dac its up
against!
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/sh
mlsstl;533436 Wrote:
> I've used a SB3 with a Lavry DA10 DAC for the past couple of years as my
> primary music source.
>
> The Touch arrived Friday and I spent quite a bit of time the past
> couple of days listening to the Touch. I level-matched the SB3/Lavry
> output with the Touch and synced
mlsstl;533436 Wrote:
>
> In comparing the Touch analog out to the SB3/Lavry, the difference is
> extremely subtle in my book. I have to strain to hear the difference. I
> am very impressed and will probably end up selling my Lavry. In
> audiophile-land, the Touch has no right to sound as good as
erland;533356 Wrote:
> I've only tried the analogue outputs, as I've understood there might be
> a bigger difference on the digital outputs as long as you feed them
> into a good DAC. I don't have an external DAC and the built-in one in
> my Sherwood RVD-9090 receiver isn't good enough to justify
JJZolx;533422 Wrote:
> ???
>
> Which one sounds better to you?
I'll have to wait until my Touch ships to find that out. :)
--
starfury
starfury's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37465
View this
starfury;533418 Wrote:
> My AVR (Yamaha) uses a Burr Brown 192kHz/24-bit DAC.
>
> I've been scratching my head on which to use: Analog or digital out
> from Touch?
>
???
Which one sounds better to you?
--
JJZolx
Jim
My AVR (Yamaha) uses a Burr Brown 192kHz/24-bit DAC.
I've been scratching my head on which to use: Analog or digital out
from Touch?
I have no external DAC.
--
starfury
starfury's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/m
Gazjam;533292 Wrote:
> SLIGHTLY better?
>
> A few of the Beta testers over on the Audiophile forum reported that
> the digital output on the Touch was SIGNIFICANTLY better than the
> SB3...to the extent that if you were using a DAC and were choosing
> between the Trasporter and the Touch..
>
erland;533241 Wrote:
> 1.
> Audio quality is comparable or even slightly better on the Touch
> depending on what amplifier/speaker/DAC you connect it to.
>
>
SLIGHTLY better?
Im using my (well, I WAS..) SB3 connected to a Beresford Caiman Dac and
sounded sublime to me.
The touch screen and th
Boulderguy;533028 Wrote:
> Testers, what is your subjective opinion on how the Touch improves on
> the SB3 in terms of practical, everyday use?
>
1.
Audio quality is comparable or even slightly better on the Touch
depending on what amplifier/speaker/DAC you connect it to.
2.
IR control is sti
Neither my Flickr nor Facebook picture albums can be shown by the
Touch.
My SQB Radio has no problems with it, so settings/account are fine.
I (try) use these as 'when stopped' screensaver...start
loading...error: Could not retrieve imagefile. Check player's network
connectivity
--
Sakkerju
S
Neither my Flickr nor Facebook picture albums can be shown by the
Touch.
My SQB Radio has no problems with it, so settings/account are fine.
I (try) use these as 'when stopped' screensaver...start
loading...error: Could not retrieve imagefile. Check player's network
connectivity
--
Sakkerju
S
I wish it came in two parts with a larger screen and a seperate docking
station+charging cradle...bit like an iPad :-)
The best thing about it is its sound quality.
Most of the things I don't like about the interface could be fixed in
the software - eventually.
Now if it had 4-6x the CPU power..
I wish it came in two parts with a larger screen and a seperate docking
station+charging cradle...bit like an iPad :-)
The best thing about it is its sound quality.
Most of the things I don't like about the interface could be fixed in
the software - eventually.
Now if it had 4-6x the CPU power..
Testers, what is your subjective opinion on how the Touch improves on
the SB3 in terms of practical, everyday use?
The touchscreen is obvious of course. Specifically, I'm curious about
things like this -
How does the use of a USB HD compare to using the SB server software?
Does it eliminate t
37 matches
Mail list logo
