iPhone;582119 Wrote:
> It is my opinion that Kal Rubinson's October 2010 review of the Touch in
> Stereophile is a much better review of the Touch.
Agreed, however as noted in previous posts TAS actually treats the
Touch much better when it comes to their annual recommendations,
something that S
Gazjam;581731 Wrote:
> Best, most comprehensive review I've read.
> (Not having read THE review unfortunately... :))
Can't agree with that. The reviewer doesn't have his facts straight and
makes statements that are completely incorrect. From his review:
"Also its vitally important to use a dri
Pale Blue Ego;582015 Wrote:
> Guess what, Dewd? Apple OS will NEVER play FLACs. In fact, Apple would
> love it if you deleted all your FLAC files and re-bought them in Apple
> Lossless format.
Almost true except for the fact that Apple doesn't actually sell any
lossless files, only lossy ones
Had to laugh at Steven Stone's cluelessness:
"...when I tried to play them on my Mac I couldnt. Even the latest
Apple OS 10.6.4 operating system wouldnt natively decode FLAC files."
Guess what, Dewd? Apple OS will NEVER play FLACs. In fact, Apple
would love it if you deleted all your FLAC fi
ralphpnj;581816 Wrote:
> How true! Now if only the re-issues sounded better than the originals,
> which is rarely the case.
>
> One can only hope that with 24/96 downloads they will finally get it
> right. But maybe that's just too much to ask.
Yea even if they do try seriusly (no loudness war
guidof;581781 Wrote:
> Even though Stereophile by now notorious "Class D" has stolen the
> headlines, one would hope people actually focused on the reviews
> themselves (both Stereophile's and TAS's), which are extremely
> positive.
>
> After three weeks of listening through the Touch as a trans
guidof;581809 Wrote:
> Well, the labels really like to re-issue most of their catalogs with
> every format change. Makes for a quick buck (or many such!).
>
> Guido F.
How true! Now if only the re-issues sounded better than the originals,
which is rarely the case.
One can only hope that with 2
ralphpnj;581803 Wrote:
> . . . many times when I'm playing some vinyl I often ask myself just
> what did they need CDs for anyway.
Well, the labels really like to re-issue most of their catalogs with
every format change. Makes for a quick buck (or many such!).
Guido F.
--
guidof
*Front End*
guidof;581801 Wrote:
> Ah, yes, the vinyl-iac crowd! Well, I still have all of my vinyl, too --
> and listen to them. Perhaps it's my modest LP playback system, though,
> but none of my LPs sound as open, airy, and realistic as some (not all,
> for sure) of my 96/24 downloads.
>
> Mind you, *to
ralphpnj;581789 Wrote:
> And I agree with just about everything but your last line: "And indeed
> 96/24 FLACs through the Touch are by far the most satisfying sound I
> ever listened to through my system." I would amend that statement to
> say "And indeed 96/24 FLACs through the Touch are by far
guidof;581781 Wrote:
> Even though Stereophile by now notorious "Class D" has stolen the
> headlines, one would hope people actually focused on the reviews
> themselves (both Stereophile's and TAS's), which are extremely
> positive.
>
> After three weeks of listening through the Touch as a trans
Even though Stereophile by now notorious "Class D" has stolen the
headlines, one would hope people actually focused on the reviews
themselves (both Stereophile's and TAS's), which are extremely
positive.
After three weeks of listening through the Touch as a transport into
the DAC of my Cambridge
ralphpnj;581749 Wrote:
> The real question is will TAS reward the Touch with a solid
> recommendation in its annual end of the year roundup or will they do
> what Stereophile has done and even after giving the Touch a glowing
> review with nothing but praise fail to place it among the mega-buck
>
firedog;581629 Wrote:
> http://www.avguide.com/review/logitech-squeezebox-touch-tas-206
>
> Unlike Stereophile, relates mostly to Touch as digital source to DAC.
> Rates it as an inexpensive way to get audiophile quality sound, and
> even more so when using an external DAC.
>
> I guess this bel
Best, most comprehensive review I've read.
(Not having read THE review unfortunately... :))
--
Gazjam
Gazjam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18604
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/
I have had the Touch since product launch.
I compared the Touch as a transport to my Bel Canto CD-2 (not too cheap
at around $3,000) and I can't tell a difference either into my Bel Canto
DAC3.
I say this is all because of the high end linux sound system built into
the Touch. I've experimented
http://www.avguide.com/review/logitech-squeezebox-touch-tas-206
Unlike Stereophile, relates mostly to Touch as digital source to DAC.
Rates it as an inexpensive way to get audiophile quality sound,and even
more so when using an external DAC.
--
firedog
Tranquil PC fanless WHS server running S
17 matches
Mail list logo
