Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Squeezebox Touch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Squeezebox Touch

post #1 of 109
Thread Starter 
Just read about the new Logitech Touch. Any chance this may be an alternative to the Transporter?

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/sp.../5745&cl=us,en
post #2 of 109
No, it's an alternative to Squeezebox Classic and Duet that also supports 24/96. But it's a great option for the price!
post #3 of 109
Kind of wish I'd known about that rather then keeping my Duet. The Duet remote is neat for moving around with the display but the fact that it doesn't have a display anyone can see easily is what I don't like. It looks like an update for the Classic overall in form.
post #4 of 109
Thread Starter 
Quote:
No, it's an alternative to Squeezebox Classic and Duet that also supports 24/96. But it's a great option for the price!
I'm assuming it does not have the higher quality power supply that the transport has and lesser quality components associated with the digital end. My only concern is in the digital realm.

I guess we can all dream! I do like the fact that it can handle 24/96 digitally and support USB hard drives. This would eliminate the requirements to have my computer online to enjoy listening to music.
post #5 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by googlephone View Post
I'm assuming it does not have the higher quality power supply that the transport has and lesser quality components associated with the digital end. My only concern is in the digital realm.

I guess we can all dream! I do like the fact that it can handle 24/96 digitally and support USB hard drives. This would eliminate the requirements to have my computer online to enjoy listening to music.
You would assume correct. It uses a 5V switching power supply. You can improve that by getting a regulated power supply. I have one for sale with custom cables for the Duet I used to have. But I think the Touch uses the same voltage as the Classic, not the Duet, but CIAudio makes power supplies for the Classic. But even with the regulated power supply it still doesn't sound as good as the outputs on the Transporter.

If they made it as good as the Transporter, they would be screwing themselves since no one would buy the Transporter anymore -- well, all except for the plethera of inputs and outputs that couldn't fit on the Touch.
post #6 of 109
So this is basically a Squeezebox V3 + Duet remote squished into one unit? I've got two SB3. I do like the idea of Duet remote but not the receiver, although for hidden instance pretty neat. BUT no display, and also have IR universal remote so can't control the SB receiver
post #7 of 109
Well sort of. It's more like a Classic with a touchscreen LCD interface. It's got an IR remote. I will admit that the Duet remote is pretty cool since it is its own WiFi device and is only limited to the range of your WiFi network.
post #8 of 109
I don't understand why we need both touch I/F and remote control.
post #9 of 109
Because if you're across the room and don't have ten feet arms maybe you want to change the song.
post #10 of 109
Thread Starter 
IpodPJ

Have you done any kind of comparison between the analog outputs of the Transport vs using the Ref 1. I'm very curious on the differences you find. I'm also curious if you did a comparison between the Transport and Duet both feeding the Ref 1.

thx
post #11 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by googlephone View Post
IpodPJ

Have you done any kind of comparison between the analog outputs of the Transport vs using the Ref 1. I'm very curious on the differences you find. I'm also curious if you did a comparison between the Transport and Duet both feeding the Ref 1.

thx
Unfortunately, I did not do an analog out comparison of the two. I would think though that the Transporter should sound better since of A) what's inside of it, and B) the fact that it is a Stereophile very highly rated component in regards to both DAC and transport, whereas the Duet is not.

I definitely did a comparison between the two in the digital output department. I could give you all the typical descriptors that usually come with better quality components: better soundstage, smoother presentation, better separation and imaging, etcetera etcetera -- but you've heard that a million times. I'll just say it results in more natural, likelife sounding music since there really is no way to quantify subjective perception of audio, and that you should compare them for yourself if you are able.
post #12 of 109
The USB drive is interesting ... very interesting.
Not sure a touch screen is useful, I use my iTouch running IPeng to control my classic - works great.
post #13 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTony View Post
The USB drive is interesting ... very interesting.
Not sure a touch screen is useful, I use my iTouch running IPeng to control my classic - works great.
A touchscreen is always useful. I wonder if the USB slot is just for drives or if you can actually use it as a computer interface instead of Ethernet or Wi-Fi. Doubtful, but it would be a good idea.
post #14 of 109
dual linear psu on the touch and same dac as transporter.... cheers
post #15 of 109
Hmmm. I can see this as a bedside table top device, but it is far too expensive. For that price you can get an iPod Touch, and use the Apple Remote app to stream wirelessly from iTunes to an Airport Express. If mt-daapd supported the DACP remote protocol, I would already have ditched my Squeezeboxes. SqueezeCenter is just too bloated and slow.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Squeezebox Touch