Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-26 Thread gorman
FredFredrickson;547426 Wrote: Hello? This isn't an oversized IPOD, it's an advanced peice of technology.Was this needed? Ipod Touch and iPad are advanced pieces of technology. So much so that, according to several Squeezebox owners (myself included), the best way to control a Squeezebox

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-26 Thread Hugo_NAS
No worse than this review in the UK - totally missing the point of the Touch, that it runs it's own sever!!! http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2010/05/17/reviews_logitech_squeezebox_touch/ I think that is more Logitech's fault for not sending out good documentation. -- Hugo_NAS

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-14 Thread oktup
The LCD can display photos from SD cards or USB drives or from apps like Flickr or Facebook, but *for $300, I expect more than that.* There's no video playback, for instance, which seems like a waste of the big, bright display. *More importantly, there are no built-in speakers*, here, like

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-14 Thread gorman
Well... from reports I've read around (AVS forums) the main weakness is the display, when used from a distance. Sitting from 10' I gather that would have me squinting all the times to try and read song titles... I think that the display should have been larger, considering they opted for LCD.

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-13 Thread jimzak
I emailed the author of the review but I doubt this will change anything. -- jimzak http://zzzone.net http://have-a-nice-day.org http://www.last.fm/user/zzzoneDOTnet http://somethingsomethingsomething.net Ripper: dBpoweramp Router: Lynksys WRT56GL Server: SBS 7.5.0 - dedicated Atom-based

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-13 Thread newy
He's right. What is the point of having a touch screen if it supposed to be used with an A/V system which is probably IR controlled? The SB3 or Transporter are much more appropriate and easier to read than the SB Touch and the SB Radio and SB Boom, with their built in speakers, are much more

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-13 Thread m1abrams
newy;547066 Wrote: He's right. What is the point of having a touch screen if it supposed to be used with an A/V system which is probably IR controlled? The SB3 or Transporter are much more appropriate and easier to read than the SB Touch and the SB Radio and SB Boom, with their built in

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-13 Thread newy
To me it just seems like a touch screen would be way more suited to the Radio so that I could actually use it. To each their own though I guess - I'm sure the Touch fits some consumers setups/needs perfectly. -- newy

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-13 Thread toby10
newy;547066 Wrote: .. To me, and I may be wrong, the SB Touch totally misses the mark, whatever that mark is. I do see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Touch is packed with features and options to be used in multiple different usage scenarios. Features that may not make

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-13 Thread dsdreamer
I don't particularly like it when a source component absolutely requires that I have the remote in my hand to make use of it. At least with the SB Touch, I can still use it if my remote has slipped behind a sofa cushion or gone to wherever remotes go when you most need them... There are a number

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-13 Thread newy
IMO, the SB Radio would be better suited to a bedside headphone rig as it could double as an alarm clock (if the alarm was reliable!). I think the same applies to most desktop situations. I do see the argument for it to be wall mounted although there are probably better options... I love my

[slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-12 Thread jimzak
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363649,00.asp I looked at it quickly. Seems to miss the point that it has a high-quality DAC and compliments a good sound system. -- jimzak http://zzzone.net http://have-a-nice-day.org http://www.last.fm/user/zzzoneDOTnet

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-12 Thread m1abrams
That is a really horrible review. I think the reviewer spent about 5 minutes reading the specs on the box and about another 5 minutes listening with some ear buds. What is this comment? I know reviewers try to have some complaint with a product and the Touch is not perfect but this is not some

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-12 Thread peterw
I'd love to see the press kits Logitech sends out with evaluation units. This guy clearly doesn't understand Squeezebox at all, but I wonder if Logitech marketing isn't making things worse. -- peterw http://www.tux.org/~peterw/ Free plugins: 'AllQuiet'

Re: [slim] PCMag review of Touch

2010-05-12 Thread brucegrr
peterw;546972 Wrote: I'd love to see the press kits Logitech sends out with evaluation units. This guy clearly doesn't understand Squeezebox at all, but I wonder if Logitech marketing isn't making things worse. My thoughts too. The reiviewer's complaint of it doesn't comes with speakers told