ralphpnj;570636 Wrote: 
> As we await the Stereophile and TAS reviews perhaps we can amuse
> ourselves with a little guessing game of what each review might
> contain. I'll go first.
> 
> Stereophile:
> 
> 1) They will give the Touch a favorable review and say that it is big
> step up from the SB Classic.
> 
> 2) They will state that while the Touch's DAC is very good it is no
> match for good quality external DAC.
> 
> 3) Finally they will conclude that for $300 the Touch is very good buy
> especially for exploring the world of high resolution downloads and
> vinyl rips but (there's always a "but") sound quality of the Touch,
> even when coupled with a high end external DAC, cannot compare with
> that of some mega-buck CD transport and external DAC.
> 
> What would you except, Stereophile cannot bite the hand that feeds
> them.
> 
> Now I hope that I'm completely wrong but I won't be keeping my hopes
> up.

Okay so I finally received my copy of the October Stereophile, the one
with the Squeezebox Touch on the cover, and I instantly read through
Kal Rubinson's first rate and very thorough review. But the real
question is just how accurate were my predictions quoted above.

1) I was almost right on the money although there was no mention of or
comparison with the Squeezebox Classic.
2) Completely nailed it.
3) Again I almost nailed it except that instead of a mega-buck CD
transport and external DAC you will need a mega-buck SACD player to
better the Touch.

Now my real question is why does Stereophile keep pushing the almost
dead SACD format? I understand the fascination with vinyl since there
was and still is a huge amount of very good vinyl available but there
has never been nor will there ever be a huge amount of music available
on SACD. On the other hand, there is still a chance for high resolution
downloads to become popular enough so that a wide range music (besides
the standard audiophile dreck - think HP's Super Disc List but try not
to get sick) will become available download. If my understanding of
present day digital recording is correct, just about every new
recording or remastering is done in high resolution, i.e. 24 bit and 96
kHz or above, so the files can quite easily be made available for
download with a minimum amount of work on the part of the record
company.

For the sake of fairness I should mention that Kal does say that the
Touch plus a good external DAC is the equal of, if not outright better
than, a CD transport and external DAC or just a CD player.

Another bit of confusion on my part is why does Stereophile, the self
appointed gate keeper of high quality audio, not raise more of stink
about the poor sound quality of most, if not all, internet audio
streams??? 192kbps mp3 is most definitely not high quality audio. The
bandwidth is available and now it's time for internet audio streams to
take the next step up to flac or other lossless format streaming.


-- 
ralphpnj

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter ->
Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch

'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=81346

_______________________________________________
Touch mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/touch

Reply via email to