Yet another Touch vs. Transporter thread

[michael123]

Hello guys

I spent today few hours comparing Touch (via analog and digital), Transporter and M2Tech hiFace

In contrary to what was written already, Touch stereo separation (from its analog outputs) is much worse than of Transporter. It is improved a bit when RCA digital output is fed into Transporter dig input. Control of bass is lacking - again, very bad with analog output, bit better with digital. An overall presentation is flat. It still might be a bit better than SB3, but this just says how bad was SB3..

hiFace (I tested BNC version) fed into Transporter sounds very close to Transporter. Bass is precise and overall tonal balance is good. Still, Transporter may have more details, but some may actually like hiFace (audiophiles may say 'it is more musical', although I do not like this wording)

RE: Touch usability - it is awful. While the screen itself is better, it is actually much worse than this of SB3. SB3 I could read from 4 meters due to its high contrast, Touch - is completely unreadable. Awful.

So, friends - if sound quality is important to you, and not useless gimmicks, go buy one Transporter.. or get HiFace + DAC.

Logitech - Wake up!! What about Transporter 2? We want 384/32!!

[iPhone]

Hello guys

I spent today few hours comparing Touch (via analog and digital), Transporter and M2Tech hiFace

In contrary to what was written already, Touch stereo separation (from its analog outputs) is much worse than of Transporter. It is improved a bit when RCA digital output is fed into Transporter dig input. Control of bass is lacking - again, very bad with analog output, bit better with digital. An overall presentation is flat. It still might be a bit better than SB3, but this just says how bad was SB3..

hiFace (I tested BNC version) fed into Transporter sounds very close to Transporter. Bass is precise and overall tonal balance is good. Still, Transporter may have more details, but some may actually like hiFace (audiophiles may say 'it is more musical', although I do not like this wording)

RE: Touch usability - it is awful. While the screen itself is better, it is actually much worse than this of SB3. SB3 I could read from 4 meters due to its high contrast, Touch - is completely unreadable. Awful.

So, friends - if sound quality is important to you, and not useless gimmicks, go buy one Transporter.. or get HiFace + DAC.

Logitech - Wake up!! What about Transporter 2? We want 384/32!!

Not sure I agree with all that. The Touch is better then the SB3 on analog outs. The Touch is better then the SB3 on coax digital out. Who said the Touch was better then the Transporter? I surely didn't. I did say the Touch makes a good digital transport, better then the SB3. But again, not better then the Transporter.

As to Transporter II, that was only possibility going to happen if Slim Devices stayed around and Sean had nothing else to do. 384/32?????? What?! Yeah there are tons of material available at that rate! 24/96 approaches the maximum fidelity most people can hear any difference at anyway.

Looking at the total number of Transporters sold, why would Logitech make an investment in a Transporter II which would sell in even less numbers?

[pfarrell]

On 06/22/2010 01:28 PM, michael123 wrote:
> Logitech - Wake up!! What about Transporter 2? We want 384/32!!

Why? there is nearly zero 192/24 recordings out there.
Going from 24 to 32 bits is a complete waste of space, there is zero
chance that there is more than 24 bits of signal ever, anywhere.

And, IMHO, there will never be a Logitech TP 2. Perhaps a Sean's Garage
TP 2, if he hasn't gone off to spend his retirement surfing.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[michael123]

I read few posts here and I understood that Touch is a revolutionary product. Well, from sound perspective, this is what it meant to do - it is not.
Yes, it is a bit better than SB3 (e.g. as explained here - http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...gital&n=148562), but not marginally.. not in my system at least

My expectations were higher from Touch.. Transporter is still an excellent product.

Regarding 384/32 - I was cynical. I do not expect Logitech to produce a new version, although it would be a nice surprise.

BTW, M2Tech will release next month a new 384/32 transport, and month later - DAC.

[iPhone]

BTW, M2Tech will release next month a new 384/32 transport, and month later - DAC.

Again, why? It is a total waste. Waste of time, waste of money, waste of hard drive space, waste of bits (huge over use of zeros), and again where is all the 32/384 listening material?

And what kind of system do you have that you would need 32/384?

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

[michael123]

I think 384/32 comes from relatively new, DXD format.
I saw few samples and Lindberg (2L) site.

Anyway, most, if not all DAC chips, are now 32bit. Maybe nobody needs it now..

As for 192/24, most of LINN classical high-res catalog is now going as 192/24.

BTW, I see some benefit when transport works as 32bit, it is more appropriate when fed by computer. Eliminates conversion.

[bhaagensen]

BTW, I see some benefit when transport works as 32bit, it is more appropriate when fed by computer. Eliminates conversion.

Care to elaborate on this point? (I don't understand the argument)

[michael123]

Care to elaborate on this point? (I don't understand the argument)

Internally, processing is performed as 32bit. Output signal as 32bit is less conversion, and faster.

[pfarrell]

On 06/22/2010 02:23 PM, michael123 wrote:
> Anyway, most, if not all DAC chips, are now 32bit. Maybe nobody needs
> it now..


Nobody needs it now, and nobody will need it in the future.
There simply is not 32 bits of data in audio. something like 20 bits is
all that equipment can detect, and 16 bits is not far from all that
humans can detect.

> As for 192/24, most of LINN classical high-res catalog is now going as
> 192/24.

Pure marketing fluff. Linn is famous for it. 88.2 makes a lot of sense.
I'll accept that 96 kHz makes some sense. But there is simply no there
above that. The rest is marketing


> BTW, I see some benefit when transport works as 32bit, it is more
> appropriate when fed by computer. Eliminates conversion.

There is no conversion. PCM data is integer data. You just truncate it.
Zero conversion at all. Again, pure 100% marketing hype.

They are not changing the physics.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[Phil Leigh]

Care to elaborate on this point? (I don't understand the argument)

There is no conversion involved! - a 32-bit DAC will simply be given 16 bits and 16 zeroes or 24 bits and 8 zeroes...