PDA

View Full Version : PCMag review of Touch



jimzak
2010-05-12, 15:33
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.

m1abrams
2010-05-12, 19:22
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 to ding the Touch on. Other question I have is why do they have a big Ad for a reseller of the Touch that is selling it for $100 over list!

"My biggest complaint in the audio department is the Touch's lack of speakers. Not that I am a big fan of built-in speakers from a fidelity standpoint, but there is no way to hear this device unless you have external speakers or headphones attached, yet it seems designed to be used in kitchens, offices, or on bedside tables."

peterw
2010-05-12, 19:37
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.

brucegrr
2010-05-12, 20:25
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 me what I needed to know.

jimzak
2010-05-13, 03:44
I emailed the author of the review but I doubt this will change anything.

newy
2010-05-13, 05:34
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 appropriate for almost any other application. To me, and I may be wrong, the SB Touch totally misses the mark, whatever that mark is.

They should have combined the Radio and the Touch into one product.

m1abrams
2010-05-13, 06:47
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 appropriate for almost any other application. To me, and I may be wrong, the SB Touch totally misses the mark, whatever that mark is.

They should have combined the Radio and the Touch into one product.

Well I will preface my comments with I use my Touch with my Headphone rig so for me it is perfect device.

I can understand the thought that a touch interface on a device in a stereo rack probably does not make much sense. But my question to that is why place it in the stereo rack? If you connect via spdif most setups would allow you to run spdif easily over 30ft. The other issue is even if you put it near your stereo why is have a Touch interface a "bad" thing? Yea I know it seems to be the "most" marketed part of the device but it is far from the most important part.

For me even with the Touch within arms length I tend to not use the "touch" interface much because my iphone with iPeng is just a better interface and this is not really the fault of the Touch per se just the fact that the iphone can easily fit in one hand and is a more comfortable form factor.

toby10
2010-05-13, 07:02
...... 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 sense to you in a rack environment can be very useful in non-rack setups, and vice versa.

Some may never even place the battery in the IR remote, some will never use the touch screen, some may never use TinySC, some will never use it's superior DAC, etc..
The point is that these features are all there to fit numerous different usage scenarios, and all at a very reasonable price. :)

newy
2010-05-13, 07:06
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.

dsdreamer
2010-05-13, 07:08
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 of other less conventional installation options where the touch interface would come to the fore, e.g., wall mounted controller for multi-room music systems, bedside headphone rig, desktop systems etc.

To me, the touch interface is far from the main selling point, but I'm still glad it's there.

newy
2010-05-13, 08:24
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 SBoxes (when they work) but to me, and obviously that reporter/reviewer, the Touch misses it's mark, whatever mark that was.

oktup
2010-05-14, 04:18
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 you'll find on the same-price Squeezebox Boom ($299.99); you'll need add headphones or speakers to enjoy the Touch's high quality audio streams. Although it does its intended job well, the Squeezebox Touch's price seems out-of-sync with its abilities.




My biggest complaint in the audio department is the Touch's lack of speakers. Sure, the same complaint can be issued for the far-more-expensive Sonos Bundle 250 ($999) streaming-music solution. But if you're investing $1,000 in a Sonos multi-zone system, you're more likely to have a stereo system or dedicated speakers.


So... the main complaint about the Touch is that it's too expensive, at $300, to not have speakers. However, it's fine that the Sonos doesn't have speakers, because that costs $1000.

ie, "the main problem is that the Touch should really be $700 more expensive."

Hmm. Not the most logically rigorous review, IMHO.

gorman
2010-05-14, 07:14
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.

Back then, VFD was chosen specifically to guarantee readability from afar.

FredFredrickson
2010-05-14, 07:27
So... the main complaint about the Touch is that it's too expensive, at $300, to not have speakers. However, it's fine that the Sonos doesn't have speakers, because that costs $1000.

ie, "the main problem is that the Touch should really be $700 more expensive."

Hmm. Not the most logically rigorous review, IMHO.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught that. It's completely inconsistent. The expensive unit is too expensive to have speakers. The cheaper unit is too expensive not to have speakers.. wait.. wut??

He completely left out the reason to buy a touch. Sync capabilities. Hello? This isn't an oversized IPOD, it's an advanced peice of technology.

gorman
2010-05-26, 07:27
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 Server is through an application running on an iPod Touch.

Hugo_NAS
2010-05-26, 07:32
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.