5 ms·

The banana plug ports are a completely mystifying design decision. I honestly think they were chosen because they made the design look interesting, rather than

The banana plug ports are a completely mystifying design decision. I honestly think they were chosen because they made the design look interesting, rather than because they served any common or essential use case. I'd venture that, in descending order of adoption rate, these are the likeliest audio interfaces in people's homes: - 3.5mm - RCA - TOSLINK (optical audio) - HDMI - Coaxial digital audio - Tin can and string - Banana plugs Besides, if you've got speakers that are so good you're wiring them up with banana plugged-cables, you probably already have a pretty nice receiver. What purpose was served by adding an amp and making this thing into a mini receiver on its own? As it is, the Nexus Q embraces two sorta common connectors and one extremely high-end, therefore niche interface. The most common and obvious audio interface, the 3.5mm jack, is left in the cold. (An expansion on my reply to: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4205281 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4205281 Which includes an almost comical photo in support of this argument: http://yfrog.com/z/oe42wqagj http://yfrog.com/z/oe42wqagj )

Daniel_Newby 14y ago
Are they the banana jacks where the outside is a nut you can tighten down on bare wire or spade terminals? That's actually good—nearly all the speakers I have ever used have been bare wire.
- danilocampos 14y ago
  No, that probably wouldn't have been, er, sexy enough. This article has a pretty decent shot: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406499,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406499,00.asp Same for me, and most folks with low- to mid-range home theater setups, I'd wager – shoving bare wire into the terminal seems pretty common.
  - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
    That is appalling. This cannot be a real product. It has to be like a concept car. Surely. Surely?
- gcb 14y ago
  I will never understand you people that use that. Just spend a extra .70 and have the cable screwed to a damn male plug. Nothing worse than screwing the wires every time
  - nessus42 14y ago
    I agree completely! Banana plugs are awesome, and nothing prevents you from screwing them onto bare wire. In fact, that's how it's usually done, isn't it? (It's certainly how it's done at my house.) Screw once, and then you're set for life! What drives me crazy are those stupid spring-loaded things that many receivers and speakers have these days. The springs eventually get loose and then the connections get flakey.
  - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
    I rarely mess with the connections later, so the hassle of banana plugs is not worth it.
ot 14y ago
All the connections you list (3.5mm, HDMI, and in particular tin can and string) cannot be used for the output of an amplifier: the Q is meant to be directly connected to passive speakers. Then banana plugs are a reasonable choice. The question IMHO should be: why did they include an (expensive) amplifier in the Q? Most people will want to use it with amplified speakers, and if someone has high-end speakers he probably already has a decent amplifier. It makes even less sense if connected via HDMI to an home-theatre setup. Maybe they have in mind a screen + Q + passive speakers setup, without any other amplifier/gaming console/dvd player/...?
- danilocampos 14y ago
  Indeed! As I asked in my post: > Besides, if you've got speakers that are so good you're wiring them up with banana plugged-cables, you probably already have a pretty nice receiver. What purpose was served by adding an amp and making this thing into a mini receiver on its own? It's an odd decision the more you look at it. The sort of person who's happy to plunk down $300 on a home theater component is already going to have a much more capable device driving a surround sound system. It's not like this is positioned to do that, so it can't replace the home theater receiver. Just odd.
  - ot 14y ago
    Yes, maybe I wasn't clear, I was just rephrasing your comment. I just wanted to point out that the choice of the connector is a red herring.
  - ubercore 14y ago
    Replace is the wrong way to look at it. Supplement is better. Sure, mostly people that care about audio are going to have a primary system with a nice receiver and big speakers. But the same kind of person that cares about music enough to want that _also_ wants to be able to listen to the same music in any room in their house, with independent volume controls and freedom to select speakers suitable for the listening environment and context.
    - 14y ago
huntero 14y ago
I agree with you that the banana plugs were an odd choice, but to be fair, none of the interfaces you listed would be found on a pair of speakers unless they were powered. The 3.5mm jack would be common sense for a line out, but certainly not for the speaker-out from an amplifier. The logical connector would be binding post, which allows banana connectors, bare wire, or lugs. As you mentioned, I'm sure these weren't used because of aesthetics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_post
brigade 14y ago
I had assumed that they were 5-way binding posts, but further inspection says no. For popularity of interfaces, powered speaker outputs are obviously for completely different use-cases than anything else you listed. You aren't going to connect a 3.5mm or TOSLINK output to a passive speaker, and you generally aren't going to connect speaker-level outputs to an RCA input. The only other competing connecter worth considering is plain old bare wire. It has TOSLINK and HDMI outputs in addition; it's not an either/or choice. As for the benefit of amplifier integration, I can think of a few: - Space. The nice receivers you talk about are generally at least 17" wide and 14" deep, so if this is a bedroom or den setup for wireless music streaming you might not have space for one. Smaller ones obviously exist, but I haven't found one smaller than about 11" by 13" with remote volume control. - Power consumption. Full receivers often have ridiculous idle power consumption, and the only standardized way to turn them off (HDMI-CEC) can still have significant standby power consumption. Also it uses a more efficient class D amp while most full receivers use class AB. - Volume control. It should be between the DAC and amplifier, but with a two piece streaming + outboard receiver your options are either a separate remote to control it or digital volume control at the streamer, which really is suboptimal. And if you want a tiny amp then there is no remote; you have to get up and physically turn a knob.
ubercore 14y ago
I don't think it's mystifying at all. Banana plugs are probably the most convenient way to hook speakers to an amplifier. And despite all of its other flaws, one of the most exciting things to me is being able to power speakers directly from the Q. Right now, I either have to buy an insanely over-priced Sonos system, or buy a bunch of airport express stations AND an amplifier if I want sound all over my house. It's very convenient to have an amplifier built in if you want to do something like add speakers in your bedroom or kitchen. All that being said, $300 is a crazy, crazy price for this, but I really think banana plugs and an amplifier are one of the only good decisions made with the Q. Besides, I don't see how comparing myriad interfaces that _can't connect an amplifier to speakers to make sound_ with banana plugs is helpful to the conversation.
mladenkovacevic 14y ago
Hmm I'm not so sure about that. 3.5mm is maybe the standard for computer-type speakers and earbuds... but banana plugs have been the standard for decades now in home theatre hi-fi systems. Pretty much any decent speakers will connect to a receiver using banana plugs. You also forgot XLR and 1/4" connectors which are the norm in production equipment (my cheapo M-Audio speakers are connected to my computer with those right now). Whether the Nexus Q needs to contain a dedicated amplifier that can get around an A/V receiver (which a lot of people who invested in their home theatre system might already have) is another matter.
binaryorganic 14y ago
I love my apple TV, but hate that it doesn't have a 3.5mm audio jack.
- 0xABADC0DA 14y ago
  I don't know how to get a decent link from Amazon but "FiiO D3 Digital to Analog Audio Converter" works pretty well. $30. There's a bug in some AppleTV where it has to be connected to a TV on boot or there's random noise from the digital audio out, but the easy solution is just keep it on (it only draws like 1 watt idle anyway). Hook up to a dedicated amplified speakers and you have wireless audio whenever.

Daniel_Newby 14y ago

Are they the banana jacks where the outside is a nut you can tighten down on bare wire or spade terminals? That's actually good—nearly all the speakers I have ever used have been bare wire.

danilocampos 14y ago
No, that probably wouldn't have been, er, sexy enough. This article has a pretty decent shot: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406499,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406499,00.asp Same for me, and most folks with low- to mid-range home theater setups, I'd wager – shoving bare wire into the terminal seems pretty common.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  That is appalling. This cannot be a real product. It has to be like a concept car. Surely. Surely?
gcb 14y ago
I will never understand you people that use that. Just spend a extra .70 and have the cable screwed to a damn male plug. Nothing worse than screwing the wires every time
- nessus42 14y ago
  I agree completely! Banana plugs are awesome, and nothing prevents you from screwing them onto bare wire. In fact, that's how it's usually done, isn't it? (It's certainly how it's done at my house.) Screw once, and then you're set for life! What drives me crazy are those stupid spring-loaded things that many receivers and speakers have these days. The springs eventually get loose and then the connections get flakey.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  I rarely mess with the connections later, so the hassle of banana plugs is not worth it.

ot 14y ago

All the connections you list (3.5mm, HDMI, and in particular tin can and string) cannot be used for the output of an amplifier: the Q is meant to be directly connected to passive speakers. Then banana plugs are a reasonable choice. The question IMHO should be: why did they include an (expensive) amplifier in the Q? Most people will want to use it with amplified speakers, and if someone has high-end speakers he probably already has a decent amplifier. It makes even less sense if connected via HDMI to an home-theatre setup. Maybe they have in mind a screen + Q + passive speakers setup, without any other amplifier/gaming console/dvd player/...?

danilocampos 14y ago
Indeed! As I asked in my post: > Besides, if you've got speakers that are so good you're wiring them up with banana plugged-cables, you probably already have a pretty nice receiver. What purpose was served by adding an amp and making this thing into a mini receiver on its own? It's an odd decision the more you look at it. The sort of person who's happy to plunk down $300 on a home theater component is already going to have a much more capable device driving a surround sound system. It's not like this is positioned to do that, so it can't replace the home theater receiver. Just odd.
- ot 14y ago
  Yes, maybe I wasn't clear, I was just rephrasing your comment. I just wanted to point out that the choice of the connector is a red herring.
- ubercore 14y ago
  Replace is the wrong way to look at it. Supplement is better. Sure, mostly people that care about audio are going to have a primary system with a nice receiver and big speakers. But the same kind of person that cares about music enough to want that _also_ wants to be able to listen to the same music in any room in their house, with independent volume controls and freedom to select speakers suitable for the listening environment and context.
  - 14y ago

huntero 14y ago

I agree with you that the banana plugs were an odd choice, but to be fair, none of the interfaces you listed would be found on a pair of speakers unless they were powered. The 3.5mm jack would be common sense for a line out, but certainly not for the speaker-out from an amplifier. The logical connector would be binding post, which allows banana connectors, bare wire, or lugs. As you mentioned, I'm sure these weren't used because of aesthetics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_post

brigade 14y ago

I had assumed that they were 5-way binding posts, but further inspection says no. For popularity of interfaces, powered speaker outputs are obviously for completely different use-cases than anything else you listed. You aren't going to connect a 3.5mm or TOSLINK output to a passive speaker, and you generally aren't going to connect speaker-level outputs to an RCA input. The only other competing connecter worth considering is plain old bare wire. It has TOSLINK and HDMI outputs in addition; it's not an either/or choice. As for the benefit of amplifier integration, I can think of a few: - Space. The nice receivers you talk about are generally at least 17" wide and 14" deep, so if this is a bedroom or den setup for wireless music streaming you might not have space for one. Smaller ones obviously exist, but I haven't found one smaller than about 11" by 13" with remote volume control. - Power consumption. Full receivers often have ridiculous idle power consumption, and the only standardized way to turn them off (HDMI-CEC) can still have significant standby power consumption. Also it uses a more efficient class D amp while most full receivers use class AB. - Volume control. It should be between the DAC and amplifier, but with a two piece streaming + outboard receiver your options are either a separate remote to control it or digital volume control at the streamer, which really is suboptimal. And if you want a tiny amp then there is no remote; you have to get up and physically turn a knob.

ubercore 14y ago

I don't think it's mystifying at all. Banana plugs are probably the most convenient way to hook speakers to an amplifier. And despite all of its other flaws, one of the most exciting things to me is being able to power speakers directly from the Q. Right now, I either have to buy an insanely over-priced Sonos system, or buy a bunch of airport express stations AND an amplifier if I want sound all over my house. It's very convenient to have an amplifier built in if you want to do something like add speakers in your bedroom or kitchen. All that being said, $300 is a crazy, crazy price for this, but I really think banana plugs and an amplifier are one of the only good decisions made with the Q. Besides, I don't see how comparing myriad interfaces that _can't connect an amplifier to speakers to make sound_ with banana plugs is helpful to the conversation.

mladenkovacevic 14y ago

Hmm I'm not so sure about that. 3.5mm is maybe the standard for computer-type speakers and earbuds... but banana plugs have been the standard for decades now in home theatre hi-fi systems. Pretty much any decent speakers will connect to a receiver using banana plugs. You also forgot XLR and 1/4" connectors which are the norm in production equipment (my cheapo M-Audio speakers are connected to my computer with those right now). Whether the Nexus Q needs to contain a dedicated amplifier that can get around an A/V receiver (which a lot of people who invested in their home theatre system might already have) is another matter.

binaryorganic 14y ago

I love my apple TV, but hate that it doesn't have a 3.5mm audio jack.

0xABADC0DA 14y ago
I don't know how to get a decent link from Amazon but "FiiO D3 Digital to Analog Audio Converter" works pretty well. $30. There's a bug in some AppleTV where it has to be connected to a TV on boot or there's random noise from the digital audio out, but the easy solution is just keep it on (it only draws like 1 watt idle anyway). Hook up to a dedicated amplified speakers and you have wireless audio whenever.