4 ms·

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 co

by 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.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
    You can only stream through Google properties though. Can't even stream from a local PC. So even if you don't care, it's kinda funny. You have to stream things over the internet all the time. The hardcore might be using things like BitPerfect and using their own DAC/AMP combos or whatever.
    - ubercore 14y ago
      Sure, not saying that part isn't stupid, it is. But a device that lets you stream music to it _and_ offer decent amplification at less-than-Sonos prices is a pretty good idea. If the Q was $100 and let you stream in a fashion similar to AirPlay (ie, any media on an android device), it would be unstoppable.
rektide 14y ago
The two reasons I've cooked up for why an audio amplifier is on the unit: 1. The device is meant to grow a whole house audio network. Your main A/V system can run the main room, but your Nexus Q devices in your bathroom, your den, and your kitchen ought not all need full AV setups as well. 2. One of the main use cases is to offer a digital welcoming mat at your site to anyone who comes by. I'm not sure what the system capabilities are for the Nexus Q, but plenty of tablets and mobile devices have pretty respectable displays: what they lack is speakers, because speakers by their nature are bulky and weighty devices. Nexus Q solves the most problematic part of nomadic computing, adequate sound: the only part of media consumption that is by it's nature required to be a part of the room infrastructure. There's a freebie reason as well: it's cost is close enough to free. The audio chip, TAS5713, is listed as $2.15 in 1k units. They probably had to spend that again to upgrade the power supply, for which 25 of it's available 35 watts are dedicated to audio, and most of that cost gets sunk in larger passive components. The binding posts are probably nearly a dollar. There's a tiny bit more board real estate, a couple more passive components, but those are pennies. The overall cost is, I maintain, slight. Adding more power would've been problematic: bigger power supply, perhaps bigger PCB traces, and the unvented passive-cooling-cum-metal-casing would have needed to be revamped to handle the significant heat-load. After 25 watts, audio goes from being a single chip IC to requiring discrete components, namely cooled and dedicated power switching transistors. 25 watts was as most as could be squeezed in easily. You mention amplifier speakers in your post, ot, but M-Audio AV40's would be my goto compare, and at 20 watts/channel they're A) are not much of an upgrade and b) no slouch in their class, having more watts than many many AirPlay devices. Amplified speakers also create a much more complex wiring scenario: instead of being free to wire speakers wherever, one speaker now wants wall power, and the other speaker has to chain off the first. With an integrated amplifier, speakers are free to be moved into whatever satellite position is desired. 12.5 watts is quite a lot of power. It sounds meek compared to the hundred watts of an AV amplifier, and indeed, it won't get ragingly loud on most speaker sensitivities, but it will be loud (buy a Sonic Impact T-Amp and find out for yourself! $35 awesome-sauce battery-powerable mini amp, highly recommended!). I for one think the ability to easily throw up cloud powered bookshelf speakers wherever is really cool.
- rdl 14y ago
bambax 14y ago
I think it wants to compete with Sonos; Sonos has one comparable thing, now called "connectamp" (previously known as SP100, SP120) that retails for $499 and plugs directly into passive speakers http://www.sonos.com/shop/products/connectamp http://www.sonos.com/shop/products/connectamp I have a complete Sonos setup in my home, with two of those, two "connect" and 3 "play5". It's not cheap but it works flawlessly, it's perfect. It only plays music (not movies) but can play your own music from a NAS or a computer on your network (but not from your Android or iPhone phone -- you'd have to copy the files on your NAS first). This thing from Google seems to take inspiration from Sonos; if they really want to compete they should make it compatible with Sonos, and then why not; but why would Google want to be in the home entertainment sphere is what I'd like to know...
- sagres 14y ago
  Fringe case but I have a Roku attached via HDMI to a 32" monitor. This particular monitor has a 3.5mm speaker output jack and the connect amp has a 3.5mm input. Connect the the two and viola. If you're ok with stereo output for TV/movies it sounds just fine.
- Loic 14y ago
  Because the Q can then get a microphone and you can start to interact with it using voice recognition only. It means that in your living room, you do not need your tablet or something else, you just speak and get the information you want on screen or answered back to you with voice synthesis.

by ot 14y ago

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.
- 2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
  You can only stream through Google properties though. Can't even stream from a local PC. So even if you don't care, it's kinda funny. You have to stream things over the internet all the time. The hardcore might be using things like BitPerfect and using their own DAC/AMP combos or whatever.
  - ubercore 14y ago
    Sure, not saying that part isn't stupid, it is. But a device that lets you stream music to it _and_ offer decent amplification at less-than-Sonos prices is a pretty good idea. If the Q was $100 and let you stream in a fashion similar to AirPlay (ie, any media on an android device), it would be unstoppable.

rektide 14y ago

The two reasons I've cooked up for why an audio amplifier is on the unit: 1. The device is meant to grow a whole house audio network. Your main A/V system can run the main room, but your Nexus Q devices in your bathroom, your den, and your kitchen ought not all need full AV setups as well. 2. One of the main use cases is to offer a digital welcoming mat at your site to anyone who comes by. I'm not sure what the system capabilities are for the Nexus Q, but plenty of tablets and mobile devices have pretty respectable displays: what they lack is speakers, because speakers by their nature are bulky and weighty devices. Nexus Q solves the most problematic part of nomadic computing, adequate sound: the only part of media consumption that is by it's nature required to be a part of the room infrastructure. There's a freebie reason as well: it's cost is close enough to free. The audio chip, TAS5713, is listed as $2.15 in 1k units. They probably had to spend that again to upgrade the power supply, for which 25 of it's available 35 watts are dedicated to audio, and most of that cost gets sunk in larger passive components. The binding posts are probably nearly a dollar. There's a tiny bit more board real estate, a couple more passive components, but those are pennies. The overall cost is, I maintain, slight. Adding more power would've been problematic: bigger power supply, perhaps bigger PCB traces, and the unvented passive-cooling-cum-metal-casing would have needed to be revamped to handle the significant heat-load. After 25 watts, audio goes from being a single chip IC to requiring discrete components, namely cooled and dedicated power switching transistors. 25 watts was as most as could be squeezed in easily. You mention amplifier speakers in your post, ot, but M-Audio AV40's would be my goto compare, and at 20 watts/channel they're A) are not much of an upgrade and b) no slouch in their class, having more watts than many many AirPlay devices. Amplified speakers also create a much more complex wiring scenario: instead of being free to wire speakers wherever, one speaker now wants wall power, and the other speaker has to chain off the first. With an integrated amplifier, speakers are free to be moved into whatever satellite position is desired. 12.5 watts is quite a lot of power. It sounds meek compared to the hundred watts of an AV amplifier, and indeed, it won't get ragingly loud on most speaker sensitivities, but it will be loud (buy a Sonic Impact T-Amp and find out for yourself! $35 awesome-sauce battery-powerable mini amp, highly recommended!). I for one think the ability to easily throw up cloud powered bookshelf speakers wherever is really cool.

rdl 14y ago

bambax 14y ago

I think it wants to compete with Sonos; Sonos has one comparable thing, now called "connectamp" (previously known as SP100, SP120) that retails for $499 and plugs directly into passive speakers http://www.sonos.com/shop/products/connectamp http://www.sonos.com/shop/products/connectamp I have a complete Sonos setup in my home, with two of those, two "connect" and 3 "play5". It's not cheap but it works flawlessly, it's perfect. It only plays music (not movies) but can play your own music from a NAS or a computer on your network (but not from your Android or iPhone phone -- you'd have to copy the files on your NAS first). This thing from Google seems to take inspiration from Sonos; if they really want to compete they should make it compatible with Sonos, and then why not; but why would Google want to be in the home entertainment sphere is what I'd like to know...

sagres 14y ago
Fringe case but I have a Roku attached via HDMI to a 32" monitor. This particular monitor has a 3.5mm speaker output jack and the connect amp has a 3.5mm input. Connect the the two and viola. If you're ok with stereo output for TV/movies it sounds just fine.
Loic 14y ago
Because the Q can then get a microphone and you can start to interact with it using voice recognition only. It means that in your living room, you do not need your tablet or something else, you just speak and get the information you want on screen or answered back to you with voice synthesis.