More ports Jason 07 Apr 2006

14 comments Latest by Inge Jørgensen

[via engadget]

14 comments so far (Jump to latest)

Carlos 07 Apr 06

I saw that too. No real way around it, working in the “analog” world. Love your simple headline though.

I want the same functionality, but driven digitally from a Mac with all my DVDs ripped and DVR programs available.

Peter Cooper 07 Apr 06

Of course, for the ultimate in sockets, switches, and knobs.. any hardcore studio mixer will do :) So would a plane cockpit, but I’m not sure I want them ‘getting real’ in there..

Lance C 07 Apr 06

What about daisy chaining amps with an equalizater attached to your computer?

Dave 07 Apr 06

Unfortunately, all those ports are never used at one time. While you can’t get around a lot of ports, you can definitely break it down into breakouts such that a person can choose which connector to use.

But I guess then they couldn’t charge enough. :)

Jamie 07 Apr 06

I am all about components. But all you really need now is HDMI. Now if I could only by a new TV….

Brad Garland 07 Apr 06

OK, so…just got my 1st Mac (a Mac Mini Core Duo) the other day and I got some questions:

1) Is that system kinda slow?

2) Is there always a delayed response with things? IE. The scroll in a browser, whether Safari or Firefox?

3) Why is the sound so quite?

Help the Apple rookie! :)

Chris Mear 07 Apr 06

Ah, but breakouts add complexity! It’s something extra for me to think about (not to mention something extra to break).

Having 8, 9, 10 inputs in each format right on the box is actually a ‘less’ design, despite appearances. Although the back of this AV receiver looks scary, it means you have to do a lot less thinking about how to plug your stuff into it. And it doesn’t matter that there’ll be a bunch of unused sockets — it’s on the back of the thing, and I’m never going to look at it again.

Compare this to my TV, which has a limited combination of inputs. There’s one component input, but you have to buy a special adapter cable, and then you can’t use the VGA input. There’s a composite input and an RGB input but you can only use one at a time. The two SCART inputs, which look identical, actually do different things.

The small number of connections made it look more simple. But actually I had to go through a load of mental gymnastics to figure out the optimum way to connect my multiple source devices.

Of course, more flexibility isn’t always a good thing. Sometimes contstraints and structure necessary to guide a user towards the best way of using a system. For instance, Backpack gives me lists and notes, which help me structure my page and suggest ways for me to organise my information. It wouldn’t be half as useful if it just gave me a big blank page with no structure.

But when you can add flexibility in a way that is instantly understandable to the user (i.e. having 6 phono inputs instead of just 3 phono inputs, or having more than one list per Backpack page), then it’s one thing that I’m happy to have more of.

Carlos 07 Apr 06

Brad, slightly off topic….but to answer your question, yes it might be slow as is. Upgrading the memory beyond the stock 512 MB will help a lot. And it has a tiny internal speaker, you should add external USB speakers if you want it to pump out decent sound.

Brad Garland 07 Apr 06

Yeah, sorry for the tangent, but thanks for answering me Carlos!

Patrick Taylor 08 Apr 06

Brad, the macmini also has Optical line out (Combined optical digital audio output/headphone out / minijack) which should open up some more speaker options for you and save you from using up a USB port.

urbanchords 08 Apr 06

What I don’t understand is why they still use dot matrix displays? It my Ipod can come with a color LCD screen, why can’t a receiver? Better yet, why can’t the interface be my TV? To me, I think that the stereo people are still thinking in the 80’s and only including the new technologies because they have to.

Bastiaan Terhorst 09 Apr 06

Why would a receiver need an interface at all?
My audiophile friends always tell me to buy one with as
few buttons/knobs/features as possible. They always have the
cleanest signal (few features->short route from in to out).

Give me a volume knob and input selector, and I’m happy.

Inge Jørgensen 09 Apr 06

Why would a receiver need an interface at all? My audiophile friends always tell me to buy one with as few buttons/knobs/features as possible. They always have the cleanest signal (few features->short route from in to out).

yes, and also, less components creating electric interference.

Post a comment

(Basic HTML is allowed)

NOTE: We'd rather not moderate, but off-topic, blatantly inflammatory, or otherwise inappropriate or vapid comments may be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned from commenting. Let's add value. Thank you.