PDA

View Full Version : A day with out RCA cables....bluetooth



jester73440
08-05-2005, 02:28 AM
Anyone think we will ever see it? no more running patch cables. just plug in a bluetooth plug and pair them. Anyone hear of any companies looking into this? Would you use bluetooth in place of RCA cables?

cjjackson85
08-05-2005, 02:29 AM
Sure, if it worked well enough...

TeenWolf
08-05-2005, 02:36 AM
Yes, if it worked as well as RCA's, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Expy2000
08-05-2005, 02:36 AM
Naa I will stick to my Stingers RCAs...

I am just waiting on the day when we can use USB sticks on our face units..


yah.....


:)

netherland24
08-05-2005, 02:38 AM
Naa I will stick to my Stingers RCAs...

I am just waiting on the day when we can use USB sticks on our face units..


yah.....


:)

there is a clarion where i think u can do that. i know u can store in it hard drive music.

JimJ
08-05-2005, 02:39 AM
Not going to happen anytime soon, nor would I want to see it happen.

For wireless to match the SQ of a hardwired system, that's going to take a lot of bandwidth. Where's that bandwidth going to come from? You can't magically make more frequencies appear, they need to come from somewhere. Chances are, they're going to be in use by some other service.

cjjackson85
08-05-2005, 02:40 AM
They can have a band at a live concert play wireless, so why not in my car :confused:

Expy2000
08-05-2005, 02:43 AM
there is a clarion where i think u can do that. i know u can store in it hard drive music.



POS Junk.. why there are not others.. always has been..

ozz well

IMO


:)

SSS 18734
08-05-2005, 02:55 AM
id rather pay 10 bucks for RCA's than over 100 for some stupid bluetooth adapter, which will never beat a directly wired connection.

Ignatowski
08-05-2005, 08:02 AM
Its possible - and I would welcome not having to fuss with overpriced RCAs

Silver
08-05-2005, 08:08 AM
not hard to run a RCA to amp. so to me... pointless, BUT it would be cool. Wireless 4ch amp :D.

Chevillac
08-05-2005, 09:28 AM
It would have to be inexpensive enough for the normal person to buy it for it to be worth it and marktetable. Makign it cost as little as RCA wouldnt be worth it to the maker. So I dont see it happening, also, I would worry about reliability.

theCybe
08-05-2005, 09:48 AM
Bandwidth shouldn't be a hinderance, as an entire CD track could be transmitted at full resolution in mere seconds; Rather than playing realtime.

Which also offers an advantage when it comes to skipping, which eliminates the need for anti-skip mechanisms / floating heads which may offer a tradeoff on cost.

Entirely possible.

adam71
08-05-2005, 10:34 AM
I think you guys are missing the point. Why is it that everyone wants to see something like this?? :uhoh: Everyone wants to see "quantity over quality". No one wants to put quality first. I mean now a days when someone is shopping for a new head unit one of the first things they look for is one that plays mp3s. Don't get me wrong I like mp3s but they are POOR in SQ by comparison to cd. This is the single biggest reason why MOST high end car audio gear has left the US, no demand for absolute SQ. Its all about the bang for the buck.

Instead of finding new ways to transfer a signal from one component to another I'd like to see a mfg optimize the signal being transfered first. I would much rather worry about purchasing rca cables than wondering if my new wireless system is going to work right today or is there going to be electrical interference issues with the signal. I guess this has turned into a rant and for that I'm sorry. I just would like to see these people start making use of the technology available today for improvements on QUALITY of the signal instead of new gimmicks and light shows.

-end rant.

jester73440
08-05-2005, 11:48 AM
I just thought of it after buying a bluetooth head set for my phone and seeing how great it works. Then I was helping a friend run another set of RCA's to his new amp and all the troubles he is having with fitting 3 sets of RCA cable behind his radio ( Heater vent runs right behind it no clearence). We don't have to wait for new amps to come out just a class 1 bluetooth plug made for RCA's will work. My bluetooth plug for the computer was like $4 off ebay and only 20 in stores

Chevillac
08-05-2005, 11:58 AM
And when you said that about you blue tooth thing, thats the first thing I thought about also, peoples' phone headsets. Which is why I would worry about reliability. Everyone, which is only a few but still, that I know that has bought a blue tooth headset has had a few issues from time to time. And it seems like for no reason. If that had happened to me with my system because of the blue tooth equiptment I would be pissed to no end, especially when you are driving and cant stop to mess with it.

theCybe
08-05-2005, 12:01 PM
Digital offers greater 'quality' than analog, because digital doesn't change, distort, warp, or decay.

And, mp3s can be encoded at a high bitrate; much in the same way a 200k .JPG image can be just as crisp as a 6mb .BMP

The fidelity of the BlueTooth connection becomes irrelevant, as if it's transferring digital information (with error-correcting) at a greater rate than it's being decoded (ie; played,) there's no loss of quality. [shrug.]

I think you're missing the point; If the data is intact at the point of transmission, error correcting allows it to be reconstructed as it's received, to make an exact digital duplicate of the original "signal" at the point of conversion;

The bluetooth 'receiver' would then convert that data, at full quality, into an analog or digital signal (RCA? SPDIF?)

Thereby assuring that the weakest "SQ" point of the system, or the part where the sound deteriorates most from it's original source, is NOT the BlueTooth connection, but likely the analog amplification device, or the reproductive mechanism (speaker.)

The advantage being no signal loss through cables - the signal/music/data would get to the amp intact, at full fidelity.

So, do your research. An mp3 doesn't have to be "Poor in SQ." It can be 100% accurate, and still maintain a smaller filesize than a .WAV (your likely format of choice.)

JPEG is to BMP as
MP3 is to WAV.

tRiGgEr
08-05-2005, 12:01 PM
Imagine bluetooth power wire adapter. Just dont get caught as a ground. Or it's bye bye for you.

One of my friends actually said the Xbox 360 was all wireless. Including the power. I was like OMFG you are dumb...

theCybe
08-05-2005, 12:02 PM
And when you said that about you blue tooth thing, thats the first thing I thought about also, peoples' phone headsets. Which is why I would worry about reliability. Everyone, which is only a few but still, that I know that has bought a blue tooth headset has had a few issues from time to time. And it seems like for no reason. If that had happened to me with my system because of the blue tooth equiptment I would be pissed to no end, especially when you are driving and cant stop to mess with it.

Those items (wireless mouse, keyboard, cellphone headset) are often battery powered.

Amplified antennas become possible with a powered system.

djman37
08-05-2005, 12:13 PM
They can have a band at a live concert play wireless, so why not in my car :confused:

Most, if not always, analog, relatively narrow freq. range for each instrument(mic), MONO. The actual instrument (production)amp speakers are mic'ed, by hard wire, to the reproduction PA system.

I've thought about wireless and also of purchasing an educational FIBER OPTIC kit for audio, trying an unbalanced system, etc. but heck, RCAs work, they're cheap, and they're already run.

JimJ
08-05-2005, 12:46 PM
Digital offers greater 'quality' than analog, because digital doesn't change, distort, warp, or decay.

*cough* Ehh...


Imagine bluetooth power wire adapter. Just dont get caught as a ground. Or it's bye bye for you.

Tesla would be proud.

I don't know. Even if bandwidth limitations somehow wasn't an issue, anything wireless is inherently going to have less reliability. I won't be selling my RCA's anytime soon :)

djman37
08-05-2005, 12:47 PM
x2, and NO, NOT the band.

jester73440
08-05-2005, 01:38 PM
Xbox and p23 will have bluetooth controlers. I get no interfernce with my head set at work and we have a ton of metal and electric equipment in play here. I think MP3 quality is just as good as CD I convert all my mp3s to 320kb/s which a cd is 196 or 256.I don't mean rip out your RCAs for bluetooth but in the future installing an amp can just be a power and ground. Anyone ever try the Wifi speakers for home audio yet?

JimJ
08-05-2005, 01:44 PM
which a cd is 196 or 256.

CD's usually are up around 1400+ :fyi:

jester73440
08-05-2005, 01:50 PM
CD's usually are up around 1400+ :fyi:

Are you sure? When they are ripped they come off at 256. And any program I ever seen said 192 near cd quality 256 cd quality. The files are much bigger in size then a cd

adam71
08-05-2005, 01:55 PM
CD's usually are up around 1400+ :fyi:

Yes, cds are 1,411 kbps. ;)

JimJ
08-05-2005, 01:58 PM
When they are ripped they come off at 256.

Completely dependent on your program. I burn all my MP3s that come off CD at 320k.


The files are much bigger in size then a cd

If they were, what would be the point of MP3? :D .WAV files are much bigger than the compressed MP3 files are.

adam71
08-05-2005, 01:59 PM
Are you sure? When they are ripped they come off at 256. And any program I ever seen said 192 near cd quality 256 cd quality. The files are much bigger in size then a cd


First of all, an mp3 at its highest bitrate of 320kbps does NOT match the fidelity of a compact disc. Second of all my MusicMatch jukebox that I have on my computer says that 128 is supposed to be cd quality but we all know that is bullshyt. Oh and there is no way an mp3 file is bigger than a ripped from cd wave file. Thats just not possible.

TeenWolf
08-05-2005, 02:02 PM
Yes, cds are 1,411 kbps. ;)

That's crazy...didn't realize it was that high!


Digital offers greater 'quality' than analog, because digital doesn't change, distort, warp, or decay.

And, mp3s can be encoded at a high bitrate; much in the same way a 200k .JPG image can be just as crisp as a 6mb .BMP

Agree, but doesn't most mp3 encoders remove a large portion of the frequency range? I hear that some cut well into the human heariing range, which would be noticeable on a good sound system.

adam71
08-05-2005, 02:12 PM
Digital offers greater 'quality' than analog, because digital doesn't change, distort, warp, or decay.

I will agree that the storage of digital is better but to say digital is better than wave is subjective and nothing more than your opinion.


And, mp3s can be encoded at a high bitrate; much in the same way a 200k .JPG image can be just as crisp as a 6mb .BMP

Yes it can but 320kbps mp3 cannot and WILL not match the quality of a regular cd.



The fidelity of the BlueTooth connection becomes irrelevant, as if it's transferring digital information (with error-correcting) at a greater rate than it's being decoded (ie; played,) there's no loss of quality. [shrug.]

That may be correct but the reliability is VERY relevant. :)



I think you're missing the point; If the data is intact at the point of transmission, error correcting allows it to be reconstructed as it's received, to make an exact digital duplicate of the original "signal" at the point of conversion;

You see even you just said it.......IF THE DATA IS INTACT......my point was more about the reliability of the wireless connection. Not necessarily the quality.



Thereby assuring that the weakest "SQ" point of the system, or the part where the sound deteriorates most from it's original source, is NOT the BlueTooth connection, but likely the analog amplification device, or the reproductive mechanism (speaker.)

The advantage being no signal loss through cables - the signal/music/data would get to the amp intact, at full fidelity.

Now that part I do agree with.


So, do your research. An mp3 doesn't have to be "Poor in SQ." It can be 100% accurate, and still maintain a smaller filesize than a .WAV (your likely format of choice.)

I don't have to do any research to know that an mp3 is inferior to compact disc. I fail to see how an mp3 can be 100% accurate. Especially if you're ripping it from a cd that it in itself is not 100% accurate.

The whole point to my rant was that the mfgs need to work on improving quality instead of conveniences. Sorry for another long post.

jester73440
08-05-2005, 02:13 PM
Yeah I didn't think CDs were that high either.Has anyone tried using their indash DVd player to play DVD-R with music on it? 4.7gb you should be able to fit the highest quality on there. or AM I missing something again?

adam71
08-05-2005, 02:16 PM
Yeah I didn't think CDs were that high either.Has anyone tried using their indash DVd player to play DVD-R with music on it? 4.7gb you should be able to fit the highest quality on there. or AM I missing something again?

I've done it with my home DVD player and it works nicely.

jester73440
08-05-2005, 02:21 PM
so if I put WAV files on my Cds I'll have better quality? Everhear a DVD audio player,anygood?

JimJ
08-05-2005, 02:22 PM
so if I put WAV files on my Cds I'll have better quality?

Don't think you quite understand...CD's are encoded with .WAV files.


Everhear a DVD audio player,anygood?

DVD-A and SACD will hand regular CD's their *** for SQ...alas, it's tough to find compatible players, especially for car audio.

adam71
08-05-2005, 02:27 PM
DVD-A and SACD will hand regular CD's their *** for SQ...alas, it's tough to find compatible players, especially for car audio.

If that ever happened I would be a happy *** camper......but it won't.

JimJ
08-05-2005, 02:29 PM
I'm having a hard enough time trying to find good SACD players for home :/

It's easier to find vinyl than SACD releases...

TeenWolf
08-05-2005, 02:32 PM
Give it time...it will be mainstream eventually.

adam71
08-05-2005, 02:38 PM
I'm having a hard enough time trying to find good SACD players for home :/

It's easier to find vinyl than SACD releases...


There are alot of high end SACD players on the market but they will cost you. :up2somet:

I agree that if you can find a good vinyl store there is a much better selection of vinyl than of the dvd-a and sacd. The problem with vinyl is wear and tear.

adam71
08-05-2005, 02:40 PM
Give it time...it will be mainstream eventually.

Well Darryl, I would really like to share your optimism but I think the market for these formats is a niche market and that is NOT very promising.

TeenWolf
08-05-2005, 02:45 PM
Fair enough, but I will stay optimistic :)

jester73440
08-05-2005, 02:46 PM
Well Darryl, I would really like to share your optimism but I think the market for these formats is a niche market and that is NOT very promising.

Espcially with HD-DVD and blue disc coming out soon. I think that is the market everyone is looking at. Instead of wasting time with regular DVD-video or audio. Back to the subject anyone else think bluetooth replacing RCA will be here? I heard there is a bluetooth car alarm anyone see these?

Greg200SE-R
08-05-2005, 02:55 PM
It's just a matter of time before a wireless solution to RCA cables appears... I work for a phone company and there are crazy things in industrial use that will (eeeeeeeventually) find their way to consumers.

Think about it, it's not that hard to imagine something wirelessly transmitting the same bandwidth as today's home theater optical/digital stream... Given, these are compressed but by the time our wireless dream comes true they'll have figured it out... A lossless compression method to get 6+ full-bandwidth streams wirelessly sent to on-amp 96KHz DACS... Everything today is about keeping the signal digital as far down the signal path as possible. There are on-amp DACs already.

Bluetooth v4 or 5? lol. I know I'll be too old to be into car audio when it happens.

Chevillac
08-05-2005, 03:06 PM
One other thing I just thought about, if you have to run other wires anyway why not just run RCA, the bluetooth wouldnt be practical, if there isnt a large gain over RCA.

That might have been said already, I didnt notice.

Chevillac
08-05-2005, 03:08 PM
http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/bt-redcare-bluetooth-car-alarm-022413.php
thats the only thing Ive found so far.

Flipx99
08-05-2005, 03:11 PM
HAve you tried using it wireless for an amp?? It may not work well for SQ comp, but SPL it may work pretty good. SPL has very limited frequencies it would have to transmit. I think it may be okay. Wouldn't pay very much for the capability. Maybe $40 at the most.

adam71
08-05-2005, 03:34 PM
http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/bt-redcare-bluetooth-car-alarm-022413.php
thats the only thing Ive found so far.

I would have to pass on that one. That looks like something that could be used to violate someone's privacy. thats why I will never buy a car with OnStar.

MrBlack
08-05-2005, 03:59 PM
Guys, a single speed CD's data is read at 150 kb/s. That's how much data is contained in a second of 44khz, 16 bit, stereo uncompressed audio. To prove my point, look at an 80 minute cd which is appx. ~700 mb's.
At 150 kb/s: 150(kb)*60(sec) = 9000 kb (1 minute of music)
9000(kb)*80(min)/1024(# of kb's in an mb) = 703.125 (size of an 80 mb cd)

1411 kb/s is something you see Microsoft Windows reference as the playback bandwidth of wav files, and to be honest I don't know where they came up with figure. IF your data was being read at 1411 kb/s, an audio CD would need to be over 6600 mb's!

The same mystery figure goes for mp3's and streaming music. Think about it. How many times in the past have you guys listened to an audio stream off the net claiming 48 kb/s quality or higher on a dialup connection? We all know that dialup cannot sustain speeds of more than 4.5 kb/s on a good day, so what gives. Sure streaming music and mp3's are heavily compressed, but an audio CD is not, so where does the inflated number come from in that instance? I've gone onto tech forums asking this same question and never really got a good explanation, so anyone who feels they can elaborate further, please do.

As for quality of mp3's, yes the higher bitrate the better, but you have to know that even your 320 kb mp3's are taking something away from the music, if they didn't the size of the file wouldn't be so drastically reduced. And regardless of the bitrate, during playback in your car or on your home stereo it still has to be converted back to the native bitrate of your playback source, which ends up to be 44 khz 16 bit stereo audio with a 150 kb/s bitrate.

nikosbuddy
08-05-2005, 04:11 PM
i just thought about this what if you and your buddys were driving...and ya got to close and you started picking up there frequecys like a wireless fm transmitter, driving by someone who was to cheap to get a nice deck with aux in, lol
man that would **** talk about screwed and chopped.

djman37
08-05-2005, 04:18 PM
i just thought about this what if you and your buddys were driving...and ya got to close and you started picking up there frequecys like a wireless fm transmitter, driving by someone who was to cheap to get a nice deck with aux in, lol
man that would **** talk about screwed and chopped.

I've always wanted to mod a 'mr. microphone' with a different FM transmitter that could transmit over the entire FM range, just to f with people. Mind you, this was back before CD players in cars were standard and OTA didn't ****.

AVSTANG02
08-05-2005, 04:19 PM
**** bluetooth.

I would never go wireless.

MrBlack
08-05-2005, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Jack Frost
Don't think you quite understand...CD's are encoded with .WAV files

I'd like to clarify. Wav files store PCM data, which if sampled at 44khz, in stereo and 16 bit, then yes the data contained within the Wav file would be identical to that of a cd, minus all the header info of course. But the Wav format can be sampled at multiple frequencies and bandwidths so just because it says *.wav doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be CD audio quality.



Originally posted by Jack Frost
DVD-A and SACD will hand regular CD's their *** for SQ...alas, it's tough to find compatible players, especially for car audio.
Originally posted by adam71
If that ever happened I would be a happy *** camper......but it won't.

I'd be happy if there was a way to get these recording engineers today to make use of the CD's actual capabilities instead of compressing all of the sound into the upper 1/3 dynamic range for the added loudness factor. Alot of people don't realize how good a well recorded CD can sound, and the way things are going, that's not going to change anytime in the near future. :(

adam71
08-05-2005, 04:25 PM
Guys, a single speed CD's data is read at 150 kb/s. That's how much data is contained in a second of 44khz, 16 bit, stereo uncompressed audio. To prove my point, look at an 80 minute cd which is appx. ~700 mb's.
At 150 kb/s: 150(kb)*60(sec) = 9000 kb (1 minute of music)
9000(kb)*80(min)/1024(# of kb's in an mb) = 703.125 (size of an 80 mb cd)

1411 kb/s is something you see Microsoft Windows reference as the playback bandwidth of wav files, and to be honest I don't know where they came up with figure. IF your data was being read at 1411 kb/s, an audio CD would need to be over 6600 mb's!

Now are you factoring in that the kbps is kilobits per second??

adam71
08-05-2005, 04:31 PM
I'd like to clarify. Wav files store PCM data, which if sampled at 44khz, in stereo and 16 bit, then yes the data contained within the Wav file would be identical to that of a cd, minus all the header info of course. But the Wav format can be sampled at multiple frequencies and bandwidths so just because it says *.wav doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be CD audio quality

I was unaware of that. Thanx for the enlightenment. :)





I'd be happy if there was a way to get these recording engineers today to make use of the CD's actual capabilities instead of compressing all of the sound into the upper 1/3 dynamic range for the added loudness factor.

They have but not in the mainstream. Ever heard of XRCD?? Very nice quality.

AVSTANG02
08-05-2005, 04:35 PM
The great thing for car audio would be fiberoptic cables.

but they are pretty fragile.. wouldnt wanna be twisting and forcing them around my car..

The cool thing is a lot of these multimedia headunits come with brains that can be mounted in close proximity to an amp so a fiberoptic cable could have a short easy run...

djman37
08-05-2005, 04:46 PM
The great thing for car audio would be fiberoptic cables.

but they are pretty fragile.. wouldnt wanna be twisting and forcing them around my car..

The cool thing is a lot of these multimedia headunits come with brains that can be mounted in close proximity to an amp so a fiberoptic cable could have a short easy run...

I've found some fiber optic test kits, like on velleman.com, but they don't have the freq range, nor are they stereo. The stuff of stereo quality seems to be much more expensive, but I really don't know much about audio over fiber.

adam71
08-05-2005, 04:51 PM
1411 kb/s is something you see Microsoft Windows reference as the playback bandwidth of wav files, and to be honest I don't know where they came up with figure. IF your data was being read at 1411 kb/s, an audio CD would need to be over 6600 mb's!



The number 1,411 is not a Windows reference of wav files it is the ACTUAL bit rate of a cd. Only thing is its 1,411 kilobits per second and NOT kilobytes per second.

http://www.jhepple.com/AudioCD/redbook.htm

This website explains better than I can but it basically says that one second of cd audio contains 176,400 bytes of data and there are 8 bits for one byte so multiply 176,400 by 8 and you get the magic rate of 1,411 kbps.

Remember that data rate is most often measured in BITS and physical size is measured in BYTES.

MrBlack
08-05-2005, 05:42 PM
Thanks for clarifying, makes much more sense now. :)

jester73440
08-05-2005, 05:57 PM
wow there is a lot about data storage that I'm still in the dark about. Someone posted about what if your driving and pick up someone elses signal I'm not 100% on this but with bluetooth once it is paired it won't pick up anything else I've talked on my head set in the car with someone else on theirs, with no problems

AVSTANG02
08-05-2005, 06:13 PM
guys.. bluetooth is garbage.. hahaha

it is the last technology you would want to use in a car audio setup especially when you guys get into sq...

Ok im done repeating myself.