Future Tech in Cars
Discussion
Hopefully touch screens will go out fashion, give it ten years & everyone will be amazed by the simplicity & ease of a button & knob. Likewise 3 dial heater controls.
The screen just needs to be a dumb one that pairs with your phone, simple mouse esque controller for all functions you have on your phone.
One day in the distant future there will be a car where voice control actually works, currently there is'nt, anyone who tells you otherwise is telling porky pies. In fact my phones voice/google funtion works 99.9% of the time so it could be done.
The screen just needs to be a dumb one that pairs with your phone, simple mouse esque controller for all functions you have on your phone.
One day in the distant future there will be a car where voice control actually works, currently there is'nt, anyone who tells you otherwise is telling porky pies. In fact my phones voice/google funtion works 99.9% of the time so it could be done.
cptsideways said:
Hopefully touch screens will go out fashion, give it ten years & everyone will be amazed by the simplicity & ease of a button & knob. Likewise 3 dial heater controls.
The screen just needs to be a dumb one that pairs with your phone, simple mouse esque controller for all functions you have on your phone.
One day in the distant future there will be a car where voice control actually works, currently there is'nt, anyone who tells you otherwise is telling porky pies. In fact my phones voice/google funtion works 99.9% of the time so it could be done.
I do think I'd prefer using buttons. Touch screens can irritate, be it on a phone or satnav. The screen just needs to be a dumb one that pairs with your phone, simple mouse esque controller for all functions you have on your phone.
One day in the distant future there will be a car where voice control actually works, currently there is'nt, anyone who tells you otherwise is telling porky pies. In fact my phones voice/google funtion works 99.9% of the time so it could be done.
richs2891 said:
Going on from using google maps on your phone to a dumb screen,
A built in universal phone holder
Can't find it now but I read an article recently about a concept motorbike which uses a phone for it's instruments. Of course the downside is it locks you to a particular type of phone, and you're buggered if you drop/lose it, but interesting idea that your multifunction device become part of other systems as well.A built in universal phone holder
RizzoTheRat said:
richs2891 said:
Going on from using google maps on your phone to a dumb screen,
A built in universal phone holder
Can't find it now but I read an article recently about a concept motorbike which uses a phone for it's instruments. Of course the downside is it locks you to a particular type of phone, and you're buggered if you drop/lose it, but interesting idea that your multifunction device become part of other systems as well.A built in universal phone holder
If fact my Motorola Atrix does something similar (almost) when you dock it into its car mount, it goes into cardock mode, so big buttons, for nav, tel, BT etc. This was out 5 years ago!
CrutyRammers said:
Yeah, when you've navigated the invariably arcane car menu to set it up and it's working. But why overcomplicate things? You can't beat a cable for plug and play. I can't see that I'm going to notice any difference in sound quality, it's a car, not an audiophile's hifi cave 
"It is clever to be simple"
Usually takes 2-3mins to pair your phone (based on a fiddly 10 year old BMW idrive system - newer cars take much less time)? Its pretty much a given if you are going to use the handsfree system. After that, theres pretty much nothing to do other than choose a source? In some of the systems I've used the phone will connect and a play signal will be sent automatically so it'll just start playing where it left off.. "It is clever to be simple"
Yes A2DP isn't uncompressed, but if you use aux in, you are essentially going from digital to analogue (then transferring via two poor, often crackly, connections) back to digital and then back to analogue again.
With A2DP you have some compression, then transfer all the data digitally and then have one conversion back to analogue? So in the end the quality is much higher (at least in my experience in the cars/systems I've used).
tejr said:
Yes A2DP isn't uncompressed, but if you use aux in, you are essentially going from digital to analogue (then transferring via two poor, often crackly, connections) back to digital and then back to analogue again.
Ben
tejr said:
Yes A2DP isn't uncompressed, but if you use aux in, you are essentially going from digital to analogue (then transferring via two poor, often crackly, connections) back to digital and then back to analogue again.
With A2DP you have some compression, then transfer all the data digitally and then have one conversion back to analogue? So in the end the quality is much higher (at least in my experience in the cars/systems I've used).
Noise issues can be solve by using good quality interconnects. Multiple A/D D/A conversion do not mean an automatic quality loss - that is a myth. Up to the nyquist frequency, the process is theoretically perfect - there is no difference to the original signal. Practically, there is no audible loss with the converters in your average mobile device. The process of lossy compression (twice, assuming the source is lossy, which it almost always is) is audible. With A2DP you have some compression, then transfer all the data digitally and then have one conversion back to analogue? So in the end the quality is much higher (at least in my experience in the cars/systems I've used).
R8Steve said:
fatboy b said:
Electric shocks applied through the steering wheel if you change lane without indicating.
Speed limit of 30 mph if you put the fog lights on.
Not sure i understand these ones. It is not always a requirement to indicate while changing lane and there's no need to go as slow as 30mph in fog.Speed limit of 30 mph if you put the fog lights on.
I'm glad you don't design cars.
tejr said:
Usually takes 2-3mins to pair your phone (based on a fiddly 10 year old BMW idrive system - newer cars take much less time)?
Errr, no. Not IME anyway. It took me longer than that to find the menu option for pairing in my current car. Then you have to find it in your phone menu as well, which given the current trend for phone makers to make everything completely obscure can be quite a faff. Then you have to remember to turn it on and off every time you get in the car, or leave it on and drain the battery. I understand all this stuff quite intimately, and I'd still rather use a cable. People like my missus and various friends don't even bother to try bluetooth pairing because it's a completely unfamiliar world to them. The barrier to entry is too high. Whereas, everyone understands a cable.
By all means have bluetooth as well, I just want a damn line-in so I don't have to.
CrutyRammers said:
Errr, no. Not IME anyway. It took me longer than that to find the menu option for pairing in my current car. Then you have to find it in your phone menu as well, which given the current trend for phone makers to make everything completely obscure can be quite a faff. Then you have to remember to turn it on and off every time you get in the car, or leave it on and drain the battery.
I understand all this stuff quite intimately, and I'd still rather use a cable. People like my missus and various friends don't even bother to try bluetooth pairing because it's a completely unfamiliar world to them. The barrier to entry is too high. Whereas, everyone understands a cable.
By all means have bluetooth as well, I just want a damn line-in so I don't have to.
With Bluetooth 4.0 there's very minimal battery loss. I keep BT switched on permanently and see no difference in battery life. With older phones I found it drained the battery heavily, but BT 4.0 is pretty much standard on every phone now. I understand all this stuff quite intimately, and I'd still rather use a cable. People like my missus and various friends don't even bother to try bluetooth pairing because it's a completely unfamiliar world to them. The barrier to entry is too high. Whereas, everyone understands a cable.
By all means have bluetooth as well, I just want a damn line-in so I don't have to.
Even if you spend 15mins pairing the phone, you never have to do it again, just jump in the car and you're away. I always found it a lot less faff after that as you can use steering controls to skip tracks etc?
I do agree that its nice to have a line in as well, but if I had the ability to stream it would be my primary choice by far. Unfortunately on the e60 I only have line in, and not A2DP (just normal hands free operation for phone calls) and as a result I find I don't often use it.
SonicShadow said:
Noise issues can be solve by using good quality interconnects. Multiple A/D D/A conversion do not mean an automatic quality loss - that is a myth. Up to the nyquist frequency, the process is theoretically perfect - there is no difference to the original signal. Practically, there is no audible loss with the converters in your average mobile device. The process of lossy compression (twice, assuming the source is lossy, which it almost always is) is audible.
All in theory - yes. In practice, the loss of quality is hugely evident
The other issue I find with aux in is the lack of gain. You have to crank the source device, which either adds a lot of clip from the source, of crackle from the overcome aux-in itself. If you knock back the volume, you have to crank the stereo volume which is annoying when you switch sources !
RizzoTheRat said:
Can't find it now but I read an article recently about a concept motorbike which uses a phone for it's instruments. Of course the downside is it locks you to a particular type of phone, and you're buggered if you drop/lose it, but interesting idea that your multifunction device become part of other systems as well.
I'm considering using a smartphone and rear-facing bluetooth/wifi cam instead of wing mirrors on my next project bike.tejr said:
All in theory - yes.
In practice, the loss of quality is hugely evident
The other issue I find with aux in is the lack of gain. You have to crank the source device, which either adds a lot of clip from the source, of crackle from the overcome aux-in itself. If you knock back the volume, you have to crank the stereo volume which is annoying when you switch sources !
I'd love to see anyone beat a double blind test on multiple A/D D/A conversions. It's completely transparent even in practice these days even with modest hardware.In practice, the loss of quality is hugely evident
The other issue I find with aux in is the lack of gain. You have to crank the source device, which either adds a lot of clip from the source, of crackle from the overcome aux-in itself. If you knock back the volume, you have to crank the stereo volume which is annoying when you switch sources !
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff