backtop

Print 65 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Aug 5 at 9:26 AM

The in-dash CD player will soon be a thing of the past if Ford gets its way.
Ford of Europe is quickly moving to CD-less territory

When Apple introduced the latest generation of its Mac mini desktop computer last week, one thing was missing from the spec sheet: an optical drive. The move followed a similar tactic Apple used with its MacBook Air ultra-portable notebooks. Apple feels that consumers are relying less on physical media today and it's happy to oblige by distributing software and multimedia content through iTunes.

Now, Ford is the latest to talk about removing the optical drive (in this case, the CD player) from its future lineup of cars -- at least in Europe. Sheryl Connelly, Ford's Global Trends and Futuring Manager, declared in an interview with AM Online, "In-car entertainment technology is moving digital more rapidly than almost any other element of the vehicle experience. The in-car CD player – much like pay telephones – is destined to fade away in the face of exciting new technology.”

It's not a surprising move; technology progresses and new mediums take over. Cars once came with 8-track players, and then moved to cassette players. Now, most all cars sold today in the U.S. come with at least a single-disc CD player (some models offer multi-disc changers as an option). 

However, there are still a few that just can't help but hold onto the past. In fact, until as recently as last year, Lexus was the only auto manufacturer in the U.S. offering a cassette player in one of its vehicles (the SC 430 retractable hardtop convertible).

However, Ford feels that the writing is on the wall for these "antiquated" methods of listening to music. “Ford will obviously continue to offer CD players while there is demand,” added Ralf Brosig, Ford of Europe Multimedia Manager. “However, over time we expect customer preferences will lead us quickly into an all-digital approach to in-car audio entertainment.”

Ditching CD players means that Ford's new vehicles will rely on proprietary Apple iPod/iPhone interfaces, a standard USB interface for all other media players and smartphones, and Bluetooth for those that prefer to go wireless. That means, for better or worse, Ford drivers had better get used to Sync and MyFord Touch in the future.

And if listening to your personal stash of collected tunes on a digital media player isn’t enough, there’s always HD Radio, Sirius-XM Satellite Radio, Pandora…

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Let them go
By tng on 7/25/2011 4:02:16 PM , Rating: 1
Although a CD sounds much better than a mp3, I would not miss it, the mp3 player is so much better for long distance driving.




RE: Let them go
By MrTeal on 7/25/2011 4:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
1) You won't be able to hear the difference between a CD and a decent MP3 when you're driving anyway.

2) I think it's easier and less distracting to grab and insert a CD than to find an album on my iPod.

3) There's probably not an insignificant portion of the population with no MP3 player and decent CD library, or an MP3 player they barely use and no desire to rip all their CDs onto an MP3 player. DT doesn't represent the vast majority of the population.

That being said, you could probably make half those arguments for the switch from tapes to CDs as well. I can't remember the last time I actually used the CD player on my car. It's probably been at least a few years, so I'd be fine with taking it out.


RE: Let them go
By StevoLincolnite on 7/25/2011 5:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Cant forget off-road driving either, CD's are useless when driving over rugged terrain. (Something I do often.)

Personally, I haven't ever bought a single CD since the late 90's. (I buy 'em digitally now that we can!)
So I welcome this move!


RE: Let them go
By Scootie on 7/26/2011 3:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
Do you live in Romania cause driving here really feels like driving over rugged terrain due to the bad/worse shape of our streets/roads.


RE: Let them go
By StevoLincolnite on 7/26/2011 3:26:18 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, I'm in South Australia.

Some tracks you *have* to have a large 4 wheel drive if you want to go down them.
Instead of flat surfaces... They're more akin to a steep slope with boulder sized rocks for gravel; hell my favorite track is on the side of a cliff overlooking the ocean. (Almost like an advert.)


RE: Let them go
By sigmatau on 7/25/2011 5:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
There should not be a difference in quality if you use cd-quality .mp3s and your car stereo has a dedicated digital input.

You will here a difference if you use the tape player/converter and have a decent stereo.

You can also tell a difference if you have a good aftermarket setup and use reqular quality .mp3s.


RE: Let them go
By OoklaTheMok on 7/25/2011 5:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
With the bitrate that is sold on iTunes and other places, there is definately a difference in quality between CD's and MP3's. Channel separation, dynamic range, frequency range are among the limitations of "standard" quality MP3's. In my opinion, anything below 320kbps, is inferior.


RE: Let them go
By superstition on 7/25/2011 5:19:34 PM , Rating: 1
320k mp3 and AAC sound flat and lifeless when compared to lossless audio.

However, it is a good thing to downgrade classical music for car listening, but that downgrade is for dynamic range.

If a car manufacturer wants to ditch CDs, then have it come with an SSD storage system that plays lossless.


RE: Let them go
By OoklaTheMok on 7/25/2011 5:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
I would frankly like to see iTunes, Zune, et al., start distributing their music content as lossless. If I am paying the same or more per song compared to a CD, I do expect the same quality.


RE: Let them go
By jimbojimbo on 7/27/2011 11:33:23 AM , Rating: 2
As long as you keep paying for it why would they change?


RE: Let them go
By mcnabney on 7/25/2011 5:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't just the bitrate. Different codecs use different methods of reducing the data size. Anyway, 256bit MP3 sounds the same as my lossless FLACs in my listening room / theatre. In the car, 196bit is fine - but definitely not 128bit.


RE: Let them go
By superstition on 7/25/2011 5:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
"Anyway, 256bit MP3 sounds the same as my lossless FLACs in my listening room / theatre."

To you.

I've tried and tried to adapt to lossy compression and I don't like the flattening of the sound. I also don't like "remastered" popular music because it means clipping and clipping makes sound sound coarse.


RE: Let them go
By sprockkets on 7/25/2011 6:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
I'm willing to have you try telling the diff btw 192kbps aotuve vorbis and flac.


RE: Let them go
By Hyperion1400 on 7/25/2011 6:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'll break out my HD650s and "Astraea's Dream" >:)

That song makes it sooo easy to break blind tests :P


RE: Let them go
By sprockkets on 7/25/2011 8:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
Use the magnet link:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:124667f5540f988e2d9aec1cbddca 5b8fa5d3d68&dn=test%20stuff&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker .publicbt.com%2Fannounce


RE: Let them go
By superstition on 7/25/2011 10:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have to prove anything to you. When you produce scientific evidence (double-blind studies) to support your point, then you can demand that I back up my claim with personal blind listening. Until then, it's simply my unproven word against your unproven word. I am quite familiar with such demands. Plenty of people proclaim that no one can tell the difference between lossily compressed CD audio, and people make all sorts of other claims about other things, too -- like that clipping that's used in "remasters" makes music sound better. I trust my ears.

I will tell you another thing. 24-bit audio sounds better than 16-bit. I want higher-quality audio than the CD standard, not lower-quality. I'd like to see the new standard be at least 20-bit with a higher sampling rate. Lossy compression may be adequate with 24-bit 96k music, but taking already compromised 16-bit 44k audio and downgrading it further is not what I call ideal by any means.

I would, though, like to see a feature in stereos to reduce the dynamic range of classical music so I can use a high-quality source instead of having to listen to the banal selection most classical public radio plays.


RE: Let them go
By sprockkets on 7/25/2011 10:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, plenty of scientific evidence is on my side.

You are just too full of it to be proven wrong.

That and all the stuff you just posted about 24 vs 16 and sampling rate is all just BS, and it is obvious already you have no understanding as to how each works.

And please, don't bother googling about it to try to prove otherwise; I'll see right through you.


RE: Let them go
By Zoomer on 7/25/2011 10:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
Moving to 24 bits would increase the dynamic range (or allow for more granular differences in amplitude), so I think that it's a pretty clear improvement. 44 kHz might meet nyquist's thm, but a higher sampling rate would allow for different (better?) less aliasing in the lower frequencies.


RE: Let them go
By sprockkets on 7/25/2011 10:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
What, the current dynamic range isn't good enough for ya :) ?

And there is the key, more=better or something you can perceive. I've read those arguments before.


RE: Let them go
By Steve1981 on 7/26/2011 8:41:43 AM , Rating: 2
It should be noted that the dynamic range of a CD is already rather wide at 96dB. In other words, there is sufficient range to go from 20dB (noise floor of a very quiet room) up to 115dB (pretty darned loud). Not sure how much more is really needed.


RE: Let them go
By Steve1981 on 7/26/2011 8:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will tell you another thing. 24-bit audio sounds better than 16-bit.


FWIW, a study presented in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in September 2007 disproves this notion.

For more info:

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewAr...


RE: Let them go
By tng on 7/26/2011 9:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
FWIW, a study presented in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in September 2007 disproves this notion.
Your article proves nothing about the differences in DVD-A and CD audio, please read the following from the first paragraph of the article.

quote:
that the two-channel analog output of a high-end SACD/DVD-A player undergoes no audible change when passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor.

If you are passing your signal through a 16 bit, 44.1khz system you simply downresing the signal. I can tell the difference on my system between DVD-A and CD. And not just a small difference either.


RE: Let them go
By Steve1981 on 7/26/2011 10:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about the differences between DVD-A and CD. I specifically stated that 24 bit audio is not perceptibly superior to 16 bit audio, as the article states, contrary to what "superstition" writes. As the article also states, there are good reasons why DVDA/SACD may sound different from CD, but 16 bit vs 24 bit isn't among them.


RE: Let them go
By tng on 7/26/2011 10:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't say anything about the differences between DVD-A and CD.
Actually you did. DVDA is a 24 bit format. They say that they downresed DVDA (24 bit) to 16 bit/44.1Khz and people could not hear the difference then from the same track played at 16 bit/44.1khz (CD format). Well, Duh!

What the article states is that we took the steering wheel off a Ferrari, put it on a Ford Escort, and people who drove with both steering wheels on the Ford could not tell the difference in performance so obviously Ford=Ferrari in terms of performance.


RE: Let them go
By Steve1981 on 7/26/2011 11:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually you did. DVDA is a 24 bit format.


DVDA is a 24 bit format, but that is not the only difference between it and CD.

quote:
They say that they downresed DVDA (24 bit) to 16 bit/44.1Khz and people could not hear the difference then from the same track played at 16 bit/44.1khz (CD format).


They downresed a DVDA track to 16 bit and compared it to the original 24 bit, and through a large double blind study could not find a perceptible difference between the 16 bit and 24 bit track.


RE: Let them go
By tng on 7/26/2011 11:15:45 AM , Rating: 2
I continue to read the article and don't see that they say that exactly. They say there is no audible change in when it is downresed, but they don't specifically say that they compared the 24bit to 16 bit in the testing. They do say that they proved that downresed 24bit is no different than 16 bit.

I will call bias on this anyway with my own experience and not just for the reasons they list of "higher production values". I have found that DVDA made from original master recordings are much better than the CD version made from the same recordings, so there goes the higher production value excuse. I have not tired to setup my own downres from 24 to 16 bit for myself to see so I can't say it is wrong.

Of course like others, I will point out here that good vinyl and a good turntable is still the best, even in this digital age.


RE: Let them go
By Steve1981 on 7/26/2011 11:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I continue to read the article and don't see that they say that exactly.


It's the subtitle of the article... of course there is this tidbit:

quote:
They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, with literally hundreds of double-blind listening tests at matched levels, conducted over a period of more than a year, that the two-channel analog output of a high-end SACD/DVD-A player undergoes no audible change when passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor.


They played the SACD. They then introduced the A/D/A processor, and played it again. No difference in a double blind study. Seems pretty clear.

quote:
I have found that DVDA made from original master recordings are much better than the CD version made from the same recordings, so there goes the higher production value excuse.


It takes things like mic placement out of the equation, but there are any number of ways an engineer can work with the recording off the master tape that may yield better or worse results in post-production.

quote:
Of course like others, I will point out here that good vinyl and a good turntable is still the best, even in this digital age.


You're entitled to your opinions. However, it is indisputable that for whatever advantages LPs may have, they have several distinct flaws: ease of use, durability/longevity, and deep bass reproduction.


RE: Let them go
By tng on 7/25/2011 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There should not be a difference in quality if you use cd-quality .mp3s and your car stereo has a dedicated digital input.
Oh there is a difference. I can hear the difference when I am just sitting still, but road noise kills the higher quality of a CD in a car.

You do know that a standard CD is 705Kbs while the best mp3 is 320Kbs? On the home system there is no doubt as to what is better, but I can relax there and listen with a beer.... Is it Friday yet?


RE: Let them go
By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 7:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Do you realize that a 320kb MP3 can hold more information than a 705kb CD?

AFAIK, nobody has proven able to consistently (blind ABX) pick a 320kb VBR MP3 from a CD on "almost" all tracks. The reason is the audio is cooked too much in mastering.


RE: Let them go
By superstition on 7/25/2011 10:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
You don't seem to understand the concept of lossy compression.

Lossy compression throws away information from the original source, hence the word "lossy".

CD audio is 1411 kbps, not 705. I have no idea where you got the 705 number from.

"AFAIK, nobody has proven able to consistently (blind ABX) pick a 320kb VBR MP3 from a CD on 'almost' all tracks. The reason is the audio is cooked too much in mastering."

The argument that heavily clipped audio is so degraded already that one can't readily tell the difference between it and and lossily-compressed versions is one that may have some credibility... until one looks at the file sizes of such tracks when compressed with lossless compression. They're larger than un-clipped source files. They have more information in them. But, it is possible that, perhaps, the sonic degradation of clipping does reduce the overall subjective difference.

I avoid "remastered" popular music and have a large library of music that is not degraded by that process.

The best argument for lossy compression is that it's "good" enough for some people and some circumstances. Arguing that it's no different in subjective listening from uncompressed source material is just not accurate.


RE: Let them go
By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 11:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
^ I understand it fine. You don't seem to understand that the original track was sampled at higher definition than the resulting CD.

My point is a CD will never allow full detail reproduction, while even a lossy compression codec can retain more detail even if it uses psychoacoustics to get there.

It's difficult to avoid remastered popular music, as it's usually only released that way... particularly if it made it's way to a CD.

It is in fact so in different that, given high quality compression and not overly constraining bitrate, people cannot tell the two apart. That does equate to no difference in subjective listening.

That you may have heard a difference from something poorly encoded is not a proof that you would from good encoding.

Where I got the number from was that it's per channel. You have to consider it per channel when contrasting with a compression codec that can save space by tricks that compare the two channels. Even so, it was or would be inappropriate for me to compare 320kb MP3 on a per channel basis since few players can handle that... and yet, there's nothing stopping companies from making them.


RE: Let them go
By tng on 7/26/2011 8:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
I think both of you are arguing about nothing. If you are listening to 320kbs mp3 files and then comparing them to standard 44.1khz, 16 bit CD audio and then saying that the 320kbs holds more info then that just means your public funded math courses have failed you.

Also if you really want to hear a difference you need to listen on a good 2 channel system, not your home theater. Don't care how good it is as a HT system, it is not for listening to music.

I have invested lots of money and time in my 2 channel system and can clearly tell the difference between a song on DVDA, on CD, 320mp3, and vinyl. Guess which one sounds the best....


RE: Let them go
By mindless1 on 7/26/2011 9:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
^ I am stating that when you start with a source recording at higher bitrate than fits on a CD, a 320kbps MP3 can retain more audible *data* than an uncompressed CD can, IF you convert from the higher bitrate source to the MP3 rather than the downsampled CD audio.

If you don't understand this, I can appreciate that you haven't ever thought about it before but that is no need to throw around low brow remarks implying failure at math. I am an audiophile and was very good at math back in HS & Uni.

I never made any statement about listening on a HT setup vs a 2 channel system, but I must disagree that merely being used as a HT system does not in any way necessarily reduce its abilities for playback on the 2 primary L/R channels, providing it's quality gear and not just dinky satellite speakers compromised to retain a small footprint.

The moment you write "sounds best" we drift into the land of voodoo and unicorns. I speak about what is the most audibly realistic reproduction, not what is digitally a closer number to the average after downsampling, nor what your personal taste prefers.

Money and time isn't really the key. I build my own amps. They don't have as high a rated output power as commercial units but that is fine by me since I'm not looking to break windows or go deaf anytime soon. The most accurate sound is not had by spending money nor reading reviews, it's had through solid electrical design (less is more), matched speakers, and a room with complimentary acoustics.

On the other hand it is entirely possible you've never heard a well encoded 320kb MP3. Plenty of people claim they hear a difference then swallow their words when put to a test where they can't pick which is which.


RE: Let them go
By tng on 7/27/2011 11:39:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do you realize that a 320kb MP3 can hold more information than a 705kb CD?
Really? So from that I gather that 1>2 and 2>3 and I have had it all wrong for years? Just being technical here.:)
quote:
I am stating that when you start with a source recording at higher bitrate than fits on a CD, a 320kbps MP3 can retain more audible *data* than an uncompressed CD can, IF you convert from the higher bitrate source to the MP3 rather than the downsampled CD audio.
How do you personally judge audible data? How do you control that during the compression of that data (really, this is a question I have, can you tweak the digital bitstream to preserve more details in the higher frequencies?) Been a long time since I did any work on AD DA converters (like 15 years...)

To be perfectly honest with you, the plain old classic Ipod is an amazingly transparent device for music and you will hear details on it that you have never heard before, unless you have spent 10s of thousands on a 2 channel system.

quote:
The moment you write "sounds best" we drift into the land of voodoo and unicorns.
Yes but "sounds best" is what it is all about is it not? Not what someone else thinks sounds best but what we personally sounds best, it is a judgement based on our experience. That is what fuels this.

The fact that your amps don't have as high of power output as a commercial amp really does not matter. I have found that when properly balanced and set up an old fashioned Dolby Pro-Logic II system with 50 watts can sound much better than the latest greatest X.1 system with a dozen speakers. Mostly because the people who by the latest and greatest systems like that are worried about how much power they have in the amp.
quote:
On the other hand it is entirely possible you've never heard a well encoded 320kb MP3.
Maybe, but if we move to higher bitrates of DVDA, can you tell me where you get all of the data that matters?


RE: Let them go
By cigar3tte on 7/25/2011 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 3
2. When I put in a 16GB USB drive into my Ford Fusion, I just press the Media button on the steering wheel and say "play album Wasting Light", and it'll start playing the album. No need to scroll through lists of lists of album names.


RE: Let them go
By BZDTemp on 7/25/2011 5:20:34 PM , Rating: 3
If the car system is any good then you're using it's buttons and not your random mp3-player.

For instance I pretty much do my music selection in the car using four buttons. Next album, previous album, next track(sometimes) and previous track(rarely). The only thing I have done special to make playing my music in the car is not bring everything but just a selection, that makes it easy to find something even just skipping through because there is never that many button presses to go. I never look at the display, it's easy to hear where I am in the library and it's just x button presses to go where I want.


RE: Let them go
By OoklaTheMok on 7/25/2011 5:11:57 PM , Rating: 1
No in-dash CD player, no sale. This would be a deal breaker to me.


RE: Let them go
By Hiawa23 on 7/25/2011 5:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
I still use CDs but alot of my music is on mp3. Seems like a mp3 player would would be cheaper than a cd player in an auto going forward.


RE: Let them go
By Natch on 7/26/2011 8:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, in almost 2 years now that I've owned my car, I have yet to put a CD in the player. Personally, I'd rather have just AM/FM/MP3, with cheaper satellite service!


RE: Let them go
By Karandar on 7/26/2011 8:54:37 AM , Rating: 2
CD's are already only 50% the audio of those old "archaic" vinyl albums.
Aprox 96kpbs vs 48k on a cd. In "mp3" equivalent, a CD is nearly 1200kbps if memory serves or 4 times the data information of a 320kbps ITunes "high quality" recording. You cannot chop out 3/4 of the music data and expect "lossless" music...
If you play the 3 formats on any half decent stereo there is huge differences between all 3.

It's unfortunate in many ways that so many of today's generation have not heard a good instrumental piece with high quality vocals played back on a decent turntable and stereo. The warmth and richness of Vinyl is truly amazing.
You should hear Norah Jones, or the new remastered anniversary Pink Floyd on 200gram vinyl!
Heh! they still make and sell new albums- I have the latest 30 seconds to mars - came with the cd too btw! Many come with posters, and for just a couple more dollars than the mp3 download prices.

I still purchase some select Vinyl, and for portability, rip that to my PC at cd quality through a pre-amp and X-Fi Platinum audio card - Does a fairly respectable job.

For some modern electronic dance music, CD format is just fine, but all of my digital library is converted from my Cd's in .Wav format - cd original size. Yes it's huge file sizes, But I will never pay for a hacked 320kbps song - that is almost as bad as the old dolby recording off old vinyl to cassette. Flat and lifeless.

Listening on an ipod or the like? Yeah, many cannot tell much difference, listening with anything else? it's like listening through pillows.


RE: Let them go
By Steve1981 on 7/26/2011 9:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
CD's are already only 50% the audio of those old "archaic" vinyl albums. Aprox 96kpbs vs 48k on a cd.


Err, LPs are analog, so they have no bitrate, and are not readily comparable in this aspect to CDs. You could state that LPs have a more extended frequency response over CDs at the high end. However, this does degrade with playback. It should also be noted that the 20kHz limit of the CD is generally accepted as the upper limit of human hearing/perception. In most cases, that limit is significantly lower due to abuse, age, and gender (men are less sensitive to high frequencies).

On the other side of the coin, rumble filters associated with LP playback will steeply cut off deep bass response, commonly in the 25-30Hz range, due to the mechanics of the playback system. While some music may not be affected by this, it does have a significant impact on pianos and organs among other things, and it is readily perceptible.


RE: Let them go
By rburnham on 7/26/2011 10:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
As a tech guy, I am all for this. I would love to see more car stereos that focused on USB ports and SD card readers. Just make sure that the units support a good variety of codecs, including WMA Lossless, and I'll be a happy guy.


Good
By VahnTitrio on 7/25/2011 4:43:36 PM , Rating: 3
I have a 6 CD changer in my Fusion, and I've never used it. I just leave an 8GB flash drive plugged into the USB. Honestly there's nothing stopping them from simply giving the radio 32GB of memory you can dump tunes on to. No sense wasting the battery of phones/mp3 players.




RE: Good
By Aikouka on 7/25/2011 5:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 6 CD changer in my car as well, but unfortunately I'm stuck using it as a source of digital media (mp3, wma, etc). Nissan only recently switched to using HDDs in their cars (Infiniti, Nissan's premium badge, offered this before), but they're very small... only 8GB. I assume they're special shock-resistant drives, which probably carry a price premium, but why not SSDs?

I've been musing over starting a fun project of building my own carputer, but performance issues are my largest concern. My Altima's current head unit starts up in about 4-5 seconds. I wonder if I could use a dev-board and strip down Android to boot up faster? They have dual-core dev-boards available based on SoCs like TI's OMAP4430 (dual-core Cortex A9 + PowerVR SGX540).


RE: Good
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/25/2011 5:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Using an 8GB HDD -- especially for automotive duties -- seems incredibly stupid. Nissan must hopefully be getting some sort of bulk deal on old school Microdrives because flash storage would seem to work so much better and be more cost efficient in lower capacities.


RE: Good
By DigitalFreak on 7/25/2011 5:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a nav system? A lot of times most of the space is used by maps and the leftovers go to music storage.


RE: Good
By Aikouka on 7/26/2011 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but I don't believe the Nav system uses that much in the ones with hard drives (mine does not have a hard drive). My nav system uses a DVD for its data and the DVD is around 5GB.


RE: Good
By AEvangel on 7/25/2011 5:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
So true....why not just throw a even a 250 gig media drive in the car....then you can build your infotainment system around it.


RE: Good
By mcnabney on 7/25/2011 5:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
Cars are just too bumpy to use mechancial storage.


RE: Good
By kmmatney on 7/25/2011 7:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think any decent player would cache the whole song in memory, so you don't need to read from the hard drive very often.


RE: Good
By mcnabney on 7/25/2011 9:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking of drive failure , not skipping. Bang those heads too often and data gets destroyed or the drive breaks.


RE: Good
By superstition on 7/25/2011 10:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
SSD


RE: Good
By BZDTemp on 7/26/2011 3:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not so unless you mean vinyl records. Tapes and CD's have worked great for decades and hard drives can handle a lot more than you'd think.

But for most uses today there is little reason to us mechanical storage systems in cars so it's sort of a silly discussion :-)


RE: Good
By superstition on 7/28/2011 2:13:07 AM , Rating: 2
The RNS 510 used in some VWs has a 30 GB mechanical hard disk, btw.


By Chudilo on 7/25/2011 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's time Auto manufacturers let the cars tether to internet connections in smartphones. However that is not feasible until carriers start letting us do that without a fee. I listen to MP3s, Pandora and pod-casts via stitcher in my car through bluetooth. The problem is the portability of CDs and their capacity. If they had a 2 inch disk cartridge consisting of 2-3 high capacity multilayer disks the story would be different.




By Avatar28 on 7/27/2011 1:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of aftermarket radios do allow you to tether to stream Pandora (only if you have an iPhone apparently for most of them). I guess it's not TRUE tethering since it's really the phone doing the work but controlled by the radio.
http://www.crutchfield.com/g_300/Car-Receivers.htm...


Transformers
By Spookster on 7/25/2011 6:16:28 PM , Rating: 4
I would be suspicious of driving any vehicle where the dashboard resembles an autobot or decepticon symbol.




lol
By Mithan on 7/26/2011 10:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't too long ago (17 years ago) I bought my first car at 18 years of age. It was a Cavalier RS and it had a factory CD player from Delco...

I think it is too early to get rid of CD players but I definitely see them being phased out entirely over the next 10 years, at least by 2020.




RE: lol
By sorry dog on 8/5/2011 9:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
I guess what is a "long time" is highly subjective, but I'm about the same age as you and it's been a long time since I've been 18. And I was in my twenty's last time I bought a CD, so I feel like it's been a long time since I really needed a CD player.


Bummer
By Ben on 7/25/2011 6:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
I must be old-fashioned, but I haven't jumped on the portably-mp3-player-bandwagon and still listen to CD's regularly in my car. I even still buy a CD here and there and I'm rather dissapointed that retail stores are carrying less and less.

I do have my entire CD collection ripped to play in the house at will, but I just haven't found the need to buy one more gadget that requires batteries, cables, and can get stolen.




Get Rid Of It But Not For THAT
By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 8:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
Go back to the old school layout for a stereo CD player but where the CD player was, put an MP3/etc audio player circuit with an SD and microSD slot, plus a pop out tray that can hold an MP3 player for syncing and recharging... but NOT A BLOODY IPOD DOCK! Make it have a standard USB2 (or now, USB3) port for data transfer including parsing the portable player's filesystem for playback as well as the aforementioned data sync feature.

Above all, bring back ergonomic controls, I don't want rows of buttons I have to take my eyes off the road to use and dont' want to memorize different user interfaces for every single vehicle I might drive.




my touch fail
By IlllI on 7/25/2011 8:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
wasn't their 'newest' version of that software met with massive complaints/backlash etc? yet now they are considering making it even more necessary to use by eliminating options? to me thats not such a good idea.




By lawrance on 7/26/2011 1:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
I have a CD player and iPod input in my Scion XB. I've had the car a little over a year and while I've used the iPod interface numerous times, I've yet to even try the CD player. I haven't bought a CD in years and have no intentions of ever buying one again. So this news from Ford makes sense to me.

The missing optical drive on an iMac is whole other story though. I still like to backup things to DVD (in addition to my 1-TB external drive). I also use the DVD drive to either watch or RIP movies down to my iPhone. I'm not ready to ditch my DVD drive so I'm not happy about this news at all. I guess I'll have to keep my old external FireWire 12x DVD burner around...

I remember when Apple ditched the floppy drive back around 1999. While I was a tad stunned, I quickly agreed with the decision. I doubt I'll feel the same about the DVD execution.




By hinchesk on 7/26/2011 7:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
III. A new Mac mini has also arrived


This article incorrectly states the iMac was updated last week and lost it's optical drive. It was the Mac Mini... it'll be interesting to see if/when the iMac follows suit.




MP3's on CD
By Nurn on 7/27/2011 2:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
My Ford F150 plays MP3 CD's. I can burn about six MP3 (V0) albums onto a CD, and I've got about six hours of tunes ready to go. I use it all the time. I gave up on Sirius radio, the quality was terrible.

MP3 tunes in a car/truck are fine - it's not like you're in your living room with all your high end audio gear.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki