PDA

View Full Version : 1/8" to 1/8" wireless for my car




theblotted
Mar 17, 2008, 04:58 PM
just got iPod classic 160GB for my b-day. wanna use it with my Mazda3, which has a 1/8" female jack in the center console.

instead of using a 1/8" to 1/8" cable, is there any product that can do the same wirelessly? preferrably something small.

so for example, a transmitter can connect to the iPod via 1/8" headphone jack or connector @ bottom; and a receiver that has either 1/8" jack or male connector to connect to the center console.

i did a search here, and haven't found it. i saw Jabra has a iPod bluetooth connector, and i suppose i can use it in tandem with their bluetooth headset (which has a 1/8" jack for headphones), but that's about $70 for a wireless solution... there must be a cheaper way to do this, no?

would love to hear how others are doing this.



techlover828
Mar 17, 2008, 05:00 PM
just got iPod classic 160GB for my b-day. wanna use it with my Mazda3, which has a 1/8" female jack in the center console.

instead of using a 1/8" to 1/8" cable, is there any product that can do the same wirelessly? preferrably something small.

so for example, a transmitter can connect to the iPod via 1/8" headphone jack or connector @ bottom; and a receiver that has either 1/8" jack or male connector to connect to the center console.

i did a search here, and haven't found it. i saw Jabra has a iPod bluetooth connector, and i suppose i can use it in tandem with their bluetooth headset (which has a 1/8" jack for headphones), but that's about $70 for a wireless solution... there must be a cheaper way to do this, no?

would love to hear how others are doing this.

well at that point why not just use an fm transmitter?

TEG
Mar 17, 2008, 05:00 PM
No. Something like that would be huge and loose the whole point of a physical connection. You should consider an iTrip or iTrip Auto Adapter.

TEG

theblotted
Mar 17, 2008, 05:16 PM
well, my brother has the itrip on his car, and i gotta say the sound quality is terrible. the whole FM transmission is just no quite there. granted, his is an older version so i don't know how much it's improved since then, but it's not too good in my book at the moment. also, i live in Los Angeles so the number of other radio signals will do some bleeding into my frequency. i can see iTrip work great in Montana, but...

talking about size, the one by Jabra seems about the same size as the iTrip. the receiver will live inside the console, which is pretty deep so i'm not too concerned with the size (at least receiver end of it). of course, the smaller the better; but functionality is paramount.

fridgeymonster3
Mar 17, 2008, 05:30 PM
You are not going to find anything wireless that will sound as good as a physical connection. At least, not presently anyway.

theblotted
Mar 17, 2008, 05:49 PM
You are not going to find anything wireless that will sound as good as a physical connection. At least, not presently anyway.

i've never used Bluetooth headsets for phones.. but how's the audio quality using Bluetooth wireless? i would imagine much better than FM since bluetooth is sending data and converted into audio (that's my understanding anyway), where as FM is mixed with frequencies.

i could be completely off the target, but it'd be cool if somebody could chime in on the Bluetooth audio quality thing.

fridgeymonster3
Mar 17, 2008, 06:00 PM
i've never used Bluetooth headsets for phones.. but how's the audio quality using Bluetooth wireless? i would imagine much better than FM since bluetooth is sending data and converted into audio (that's my understanding anyway), where as FM is mixed with frequencies.

i could be completely off the target, but it'd be cool if somebody could chime in on the Bluetooth audio quality thing.

Yes, I have heard that Bluetooth is much better, but still not comparable to physical connection quality. It does far surpass FM transmitter quality. The OP mentioned a Bluetooth headset, but I'm not sure if he meant to use in the car, or to use in addition to whatever he chooses to use in the car. Using headphones in the car is probably a very bad idea. If his car has bluetooth, he just needs to stick a bluetooth adapter on the iPod Touch (they must make one, right?) and connect. Should work ok.

theblotted
Mar 17, 2008, 06:37 PM
Yes, I have heard that Bluetooth is much better, but still not comparable to physical connection quality. It does far surpass FM transmitter quality. The OP mentioned a Bluetooth headset, but I'm not sure if he meant to use in the car, or to use in addition to whatever he chooses to use in the car. Using headphones in the car is probably a very bad idea. If his car has bluetooth, he just needs to stick a bluetooth adapter on the iPod Touch (they must make one, right?) and connect. Should work ok.

i'm the OP, and it's for a iPod classic. no, i'm not gonna use it with headphones, but rather using the headphone bluetooth receiver (which has a 1/8", see below) to go 1/8" to 1/8" cabled to the AUX jack in the car.

i would imagine the quality difference between BT and physical connection doesn't lie in the wireless technology; but rather the difference between iPod's headphone jack versus BT receiver's headphone jack. both are Digital-to-Analog converter, and it doesn't surprise me that Jarba or other BT receivers will have a compromised output quality.

but then again, give Apple and iPod's size, i wouldn't put pass them that it's not compromised either.

it makes sense to use the bluetooth technology in conjunction with a cell phone... at the moment i don't have a cell with BT, but will most likely do so if this thing pans out.

...assuming that i'm gonna get the Jarba solution. i was hoping to find something cheaper. i mean, it's a mere wireless transmitte/receiver that has 1/8" jack. i wonder if it's something DIY'able...

fridgeymonster3
Mar 17, 2008, 06:44 PM
i'm the OP, and it's for a iPod classic. no, i'm not gonna use it with headphones, but rather using the headphone bluetooth receiver (which has a 1/8", see below) to go 1/8" to 1/8" cabled to the AUX jack in the car.

i would imagine the quality difference between BT and physical connection doesn't lie in the wireless technology; but rather the difference between iPod's headphone jack versus BT receiver's headphone jack. both are Digital-to-Analog converter, and it doesn't surprise me that Jarba or other BT receivers will have a compromised output quality.

but then again, give Apple and iPod's size, i wouldn't put pass them that it's not compromised either.

it makes sense to use the bluetooth technology in conjunction with a cell phone... at the moment i don't have a cell with BT, but will most likely do so if this thing pans out.

...assuming that i'm gonna get the Jarba solution. i was hoping to find something cheaper. i mean, it's a mere wireless transmitte/receiver that has 1/8" jack. i wonder if it's something DIY'able...

I'm pretty sure the limitations lie with BT technology, which is getting better and better for audio. I know I read some articles in the fall saying new BT chips were coming out that would improve the sound transfer. Of course, the output source matters greatly.

theblotted
Mar 18, 2008, 01:37 AM
how would BT make sound quality bad? if it's just simply data transfer, 0101 should not affect sound quality (hi-fi vs. lo-fi), instead renders stop and go; not unlike a CD that's scratched.. no?

for FM, the sound quality is affected by the other frequencies bleeding in, as well as the carrier frequency's modulation. but i don't see BT have bleeding adjacent frequencies...:confused:

CanadaRAM
Mar 18, 2008, 01:58 AM
how would BT make sound quality bad? if it's just simply data transfer, 0101 should not affect sound quality (hi-fi vs. lo-fi), instead renders stop and go; not unlike a CD that's scratched.. no?


You assume that Bluetooth transmits with the same bit depth and sample rate, and that there is no compression or filtering involved, and that the bits fly through the air and are received perfectly with no losses or error correction needed. Are all those assumptions valid?

TEG
Mar 18, 2008, 11:38 AM
how would BT make sound quality bad? if it's just simply data transfer, 0101 should not affect sound quality (hi-fi vs. lo-fi), instead renders stop and go; not unlike a CD that's scratched.. no?

for FM, the sound quality is affected by the other frequencies bleeding in, as well as the carrier frequency's modulation. but i don't see BT have bleeding adjacent frequencies...:confused:

Bluetooth is much more compressed than you think, it is not a powerful enough standard to allow pure audio. Also, I have used, and do use my iTrip(s) in many market across the country, including San Diego, LA, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Milwalkie, MSP, Detroit, and Indianapolis, and I've only had major problems in cities with a Channel 6 (since the audio for channel 6 is 87.7 and I broadcast on 87.9) so I have a backup channel that works instead.

I think you are better off just using a stereo cable and call it a day.

TEG

theblotted
Mar 18, 2008, 11:41 AM
You assume that Bluetooth transmits with the same bit depth and sample rate, and that there is no compression or filtering involved, and that the bits fly through the air and are received perfectly with no losses or error correction needed. Are all those assumptions valid?

like i said, it's a shot in the dark; since i've never heard BT audio in person. but if BT is how you describe it, then signal loss is believable. isn't BT also have a very slow transfer rate, about the same as USB1.0?

there's got to be a wireless solution, i'm crossing my fingers.

feelthefire
Mar 18, 2008, 02:49 PM
there are wireless solutions.

There AREN'T wireless solutions that only use 1/8" to 1/8" connections.

And there certainly aren't any that do that for cheaper than $70. Wireless tech isn't cheap.

If you want cheap, just connect to the jack with a $10 cable. Problem solved.

Fonzijr1964
Mar 18, 2008, 05:08 PM
Just plug it in. You can go to Radio Shack and get a 1 3 or 5 foot cable for under $10

GimmeSlack12
Mar 18, 2008, 05:17 PM
there are wireless solutions.

There AREN'T wireless solutions that only use 1/8" to 1/8" connections.


Jeez, finally someone answers the question correctly. I was thinking to myself "why isn't anyone telling this guy this solution doesn't exist?"
OP, you're best off with a 1/8" male-male plug. FM Transmitters have problems with finding a station and quality amongst other issues (like price!).

Q-Dog
Mar 19, 2008, 06:03 PM
I'd love to have a direct input on my vehicles, instead of the FM transmitter/cassette adapters I'm using.

hexonxonx
Mar 20, 2008, 12:51 AM
On one of my cars I went and got a Sony CD player just so I could play my iPod in it since I drive it daily. I was thinking of getting the same setup for my other car as well. Nothing beats a direct connection with the 1/8" to 1/8" cord.

We used to have a fairly good pick of open frequencies but over the last few years they have been filled with stations. In our case, there is no FM wireless transmitter that has enough power to cover those stations and there is entirely too much interference from power wires and other things. Some people have suggested to remove the radio antenna but I refuse to do that.

These FM transmitters (such as iTrip) are also limited on how strong their signal output can be and they are required to accept any interference from anything at all which is why they are usually horrible. The FCC also has a limit to how much output these devices can have as well. Supposedly people would complain that suddenly their FM station they were listening to in the car was suddenly interrupted by music with strong language. Two good examples of this were with XM and Sirius satellite radios.

So hope this explains why they usually aren't worth using.

GimmeSlack12
Mar 20, 2008, 03:13 PM
Nothing beats a direct connection with the 1/8" to 1/8" cord.

Actually an actual iPod dock cable connected directly to your car stereo beats the 1/8" :D. I got the Pioneer 5900iB w/iPod interface controls.
http://img.deremate.com.ar/user/images/1734/17345913.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31adNTn9xKL.jpg

So I can control the iPod while having it tucked away in my glove box.

hexonxonx
Mar 20, 2008, 03:17 PM
Actually an actual iPod dock cable connected directly to your car stereo beats the 1/8" :D. I got the Pioneer 5900iB w/iPod interface controls.

So I can control the iPod while having it tucked away in my glove box.
That would work but I can't use that on my car stereo to control the iPod. I have the el cheapo Sony stereo that has the 1/8" plug on the face. No way to plug that adaptor into my stereo.

1/8" plug is my only choice. I still have to use the iPod to change songs etc.

GimmeSlack12
Mar 20, 2008, 03:59 PM
That would work but I can't use that on my car stereo to control the iPod. I have the el cheapo Sony stereo that has the 1/8" plug on the face. No way to plug that adaptor into my stereo.

1/8" plug is my only choice. I still have to use the iPod to change songs etc.

Yeah the use of such features are dependent on the actual stereo deck. I was just showing off really. But having an Auxiliary port (as you do) is the fastest way to get the iPod connected (they both sound the same anyway).

theblotted
Mar 22, 2008, 07:27 PM
But having an Auxiliary port (as you do) is the fastest way to get the iPod connected (they both sound the same anyway).

actually they won't sound exactly the same. DA of iPod and DA of your Pioneer/sound system will sound different since they use diff components.

we're splitting hairs at this point tho.

i think i need to upgrade my speakers first... any recommend any good speakers before i start a new thread?