iDrive integration with the new SGH-1300 music phone!

http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/cellph...one-134141.php


http://www.samsung.co.kr/news/press_read_n...th=10&setDate=0

 

I love samsung, and if they have something for a BMW, rest assured, I will get it

 

There's a thread over in Bluetooth... Did you guys see this quote from the announcment?

"The SGH-i300 connects to the system via A2DP Bluetooth - allowing for music playback, hands-free calling, and operation of the handset."


This is the best possible development, and should mean that an updated E60 could integrate with most any device that supported the A2DP profile (Advanced Audio Distribution Profile).


Now we just have to hope that this doesn't entail a hardware upgrade to the BT components.

 

Not bad...worth considering - wonder how the music quality would be like over bluetooth ?

samsung


bluetooth

 

I read the A2DP spec once. I think I have it somewhere - I'll have to try to dig it up... It outlines the various codecs that can be used. As someone pointed out once, there really isn't enough bandwidth for it to -not- use some form of compressions as opposed to the uncompressed subband codec @ 723kbits/sec.


From the Wikipedia...

"It includes mandatory support for low complexity subband codec (SBC) and supports optionally: MPEG-1,2 Audio, MPEG-2,4 AAC and ATRAC."

 

Forget it. Our M60 only grudginly accepts some bluetooth phones and I am sure BMW is no ready to take on telephony music ($2.50/song!) at this time. Another problem is you will not be happy with the sound quality of the present generation of bluetooth and don't expect full implementation of Gen2 for some time.
My plan is to install a 60 Gig Video iPod and pair it with the Nav2go converter running music audio or video audio through Aux. until icelink is ready to go.

 

I read the A2DP spec once. I think I have it somewhere - I'll have to try to dig it up... It outlines the various codecs that can be used. As someone pointed out once, there really isn't enough bandwidth for it to -not- use some form of compressions as opposed to the uncompressed subband codec @ 723kbits/sec.


From the Wikipedia...

"It includes mandatory support for low complexity subband codec (SBC) and supports optionally: MPEG-1,2 Audio, MPEG-2,4 AAC and ATRAC."
[/quote]
I am wondering if there is any reason to think the quality would be any better over Bluetooth than using an FM trasmitter with an iPod.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. What does $2.50 a song have to do with this? The Samsung article was a joint press release with BMW - the only car mentioned for support at launch (which is now) is the 5 Series. So, there's no other car it could possibly integrate with - it will happen - it's done. Unless there's a midyear component switch, this added Bluetooth profile will only require a code update and be a part of the rumored addition to Bluetooth functionality in later firmware.

There are several -several- quality options with bluetooth A2DP. It's packetized regardless of method used, and extra data is sent to aid in recovery of lost datagrams. The spec says that either 44.1kHz or 48kHz -must- be supported, so even though lower sampling rates are available, a higher quality sample rate will be there.

While MP3 or AAC is more likely, the lowest common denominator is the SBC (subband codec). The input PCM is encoded by splitting it into subband signals. Each subband has a scale factor calculated and assigned. The scale factor is used to determine bit allocation and then levels for each subband. From there, the subband samples are scaled and quantized, and finally a bitstream is generated. The spec seems to indicated that 4 or 8 subbands can be used. On the decoder side, a CRC check is used to detect transmission errors. This is done on a bit-by-bit basis. It is suggested that in the event that CRC errors occur, that the muting of the frame or repetition of the previous frame be used to mask the error. The subband samples are decoded and reconstructed back into PCM using a polyphase filter.


I don't understand enough coding theory to know what the process might ultimately do to the quality of the audio, but this is the lowest common denominator. The scaling factor and the bit need/allocation mechanisms should ensure that more bits are given to the carriers that contain the most data. This should help ensure the best possible quality. The bit rates for SBC are in the attached jpeg.


The spec references a couple of RFCs for the two MP3 media payload format options (MPF-1 and MPF-2) - RFC 2250 and 3119 respectively. 3119 being optional, but more desirable. AAC is transformed and sometimes additionally retransformed by the sink, which will have some kind of affect on the quality, if AAC is supported at all.

 

I read the A2DP spec once. I think I have it somewhere - I'll have to try to dig it up... It outlines the various codecs that can be used. As someone pointed out once, there really isn't enough bandwidth for it to -not- use some form of compressions as opposed to the uncompressed subband codec @ 723kbits/sec.


From the Wikipedia...

"It includes mandatory support for low complexity subband codec (SBC) and supports optionally: MPEG-1,2 Audio, MPEG-2,4 AAC and ATRAC."
[/quote]
I am wondering if there is any reason to think the quality would be any better over Bluetooth than using an FM trasmitter with an iPod.
[/quote]
Hi UUronL: Using theory I might understand, how do you respond to the issue raised below (mentioned above originally)?

"I am wondering if there is any reason to think the quality would be any better over Bluetooth than using an FM trasmitter with an iPod."

Your answer may be imbedded in what you say above, but you couldn't prove it by me. Thanks.

 

I read the A2DP spec once. I think I have it somewhere - I'll have to try to dig it up... It outlines the various codecs that can be used. As someone pointed out once, there really isn't enough bandwidth for it to -not- use some form of compressions as opposed to the uncompressed subband codec @ 723kbits/sec.


From the Wikipedia...

"It includes mandatory support for low complexity subband codec (SBC) and supports optionally: MPEG-1,2 Audio, MPEG-2,4 AAC and ATRAC."
[/quote]
I am wondering if there is any reason to think the quality would be any better over Bluetooth than using an FM trasmitter with an iPod.
[/quote]
Hi UUronL: Using theory I might understand, how do you respond to the issue raised below (mentioned above originally)?

"I am wondering if there is any reason to think the quality would be any better over Bluetooth than using an FM trasmitter with an iPod."

Your answer may be imbedded in what you say above, but you couldn't prove it by me. Thanks.
[/quote]


It wouldn't use an analog signal modulated over a frequency band like products using the FM band would. Instead, it's an encoded, packetized digital signal over the carrier bands - similar to the difference between analog and digital cable TV. There are mechanisms within the decoding process that will hide errant data, and there are also provisions at a lower level (most likely some form of forward error correction) that should help mitigate most loss by sending more copies of the data than is actually necessary. This is common practice for such transmission mediums. That's why the spec calls for a maximum of 723kbits/sec for the SBC, and the max actual data rate is only 345kbit/sec.

Again though, I'm stronger on the networking side than the coding theory. Getting copies of the bits to the car is certainly important, but the coding and filtering processes are extensive - I can't really speak to the effects these might ultimately have on sound quality. If anyone can correct aspects of my understanding or explanations thus far, please chime in.

I would say that the potential appears to be there for good quality audio.