Talk:Vehicle audio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Vehicle audio article.

  • Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
  • Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Place new comments after existing ones (within topic sections).
  • Separate topics with a ==Descriptive header==.
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Common in most cars?[edit]

Since when is car audio common in most cars?--Wutschwlllm 10:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Car Audio[edit]

Need information on car audio, we have it all from stereos to incar video equipment. check us out by clicking here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard300187 (talkcontribs) 09:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Additional Links[edit]

ClubKnowledge Car Audio Forum:: Consider adding our moderated forum run by true install and design professionals. Most of them still working or have retired from the car audio industry. ClubK 09:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Connecting too many speakers to the head unit alone. (Make sure that the total power of the speakers connected to the amplifierbla bla bla balabla yes yes yes or even the head unit for that matter is less than or equal to the power handling capacity of the amplifier/head unit)

Does not really make sense to me ... Anybody want to take care of this? -fin 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


It's definitively not the same. ICE may link to Car Audio, but the latter is a hole different cattegory by itself. There are so many projects, specifications, adaptations and designs involved with car audio... See the portuguese version for reference (even if you don't understand anything). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matias.Reccius (talkcontribs) 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Interestingly, "also known as ICE (In car entertainment)" is part of the first sentence... I for one am against merging, for the same reasons as Matias.Reccius. Omega ArchdoomTalk 01:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, since when DVD, LCD video displays, console gaming considered AUDIO? But we can say "car audio" is part of "car entertainment". But I doubt user's in the "car audio" link will not approve to change tha name of the article the two were mergedJpogi 02:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It is car AV. --Nukeless 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ICE is not only audio[edit]

ice is not synonymous for car audio. it also can mean video, in-car game consoles, computers, etc. granted it is the most popular type of ICE, it is not synonimous with it, and that needs to be changed. the entire first paragraph needs to be re-written. Skiendog 12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Car audio is for audio[edit]

It may be a good idea that only components pertaining to audio must be discussed in this article like stereo, speakers, amplifiers, etc.. And all other things like Navigation systems, DVD, and LCD displays for video be transfered to In car entertainment. A short discussion of car audio may also help "In car entetainment" to be a better article. Jpogi 02:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominal watt[edit]

I think that mentioning that most Car Audio equipment is 4 ohms would be useful to many people.

see here: Nominal watt

That's what I was searching for...

Standard Size[edit]

Here it says that the US courts forced the manufacturers to produce a standard-size. [1] Can we add this info into the article? does anyone know more about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Complaints and/or legality[edit]

Why is there nothing here about how annoying (painful for some) excessive bass etc. can be for other drivers who have to suffer the bad taste of those with sound systems in their cars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Find a source that states how annoying and painful excessive bass is for other drivers (we'll need a specific measurement of annoying and painful that preferably fits to an SI standard) and a scientific study that states that every person with a sound system in their car has bad taste in music and we'll be sure to post it at the bottom. Crmadsen (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Grammar, needs revision.[edit]

Any amount of reading on this page would show that it was last edited by a retard. Could someone not lazy (IE not me) clean it up a little? It's painfully bad, I mean, they typed "Base" instead of "Bass", and "Neccasary" instead of "Necessary." (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

it's fixed[edit]

Legal Issues[edit]

I've made some minor changes to this section and a few grammatical changes to the page. I've never heard of a high-power amplifier violating a noise ordinance, I'd imagine it would take some serious wattage to hum loud enough to violate legal boundaries. Crmadsen (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful statement[edit]

From the earliest days of radio, enthusiasts had adapted domestic equipment to use in their cars.

Radio receivers using the Cat's-whisker detector and Spark-gap transmitters were used for the first three decades of radio (1887-1917), but were only practical in stationary applications. The idea of putting radios in cars wasn't really practical until the automobile self starter was in use after 1911. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's Earl Muntz?[edit]

I remember a newspaper article that called Earl "the father of car audio". This article lacks legitimacy without Earl Muntz. Poor Earl. Batvette (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Boom cars[edit]

I've merged some content from a stub titled Boom Cars into the Legal issues section. I think this section could be expanded a bit more apart from just the legal issues, considering the popularity of this subject. Perhaps some mention of their impact on youth culture (and their hearing! <g>) -- œ 03:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

adding future section[edit]

So I heard that a vehicle's charging system may soon be 42 volts and 36 volts instead of 14.4 and 12. This would have a HUGE impact on car audio. Why was 12 used in the first place? What was the advantage to such a low voltage and high amperage? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The voltage of a car's electrical system is supossed to change to 42 volts. Some auto makers have already inplemented this new technology. It is intended for the support of more high-tech mobile electornics that the current 12 volt system cannot support. [1] This would have a major effect on car audio, especially with high amperage systems which would then require about one third of the amperage they need with 14 volts. [2] The standard would be ISO 21848. [3] It is likely that there would be multiple voltages in this system, likely 42 and 12, with 12 being used where the cost of components for 42 volts would be too great.

My idea for dealing with 42 volt electric systems of future cars should be, to simply just use a step-down box for converting 42 volts to 12 volts for electronics that require fewer watts to operate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

First all transistor car radio?[edit]

Page 74 of this book [2] says the first transistor radios came out in the 1954 Ford Thunderbird, made by Motorola - not Chysler and Philco. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Car audio system[edit]

The newer article is a redundant content fork. Some parts also appear to be copied from the original article without attribution. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Support - There seems to be no need for two separate articles for this topic. One well written and referenced encyclopedia article would be better. Thanks! - CZmarlin (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Support - Seems to cover the same information unnecessarily. MostRecentUser (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Support - the reason for the newer article didn't seem unique or clearly stated enough to be something different.--RCHM (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - this seems a no brainer :)Hogie75 18:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Suppport - and I'd do it, but, you know... --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)