I've had a think about it, and I've decided that I don't understand the big In Car Entertainment system. Now, I'm not talking about the stereo with a few speakers scattered around the car, maybe a subwoofer or two if that takes your fancy, and a quality source for the music. No, I'm talking about the megabuck systems with speakers everywhere, fluoro lights strobing and flashing, and which often need the car to have an ugraded power supply. I'm talking about televisions and excessive subwooferage and inbuilt Playstations ...
Okay, okay; I like a nice stereo too. I would personally go for something that will get as close as it can to faithfully reproducing my favourite sounds, with the highest longevity-to-cost ratio. That often means a few name brands that would be considered wanky, I suppose, but if that gives me decent music then who cares. As far as I'm concerned, the ultimate car stereo system can be heard and not seen; the head (or control) unit sits there without fuss, possibly giving you some info on what's currently being played. The music is just there; it's great not to be able to see the speakers, and to have a sound stage good enough that you can't point-out where the speakers are without thinking having to look.
And this philosophy is why I don't understand all the useless extras that are added to an ICE system. For example, the whole thing of having huge subwoofers that distort the sound beyond comprehension seems stupid; why distort the sound on purpose? Fluorescent lighting that pulses with bass (the only remaining component of the music) is only a distraction to driving. And I've noticed a recent crop of ugly head/control units that flash multicoloured LEDs to give you all sorts of marketing gimmicks yet don't give you any info you need to know while just listening to music. And let's not forget the in-car television and video or DVD/VCD players ...
Now, I'm sure people can think of a sensible use for a lot of this equipment. The TV and video equipment is surely useful to the person who drives around a lot, and uses car ferries for extended periods on a regular basis. The multiple multicoloured lights coming from the dashboard must be good for people who have a rare form of coordination malady where they need to see movement with their peripheral vision in order to keep concentration. And having the subwoofer cranked up that high must be a boon for all the deaf people who like to enjoy their music, not to mention those that want to try partial hearing loss just to see what it's like. Really though, I can see that in a limousine you might want video stuff installed in the back. But even in all but the worst traffic jams, you're at least shuffling forward most of the time, meaning the television is at best a distraction (and most factory systems, like those in Lexus SC400's for example, won't turn on while you're moving anyway).
However, I suppose systems where you need visual information, like in-car navigation systems and other as-yet-unconsidered (or unmarketed?) systems, do need some sort of video display unit; and while it's there, you might as well use it for setup of other systems too. I can see a time, particularly as things are becoming more electronically controlled, when your car's engine and body computer will have parameters that can be set using a graphical interface through the audio visual system; maybe saving on dashboard space to set the airconditioning, for example. But at the moment, I can't see a TV as being too useful unless you've got one of these systems (and, I suppose, as an excuse to get one).
So yeah, I can't see a point in getting a mega-dollar hi-fi system in your car. I mean, let's face it, a car ain't the best place to listen to music, and while the more you spend, the better you can compensate for that, you can still do it better (for so much less money) with your home system. In fact, I know quite a few people who reckon cars aren't the place for stereos; "they're too much of a distraction, and you should be concentrating on driving and not listening to music". While I don't subscribe to that theory (I reckon I can multitask enough to listen to music in the background and still be able to point the car properly), there's some merit behind it. There's an important safety issue in being able to hear what's going on around you, and if your stereo's up too loud you can't hear emergency vehicles (or that locked-up lunatic sliding uncontrollably toward you). Plus, you can't hear what your car's doing.
But hey, I'm guilty of listening to music too loudly at times, although it tends to be only occasionally. And the stacker is probably filled with something to offend just about anyone ... some Fuel, Skunk Anansie, Gunners and of course Floyd on a quick late-night run through the Royal National Park ... but where was this going? Oh yeah, I can't see how it's worth spending heaps of money on sounds you'll never hear; getting those low frequencies perfect and yet they're modified by the tyres hitting the road; and getting the mids and highs crsip and clear, and yet other traffic noise overpowers them. As far as I can see, it's all showing off, showing how much money you can spend; when you can get so much real performance increase for so much less money, while still having a good sound system.
But then I suppose it's to each his own, isn't it? Without the hat-backwards mega-stereo people subsidising R and D (to a small degree) and subsidising my purchases (hey, have you seen how few extra real features a top-line model has for the price?), it'd certainly be longer between releases of innovative systems/concepts. And I suppose that's what a consumer-driven market is all about. I still reserve the right to laugh at wankers though ...
|