Develop Bugs

FM transmitter

Can you get an app for FM transmitter
so you can play your MP3's threw your radio in the car
my workmate has this ability to do this on his phone
( don't know what phone it is not an iPhone though)

stevie_a said:
Can you get an app for FM transmitter
so you can play your MP3's threw your radio in the car
my workmate has this ability to do this on his phone
( don't know what phone it is not an iPhone though)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont think that you can do that with only the phone, as it has only fm receiver not transmitter. But you can do that by buying an fm transmitter accessory. Or get a car radio with bluetooth functionality.

sure he doesnt just use an fm transmitter that you plug into the headphone socket, you can get them for mp3`s,phones,etc and are usually rubbish quality.

Nokia N97 has a built in transmitter doesn't it? I know the Desire you would need to buy a seperate transmitter.

there are number of phones that have FM Transmitting, .. unfortunattly the Desire is not one of them.
You can buy an FM Modulator, this will go into the cigarette thingy in the car, and you can plug in it an iPod or phone or any other that has a decent wiring connection.
radio quality suck though

Nokia N900 has it built in as well.

htc hd2 and nexus one have fm transmitter hardware but not activated ,may be desire has it also

The Desire have the same chip as the Nexus One, but it has the FM receiver enabled out-of-the box.
It should be possible to enable the FM transmitter aswell, but it's all in the drivers.

how or who activates it?

Zappza said:
The Desire have the same chip as the Nexus One, but it has the FM receiver enabled out-of-the box.
It should be possible to enable the FM transmitter aswell, but it's all in the drivers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
same processor does not mean same wireless chip

The HTC desire is believed to include the Broadcom BCM4329 wireless chip. The specification of this does include an FM Transmitter. Whether or not this can be activated in software is a different matter!

hoss_n2 said:
same processor does not mean same wireless chip
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK both the Nexus and the Desire uses the same wireless chip aswell, the BCM4329. I haven't seen a teardown of the Desire yet, so there might be some differences, but I do not see why.

Zappza said:
AFAIK both the Nexus and the Desire uses the same wireless chip aswell, the BCM4329. I haven't seen a teardown of the Desire yet, so there might be some differences, but I do not see why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do you have any pictures of the components of desire that proves your point ,in hd2 forum we have disasempled the hd2 and proved it ,same in nexus one ,so where is your evidense

hoss_n2 said:
do you have any pictures of the components of desire that proves your point ,in hd2 forum we have disasempled the hd2 and proved it ,same in nexus one ,so where is your evidense
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A teardown won't really prove anything unless you also identified and catalogued every component, proving that none of them are capable of being an FM transmitter? If you have this evidence, please post links. I am already 99.9% certain that no HTC phone has one built in but I like to be 100% sure
Either way, FM transmitters suck. They have to have an extremely weak signal and the sound quality is appalling. If you can afford it, go and grab a head unit that supports bluetooth stereo (A2DP). An FM transmitetr will sot you half as much anyway,
Bluetooth sound quality is much better and depending on the head unit, you should be able to play/pause/skip/vol up/vol down using the controls on the head unit and it will probably also be able to display album/track info.

bcmobile said:
A teardown won't really prove anything unless you also identified and catalogued every component, proving that none of them are capable of being an FM transmitter? If you have this evidence, please post links. I am already 99.9% certain that no HTC phone has one built in but I like to be 100% sure
Either way, FM transmitters suck. They have to have an extremely weak signal and the sound quality is appalling. If you can afford it, go and grab a head unit that supports bluetooth stereo (A2DP). An FM transmitetr will sot you half as much anyway,
Bluetooth sound quality is much better and depending on the head unit, you should be able to play/pause/skip/vol up/vol down using the controls on the head unit and it will probably also be able to display album/track info.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=622377 look at the attatched image in the link you will se the chip and we already activated wirless n support the only thing remaning is the transmitter

hoss_n2 said:
do you have any pictures of the components of desire that proves your point ,in hd2 forum we have disasempled the hd2 and proved it ,same in nexus one ,so where is your evidense
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh, seems that my edit previously did not make it.
I haven't found a teardown yet, but it should pop up in the next few days as easter is over now.
Just to make myself clear, I do not know that the Desire and Nexus have the same wireless chip. It just would not make any sense at all if HTC were to change it when everything else is the same.

It would be amazing if the FM transmitter was enabled in the desire.
I hope it gets in with 2.2 or something...

any idea about FM transmitter on desire...

i think that as the hd2 and nexus they all have wifi n, fm transmitter and receiver...it's just the software that needs tweaking....i am no guru at linux and android so if anyone manage to enable them it would be awsome....although it would be battery drain to transmit yourmusic all the time

Fm transmitter?

Is there ever a possibility of hacking the evo's fm radio to become an fm transmitter?
Sorry if this is duplicate, searched around and didn't see anything else on it.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

I wish
I highly doubt it. Taking a screen and making it into a camera is pretty much what your asking. Maybe you can buy a portable FM transmitter and somehow cram it into a external case that sticks out similar to the 3500mah battery.

mrusheen said:
I highly doubt it. Taking a screen and making it into a camera is pretty much what your asking. Maybe you can buy a portable FM transmitter and somehow cram it into a external case that sticks out similar to the 3500mah battery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no the hardware actually says its possible to transmit as well as recieve fm radio. now if someone could actually make it work....

mrusheen said:
I highly doubt it. Taking a screen and making it into a camera is pretty much what your asking. Maybe you can buy a portable FM transmitter and somehow cram it into a external case that sticks out similar to the 3500mah battery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
radio transmitters and receivers aren't fundamentally that different. It's likely possible, but you would need to write it into the kernel.

I would love to see this happen and show it off to a friend that works with the Civil Defense.

No can do. A radio receiver, and transmitter do contain some of the same circuitry but are arranged differently. No software can change that. Plus the phone is not FCC type accepted for transmitting on the FM broadcast band.
sent from my Evo 4G using Taptalk

kf2mq said:
No can do. A radio receiver, and transmitter do contain some of the same circuitry but are arranged differently. No software can change that. Plus the phone is not FCC type accepted for transmitting on the FM broadcast band.
sent from my Evo 4G using Taptalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The phone has an FM Radio Transceiver capable of both broadcasting and receiving. I believe the major reason why we haven't seen a transmitter mode, even HTC, is due to FCC licensing. I'm not too savy on the FCC's world, but I would imagine that the EVO's transmitter would fall under the same low-power group as those little iPod and other PMP FM transmitters that just plug in to the headphone jack.
Might be something to bring up with Cyanogen and some of the kernel devs, after they get the FM receiver working.

I'd like to see this... Bring it up to cyanogen...
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

Ah, what exactly do you guys want to transmit? Signal wouldn't get very far...

We've been through this before.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=693253
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=748007

khov07 said:
Ah, what exactly do you guys want to transmit? Signal wouldn't get very far...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some of us have cars which are too old to have an Auxilary input, but too new to have a tape deck.

Ha! I read some other posts, and realized that it would definitely be a handy feature. I resigned myself to burning CD's from my music collection, as it got annoying to connect my iPod to an FM transmitter. Extra wires, chargers, and so on.
Well, hopefully someone figures it out. Probably kill the battery though.

drmacinyasha said:
Some of us have cars which are too old to have an Auxilary input, but too new to have a tape deck.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would suggest a hardwired FM modulator to add an aux port. My wife's 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor didn't have one and the FM transmitters sounded crappy to me. Took me about an hour to hardwire a FM modulator in and now she essentially has an AUX port. It sounds much better than the transmitters since it's injecting it's FM frequency directly through your radio's antenna port.
Here's one pretty similar to what I installed - LINK
The drawback compared to a FM transmitter is that this is not portable.

Another possibility is to just purchase a new radio. Some car stereo's with aux inputs are cheaper than a new EVO.
I stopped using my FM transmitter with my iPod a long time ago because I hated the extra cables, and the transmission wasn't very good, though I tried several.

khov07 said:
Another possibility is to just purchase a new radio. Some car stereo's with aux inputs are cheaper than a new EVO.
I stopped using my FM transmitter with my iPod a long time ago because I hated the extra cables, and the transmission wasn't very good, though I tried several.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is there some car audio manufacturer that actually makes nice stock-looking radios with features like BT, equalizer, and aux-in, without having to have 20 blinking LEDs or looking like it was part of a boombox from the 90s?

FM transmitter

Looking for a good FM Transmitter, most of the reviews online I read show poor signal issues.

I love my jabra cruiser. The fm works really well and there are plenty of fm stations to choose from unlike some of the current models.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium

coby ca 745 fm transmitter...wont let me post link yet, i dont make enough posts to post a link yet apparently lol. you can find it on amazon for 20 bucks and works great. strong signal even on stations that arent entirely clear. extra accessory jack on top alittle loose is the only thing. but for 20 bucks you cant beat it. hope this helps

I highly recommend this one.
GOgroove FlexSMART X2 ADVANCED Wireless In-Car Bluetooth FM Transmitter with Charging, Music Control and Hands-Free Calling
(not allowed to post links yet)
It is $45 from amazon. A little expensive, but I use it everyday without issue. The hand-free calling is convenient.
If you don't like using bluetooth, you can hook it up with a normal audio (1/8") cable.
It also has a USB port so you can charge your phone at the same time.

temporalwar said:
Looking for a good FM Transmitter, most of the reviews online I read show poor signal issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my experience... FM Transmitters work great if you live in a more rural area, with not so many radio stations...
In 2005, when I got my Pontiac G6 GT and it didn't have 3.5mm aux in, I had to get an FM Transmitter to listen to my mp3 player
Even living on the out skirts of Wilmington, DE (not the biggest city). I couldn't just get in the car, set it, and go. I couldn't get a clean frequency that was available everywhere I drove, and I would start hearing static and need to change the frequency the FM Transmitter was using in the car about every 10 or 15 minutes.
Even a belkin with "clearscan" (which is supposed to auto pick a "clean" frequency), and allowed me to step up/down .1 mhz increments didn't help.
It made using an FM transmitter completely useless.
Make sure of the return policy of where you purchase from just in case.

I agree with the above GoGroove suggestion. I love mine!

HTC is launching this with the Evo 4G LTE, it might be worth looking into as long as it supports Bluetooth 3.0 on release. Also, bluetooth is far superior to FM transmitters in terms of quality.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/10/htc-car-stereoclip-hands-on/

If you need an FM transmitter, then I *highly* suggest a *wired* transmitter. I used to use one in my Ford Explorer with my iPod - it connected to the back of the stereo between the head unit and the antenna (and drew power from the +12V line), and had a switch, so when you used it, it would cut off the car's antenna, so you couldn't get any outside interference even if you wanted to. It also had the best volume and sound, since it was broadcasting directly into the stereo.

Bluetooth profile 4.0 headphones

Does anyone know of any Bluetooth 4.0 profile headphones that look like the one in the picture? Amazon has the small buds and huge cover the ear type.
Mine are worn out and with the new N5 coming today i figured it is a good time to upgrade the headphones.

There is no advantage to having Bluetooth 4.0 headphones to those that use an earlier version of Bluetooth, though do get a more recent model of headphones as the A2DP works a lot better on them.

pzboyz said:
There is no advantage to having Bluetooth 4.0 headphones to those that use an earlier version of Bluetooth, though do get a more recent model of headphones as the A2DP works a lot better on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Data throughput and battery life are the major changes which both matter to headphones.

Does anyone know of any Bluetooth 4.0 wireless headphones? In particular, I'm looking for small in-ear Bluetooth 4.0 headphones. I like the smaller size. Recently ordered a 2.0 pair but they ended up only being less than 4 hours. hoping a 4.0 pair will provide better battery life.

unvaluablespace said:
Does anyone know of any Bluetooth 4.0 wireless headphones? In particular, I'm looking for small in-ear Bluetooth 4.0 headphones. I like the smaller size. Recently ordered a 2.0 pair but they ended up only being less than 4 hours. hoping a 4.0 pair will provide better battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The link from amazon was for the small in ear buds I mentioned. They were in stock when I asked the question, but they show out of stock now.
http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Wir...6553&sr=1-4&keywords=bluetooth+4.0+headphones

korsjs said:
The link from amazon was for the small in ear buds I mentioned. They were in stock when I asked the question, but they show out of stock now.
http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Wir...6553&sr=1-4&keywords=bluetooth+4.0+headphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hmmm.... really sorry, but I don't see any links in this thread other than what you just now posted. Not sure whats up with that. Only thing I saw was an attachment you did with a pic of some over-the-ear headphones. Either way though, thanks very much for the link. 7 hours is much better than the ones I bought off ebay lol. Still, would be nice to find some with at least 10 hours, though not sure if that's possible with such small Bluetooth headphones. Those are nice though, adding them to my wishlist to when they do go back in stock. Thanks for the heads up.

korsjs said:
The link from amazon was for the small in ear buds I mentioned. They were in stock when I asked the question, but they show out of stock now.
http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Wir...6553&sr=1-4&keywords=bluetooth+4.0+headphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the description of that one it says "Sportier audio.
For the ultimate Bluetooth sporting headset, check out the soon-to-be-released Anker® Foldable Bluetooth Stereo Headset." I'm not certain as there was no picture but sounds more like what you want. Maybe try emailing Anker and asking for an eta

So just to be clear i wanted to confirm on the matter of if a Bluetooth 4.0 HANDset needs a bluetooth 4.0 HEADset for the Bluetooth Low Energy profile to work...? I been reading up on it online and iv seen different things in different places... and considering there are not many 4.0 headsets out there yet, would that mean the power consumtion will downgrade to that standard...??
I was really interested in the Sony SBH52 headset but can barely find it in stock anywhere and its bluetooth 3.0...

korsjs said:
Does anyone know of any Bluetooth 4.0 profile headphones that look like the one in the picture? Amazon has the small buds and huge cover the ear type.
Mine are worn out and with the new N5 coming today i figured it is a good time to upgrade the headphones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
check out these ones at ebay,may be you like them
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Motorol...t=US_Audio_Docks_Speakers&hash=item53fd0214d2

Watcher07 said:
Data throughput and battery life are the major changes which both matter to headphones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now the A2DP and HFP profiles used by headsets and speakers are defined to only work using the older standards. It is a huge task to change the profiles to use the BLE connection and this is not going to start anytime soon.

Ive found a few here some of which not exactly in the same style but here you go anyway
TECEVO Active Sport Bluetooth Stereo Headphones
7dayshop R7 Premium High-Fidelity Bluetooth 4.0 aptX Headphones with Mic

ehcool said:
Ive found a few here some of which not exactly in the same style but here you go anyway
TECEVO Active Sport Bluetooth Stereo Headphones
7dayshop R7 Premium High-Fidelity Bluetooth 4.0 aptX Headphones with Mic
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 7dayshop one is AWESOME. I have it, and it has really, really good sound quality when wired or through aptX. The only problem with the Nexus 5, is that it most likely does not use aptX.
Here is a non UK version:
http://www.aliexpress.com/store/pro...ic-with-mic-for-iPhone/315487_1317182127.html
These are the OEM model of the VOXOA 4.0 headphone that goes for ~$150 on Amazon.

bhazard451 said:
The 7dayshop one is AWESOME. I have it, and it has really, really good sound quality when wired or through aptX. The only problem with the Nexus 5, is that it most likely does not use aptX.
Here is a non UK version:
http://www.aliexpress.com/store/pro...ic-with-mic-for-iPhone/315487_1317182127.html
These are the OEM model of the VOXOA 4.0 headphone that goes for ~$150 on Amazon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe there was a thread about this and it was confirmed by an LG support that it does not support atpX

pzboyz said:
Right now the A2DP and HFP profiles used by headsets and speakers are defined to only work using the older standards. It is a huge task to change the profiles to use the BLE connection and this is not going to start anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bluetooth 4.0 uses GATT largely as an application layer for the profiles to operate. The BLE is the spec and operates outside of normal Bluetooth frequencies (at a lower one) which in itself helps with power but the tech has a side effect of slightly lowered range. A Bluetooth 4.0 phone with a 4.0 headset even using old profiles will still see power savings and data throughput enhancements just from GATT alone.
I don't think there really is a way for them to write the A2DP and HFP to utilize 4.0 (HFP profile is at 1.5 right now so it hasn't changed much and am typing this out on my phone so can't easily tell you when A2DP stopped changing but its been awhile). The special profiles 4.0 uses are tied together with GATT, so again, the benefits are going to be there.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Watcher07 said:
A Bluetooth 4.0 phone with a 4.0 headset even using old profiles will still see power savings and data throughput enhancements just from GATT alone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello Watcher07, OK good to see you have a well above average understanding of the technology, in many many ways you should be right in most of your points, though until the profiles change to include a statement that the BLE connection can be used by itself, this is not going to happen. Sadly.

pzboyz said:
Hello Watcher07, OK good to see you have a well above average understanding of the technology, in many many ways you should be right in most of your points, though until the profiles change to include a statement that the BLE connection can be used by itself, this is not going to happen. Sadly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me try to explain this a different way. The BLE operates independently of the Profiles. A2DP is at version 1.2 as well as the HFP at 1.5. To put this in perspective, A2DP verson 1 came about in 2003, 1.3 was in 2012. BLE has existed since 2003 when it was Cyrix or something like that then became an adapted, certified bluetooth tech in 2010. But it doesn't matter because of how they operate. The following is taken directly from the bluetooth.org's developers PDF about A2DP:
In Figure 1.1, the structure and the dependencies of the profiles are depicted. A profile is dependent upon another profile if it re-uses parts of that profile, by implicitly or explicitly referencing it. Dependency is illustrated in the figure. A profile has dependencies on the profile(s) in which it is contained – directly and indirectly. As indicated in Figure 1.1, the A2DP is dependent upon the Generic Access Profile (GAP), as well as the Generic Audio/Video Distribution Profile (GAVDP) [3], which defines procedures required to set up an audio/video streaming. The A2DP defines parameters and procedures that are specific for audio streaming. The terminology, user interface and procedures as defined in the GAP and GAVDP are applicable to this profile, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Bluetooth 4.0 uses GATT as opposed to GAP that earlier versions of bluetooth used. The A2DP profile doesn't do anything but state how to process the codecs, compression and how to present the output to a device. The GAP and GATT are core operations profiles that dictate things like power usage and such. When you pair two bluetooth devices, (since we're talking about v4.0 here I'll use 4.0 terms) GATT keeps the phones connected but without drawing alot of power by utilizing the BLE hardware chip. As soon as A2DP gets triggered from you trying to play a song, GATT sends a wake command to the receiving device which brings it out of its low power mode and triggers the A2DP profile to start decompressing the data stream and processing the codecs to deliver your music.
A2DP hasn't changed much as a profile because it doesn't have to. It has no impact whatsoever on BLE, all of that is handled via GATT. The A2DP profile doesn't even know it's not talking to GAP since GATT fills that void. The same is true of HFP. The compression of the data stream and codec processing is all handled within subsets of the A2DP profile and the codecs are vendor specific. A2DP changes from device to device on a codec level but the Profile spec doesn't change because there's no reason to mess with it as it would cause whatever vendors device that messed with it to no longer be certified from the consortium.
Now let's get back to the core issue, Bluetooth 4.0 headphones. BLE does have power savings and some data throughput enhancements but it has to be tied to another Bluetooth 4.0 device (as the hardware requires a specific chip). The instant one or the other device isn't 4.0, everything goes down to the lowest Bluetooth version and gets rid of the benefits of 4.0. People who only use bluetooth headphones for say, a jog, aren't really going to notice the difference between 4.0 and lesser versions. However if it's someone like a power user who spends all day with a bluetooth headset in their ear and taking calls constantly, they'll definitely notice the power savings.
If you want to read the developer pdf about A2DP to learn more about how it works, go to: http://developer.bluetooth.org/TechnologyOverview/Documents/A2DP_Spec.pdf

Watcher07 said:
The GAP and GATT are core operations profiles that dictate things like power usage and such. When you pair two bluetooth devices, (since we're talking about v4.0 here I'll use 4.0 terms) GATT keeps the phones connected but without drawing alot of power by utilizing the BLE hardware chip. As soon as A2DP gets triggered from you trying to play a song, GATT sends a wake command to the receiving device which brings it out of its low power mode and triggers the A2DP profile to start decompressing the data stream and processing the codecs to deliver your music.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is where your misunderstanding starts, in the first sentence I quote. I agree with you this is kind of how it looks from those stack diagrams.
The GATT command you describe does not exist. It would be simple command to define, but it will take a while to actually happen. The work to define that has not started.

pzboyz said:
This is where your misunderstanding starts, in the first sentence I quote. I agree with you this is kind of how it looks from those stack diagrams.
The GATT command you describe does not exist. It would be simple command to define, but it will take a while to actually happen. The work to define that has not started.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
GATT isn't a command, it's a protocol. There's also no minsunderstanding, I spent over a decade working on wireless technologies in the Navy and out of it with civilians and enlisted. I've built all kinds of wireless devices, bluetooth included, from scratch and worked hand in hand with developers on the technology, so the diagrams aren't where my "misunderstanding" started. Regardless, there's a slew of misinformation out there about Bluetooth and there's apparently no headway being made here to help you understand. I appreciate the civility of your conversation despite our differences, so we'll simply bring an end to this particular dialogue as the effort is outweighing the benefits. I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, all of mine is coming from experience and bluetooth.org, I just encourage you to keep an open mind about how this tech works behind the scenes.

Newer versions of Bluetooth offer no benefits for headphones as BLE, Bluetooth Low Energy, is not adequate for streaming high bandwidth stereo music. That's why you don't see a lot of manufacturer's jumping on the 4.0 train.

ekjl said:
Newer versions of Bluetooth offer no benefits for headphones as BLE ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ekjl, you are right that while streaming there is not a lot of benefit, if the headphones are using 50mA while streaming, if 3mA of the 50mA is due to the bluetooth connection, to save 1mA does not make a large change to the streaming time.
Watcher07 is right that when not streaming BLE could save power and increase the standby time. But some changes would need to be made to A2DP and HFP to allow this to happen in a standardized way.

[Q] Yet Another "Audio Issues" Thread

Hey guys,
Let's try to keep it short.
I have a bluetooth speaker Rapoo A500 and the audio is just fine.
I also use on of those fm transmitter things on my car to which I connect my Galaxy Nexus to via bluetooth and it retransmits to the car stereo via FM. Whenever I use the fm transmitter, if I set the volume on my phone to something above like 3/4 of max volume, the sound quality becomes poor (I believe it's due to clipping). The solution is to lower to volume on the phone and raise it, a lot, on the car stereo. However the static from the fm becomes noticeable and so the overall quality drops as well.
So my question is, how come the bluetooth audio is fine on one device and not on the other. Could it be related to the bluetooth versions these devices support? The rapoo A500 is quite recent and supports bluetooth 4, whereas the transmitter probably does not.
Also, do you guys have any suggestions on how to improve the sound quality when using the transmitter? I've tried messing around with various equalizers such as DSP manager, Viper4Android, noozoxide and nexus louder (or whatever it's called), but never got any results...

bump...

Any time you use FM transmitters, sound quality is going to suffer. You'd be better off getting an adapter for aux input on your head unit or a new head unit in your car
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Brad92 said:
Any time you use FM transmitters, sound quality is going to suffer. You'd be better off getting an adapter for aux input on your head unit or a new head unit in your car
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used to have an FM transmitter which played music from a usb drive and the quality wasn't all that bad.
Also, "get a new car radio" doesn't answer the question, "how come the bluetooth audio is fine on one device and not on the other."...

I understand, just wanted to point out that if you're looking for sound quality, an FM transmitter isn't the best method.
But, the reason the Bluetooth speaker has better quality is that it doesn't have to convert the signal to a lower quality signal (FM). I can use my phone on Bluetooth mode with my family's Ford Sync head unit, and then use an FM transmitter. The FM transmitter will have worse signal quality.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Brad92 said:
I understand, just wanted to point out that if you're looking for sound quality, an FM transmitter isn't the best method.
But, the reason the Bluetooth speaker has better quality is that it doesn't have to convert the signal to a lower quality signal (FM). I can use my phone on Bluetooth mode with my family's Ford Sync head unit, and then use an FM transmitter. The FM transmitter will have worse signal quality.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not it. If I connect the phone to the FM transmitter via cable, there is no distortion of the sound. The reason I don't use the cable is because I loose the functionality of the call/end and prev/play/pause/next buttons that are built in to the transmitter.
What I did notice is that the max volume with the cable seems to be as loud as I can go with bluetooth without distortion.