“it could easily be more then a car payment, if you save like me and not borrow it all like you.”
I’m really curious about where you came up with the idea that I borrow money when I buy a car. Most veterans of this board have probably seen me state on more than one occasion that my philosophy of car ownership is to carefully save one’s money over a period of many years, pay cash for a new car, maintain the car flawlessly, and drive it for 8-10 years (or until I get tired of it), at which time I have saved enough for the next new car.
My 2011 Outback had a sticker price of $36,085, and I negotiated the price down to $33,000.
I was able to get a trade-in for my old Subaru of $6,500, thus bringing the invoice down to $26,500.
I then pulled out $700 in “Subaru Bucks” that I accumulated from using my Subaru credit card, which pays a 3% rebate on everything that is purchased with it. After deducting those Subaru Bucks, that made my actual cost $25,800.
A few days before I took delivery, I simply withdrew $25,800 from an online money market account, and cut a personal check for the purchase. So, the only entity from whom I “borrowed” money was…me.
@VDCdriver
I am curious; why would you take me seriously ? BTW, You bought your car the same way I am buying my last tractor. $40k from a money market account gaining very little but some interest making automatic payments on the 0 % loan I got from Kubota.
So, by your “account”, the Mc does cost more per month then your car payments too. The sad thing about it is; car companies would not or might not survive if car buyers were as “cheap”, I mean frugal as we…
“Rod antennas, AM radio…never heard of them. I 'm too young to remember or so old I can’t.” @dagosa–One feature I liked about the 2011 Toyota Sienna that I bought is that it has a regular rod or “whip” antenna on the right front fender. When we took a test drive, I tuned in a fine arts station that has a repeater about 35 miles from our house. The station came in with much more clarity than than it did in my 2006 Uplander with the antenna built into a rear window. This is an FM station–the only time I use the AM band is for the stations that are listed on the interstate to tune in for emergency traffic conditions.
@triedaq
First, I know little or nothing about the limitations of radio broadcast, so this is just an “ignorant” rant but…
I get the digitalization of the spectrum used for TV channels…what about radio ? When are we going to start recieving local digital signals for all radio ? Most newer radios now are capable aren’t they? I know buying new radios whould be a pain, but dual transmission over the next 5 years would satisfy we cheap skates of older cars…and I would welcome the chance for local digital signals in radio. The CD was the single greatest event to reinvent home stereos next to home theater when it introduced digital sound. Broadcast local digital would wipe out satillite radio, perhaps, but big deal. I want to hear the background cursing by the fans during Red Sox games while driving.
As a bonus, reception should improve…I think. Educate me as to why it isn’t done.
@dagosa; Isn’t HD radio digital? From my reading it is not really better definition, but different signal ie not analog. It would give you the song/program name/info on the screen. Not sure if it is worth the money. This is what I am figuring since I want to upgrade the radio in a new to me car, to get better reception and also add a rear-view camera.
Thank you all for jumping in! I think the best idea here (which I never thought of) is to get a similar car as loaner and compare its radio. Maybe it’s something as simple as the antenna not being connected right, although if that were the case I probably would not get reception in the city either. I have a sinking feeling that all I’ll be able to do is complain to Subaru, for what good that will do!
@galant
HD radio through satillite broadcast is digital. At least those that I have listen to are far superior in audio quality and reception. Other then the advertising, digital broadcast locally would have this advantage; it’s FREE and the reception should theoretically be better with the error correction circuitry used in digital technology. It certainly is now with satillite. An my point is, you will not have to pay for it…theoretically as all mandates will cost…for this better service.
Btw, mp3 is digital too but is not great sounding IMO. It depends upon the sampling rates (hopefully I used the right terms) But, at least the capability is there. True surround sound in a car would be an asome adjunct. True 20 to 20k hertz broadcast capability would limit sound quality to your equipment, not to the 12k or less upper limit that fm now delivers. Why not use the AM channels for digital info ?
Don’t forget…the digital transmission of TV signals already has higher quality audio then that over analog in our FM radio broadcasts. It is awsome in comparison. So we are getting it now but only restricted to bands that TVs pic up with the video info.
@TimM
Excellent idea…both trying out the others and complaining. I would complain, not just to the dealer, as often it stops there, but to customer service at the manufacturer level. They do listen !
If you wanna talk car payment radios, Bose comes to mind.
In true high-fidelity circles…Bose and McIntosh aren’t mentioned in the same sentence. Actually Bose is NEVER mentioned in high-fidelity circles.
Since McIntosh was bought out by Clarion in 1990 and then sold later to another Japanese investment firm…and then very recently (like this past October sold to an Italian firm called Fine Sounds)…they are still a independently run design and manufacturing lab in Binghamton NY. Their earlier stuff is legendary. Considered for decades the high-end of the high-end…and a very high price to go along with it. One of the only audio manufacturers who’s products have gone UP in value over the years.
When Clarion bought them out they expanded into car audio. But that stuff was designed by McIntosh and built by Clarion. Not sure who builds their car audio now.
+1 MikeinNH. The performance of good tuners is mostly dependant on the antenna. No different in the world of car audio. A good scosche antenna is a much more cost effective upgrade then any change to the head unit. Even a Marantz 7B ( probably the nicest analog tuner ever built) will sound awful without an appropriate antenna. As for Bose, no one serious about audio gives Bose a second look. McIntosh on the other hand is highly respected.
All I can say about Clarion car audio is when I was looking at head units for my car some years ago, that it was a tossup between Clarion and Sony for the best sound (to my ears), and I ended up going with Sony since it had the features I wanted. Kenwood was 3rd, but lacked the power of the Sony and Clarion units.
Getting back to the OP’s problem, does this car have an aerial style antenna or one of those that is integrated into the back window or windshield? The window antennas are pretty poor compared to an aerial, and definitely more directional. It also could be that during assembly that the antenna plug wasn’t seated firmly in the head unit or became dislodged.
The performance of good tuners is mostly dependant on the antenna.
Even with the BEST antenna made some tuners will have a problem picking up a good signal…or eliminating cross signals from adjacent channels that are very strong. McIntosh MR78 was actually designed for a millionaire from CT who wanted to listen to his favorite classical channel in NYC. Several companies built a tuner for this guy…but the MR-78 was the ONLY tuner that was able to pick up the channel clearly.
I’m afraid that I am one of those who has abandoned broadcast radio, or they have abandoned me. I like a wade variety of music, mostly from the 50’s and 60’s, but the few oldies stations around only play about a hundred or so of the music available then, and all from just a couple of the genre’s of the day.
There was a wide range of music on the radio back then that you don’t hear today, western, blues, instrumentals etc. If there was a decent radio station around here, like KZPO in Visalia, CA, I would care more about the reception of the radio in my car, but for now, I have a couple thousand of my favorite selections on my ipod attached to the radio in my car.
Unfortunately that meant I had to get an aftermarket head unit with the ipod port, then new speakers when the OEM’s blew out from the amp that came in the head unit and I have to carry a paperback book sized instruction manual just to reset the clock every six months.
As for reception, the antenna and its cable are half the performance picture, the IF strip is the other half. Do not discount how important that cable is either.
And a 20kHz frequency response is not necessary in a car, a car is just not ever going to be a good listening environment no matter how good the equipment is. And FM has a 15 kHz upper limit, not 12kHz.
I meant in terms of price.
I like the Bose radio I have in my car, it serves me just fine, but I wouldn’t even begin to imagine how much it would cost to replace the radio with another bose unit.
Bose is a leading manufacturer of a lot of decent stuff. As far as their speakers are concerned, the quality of sound is as much dependent upon the environment as it is the speakers. This makes putting the same speakers into different cars can be a problem without equaization. Bose knows what they are doing.
Most people who dis Bose products have too much money invested in hype. Getting good sound is not magic. But, physically fitting the right equipment into cars is tough. That’s where you need a professional often. IMO, there is often a limit to how good sound you can get from an environment that makes all sorts of noise on it’s own.
Bose is not mentioned in the same sentence with high end sound equipment because these people have too much money invested in hype to believe that an average person can often get better sound with off the shelf components and an equalizer. Bose does do that often and charge outrageous prices, but other companies don’t even admitt to it. They all have their own “shtik”. What I find interesting is that many low end self proclaimed Bose haters never do double blind tests…the ones who wish they could afford something better.
I think Studebaker had the right idea with its 1957 and 1958 Scotsman. A radio wasn’t available from the factory, nor was a dealer allowed to install a radio in the Scotsman. If you bought a Scotsman and wanted a radio, you went to an aftermarket supplier. There was a place in the dashboard to install the radio. I remember back in the 1980s, the radio delete option could be chosen so that you could pick your own audio equipment.
Bose is not mentioned in the same sentence with high end sound equipment because these people have too much money invested in hype to believe that an average person can often get better sound with off the shelf components and an equalizer
There’s an old saying … “No highs, No Lows - It MUST be Bose!”
I personally think Bose is all hype. They spend a lot of money on advertising. I think there are many other speakers in the same price range as Bose that are a LOT better. Klipsch, Kef, Theil just to name a few.
However is space is very very limited…then Bose are hard to beat. For a tiny package they sound very good.
The other thing about Bose is their speakers are very inefficient. So you’ll need a much more powerful amp to put out the same sound as a high efficient speaker.
I built my own speakers (actually rebuilt). My speakers are from the late 70’s. I built new cabinets…updated the Horn…and rebuilt the cross-over. I have a whopping 12-watt/channel tube amp to drive them. My amp wouldn’t even produce sound from any of the Bose speakers…yet I can fill the room with thundering sound with my 96db efficient speakers.