• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Consumer Reports

> http://www.wral.com/money/5554671/detail.html
>
> "XM, on the other hand, rated better when it came to sound
> quality and signal strength. Customers had fewer complaints
> about dropped service..."
>

To be fair, it doesnt really knock Sirius for poor signal strength. I will say that someone called in O&A this morning from Alabama and said that he came back to XM because the reception for Sirius was awful.
 
> "XM, on the other hand, rated better when it came to sound
> quality and signal strength. Customers had fewer complaints
> about dropped service..."

That doesn't speak very highly of Sirius then...cause XM's sound quality is an embarrassment.

I also think that XM is going to really hurt their market share by not listening to us. It's one thing when some radio nerds on a message board complain about lousy quality...but an entirely different problem when soccer moms and news outlets complain.

Dear XM,

Stop trying to be local. Remove all your traffic channels, remove the bottom 10 music channels. Up the quality.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Subscriber Since 2001<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> > http://www.wral.com/money/5554671/detail.html
> >
> > "XM, on the other hand, rated better when it came to sound
>
> > quality and signal strength. Customers had fewer
> complaints
> > about dropped service..."
> >
>
> To be fair, it doesnt really knock Sirius for poor signal
> strength. I will say that someone called in O&A this morning
> from Alabama and said that he came back to XM because the
> reception for Sirius was awful.
>

Yet you're only quoting half the article. "About the only thing customers aren't thrilled with is the cost. You'll pay $12.95 a month for each of the services. Of the two, those surveyed thought Sirius was the better value for the money." The article loses validity because it gives NO explination following up this comment.
 
> > "XM, on the other hand, rated better when it came to sound
>
> > quality and signal strength. Customers had fewer
> complaints
> > about dropped service..."
>
> That doesn't speak very highly of Sirius then...cause XM's
> sound quality is an embarrassment.
>
> I also think that XM is going to really hurt their market
> share by not listening to us. It's one thing when some
> radio nerds on a message board complain about lousy
> quality...but an entirely different problem when soccer moms
> and news outlets complain.
>
> Dear XM,
>
> Stop trying to be local. Remove all your traffic channels,
> remove the bottom 10 music channels. Up the quality.
>
> Sincerely,
> A Concerned Subscriber Since 2001

While I agree wholeheartedly, they're not losing enough subscribers over it. The churn rate is very low and they'd lose a lot more if they upped the quality by following your proposal. A slow trend in that direction would work however.
 
> Dear XM,
>
> Stop trying to be local. Remove all your traffic channels,
> remove the bottom 10 music channels. Up the quality.
>
> Sincerely,
> A Concerned Subscriber Since 2001
>

I agree. I've never seen the point to traffic channels. I guess they're under contract with Traffic.com to keep the service for now but I hope it's done away with when it runs out. Except for 24/7 Emergency since that's a national station.

But in all honesty, it'll probably be a while before they increase the audio quality. Look at DirecTV and Dish Network. Both have benefitted from the improvement in video technology, and when they found out they could get better quality for lower bitrate, they simply added more channels. Everything continues to look like ass.
 
> > > "XM, on the other hand, rated better when it came to
> sound
> >
> > > quality and signal strength. Customers had fewer
> > complaints
> > > about dropped service..."
> >
> > That doesn't speak very highly of Sirius then...cause XM's
>
> > sound quality is an embarrassment.
> >
> > I also think that XM is going to really hurt their market
> > share by not listening to us. It's one thing when some
> > radio nerds on a message board complain about lousy
> > quality...but an entirely different problem when soccer
> moms
> > and news outlets complain.
> >
> > Dear XM,
> >
> > Stop trying to be local. Remove all your traffic
> channels,
> > remove the bottom 10 music channels. Up the quality.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > A Concerned Subscriber Since 2001
>
> While I agree wholeheartedly, they're not losing enough
> subscribers over it. The churn rate is very low and they'd
> lose a lot more if they upped the quality by following your
> proposal. A slow trend in that direction would work
> however.
>

They'd certainly loose me as my XM unit frequents the 5,6,and 8 settings many of the times it's on.

I do think the traffic channels are a joke, however. The quality of XM's audio isn't as good as it should be, for sure.



<P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>
 
> Dear XM,
>
> Stop trying to be local. Remove all your traffic channels,
> remove the bottom 10 music channels. Up the quality.
>
> Sincerely,
> A Concerned Subscriber Since 2001

Would that require XM to do some kind of firmware upgrade? Or would it have to be a hardware upgrade?
<P ID="signature">______________

AOL IM: wnjoldies or jamminoldies105
CBS-FM lives at http://67.83.118.54:8010
Oldies Board co-moderator</P>
 
> Would that require XM to do some kind of firmware upgrade?
> Or would it have to be a hardware upgrade?

Neither. If the quality was perfect 5 years ago then they can put it back. I assume the hardware already has bitrate detection.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> > Would that require XM to do some kind of firmware upgrade?
>
> > Or would it have to be a hardware upgrade?
>
> Neither. If the quality was perfect 5 years ago then they
> can put it back. I assume the hardware already has bitrate
> detection.
>

While the details are proprietary, XM has a dynamic bandwidth control which adjusts the various bitrates of the channels to suit the available bandwidth of the system. XM's problem is that its does not have enough RF spectrum to run everything at full quality all the time. The XM system, like DirectTV and Dish, is a "software defined radio."
 
> If the quality was perfect 5 years ago then they
> can put it back.

The quality didn't exist 5 years ago. XM wasn't on the air five years ago!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom