I dont know exactly what bitrate most of the SiriusXM Satellites run the channels at but from what i've read online, most of the music channels are ran at 48kbps, the talk channels are at 16kbps and Symphony Hall gets more than all the other channels, but my question is do they realize that they could slightly up the bitrate on the music channels to 64 or even 96kbps? It would sound worlds better, but I guess they rather cram as many channels in as they can instead of making the existing ones sound better. I mean I know I could just use the app for better quality, but in Rural areas where cell phone service is spotty its better to listen from the satellites.
-
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
Does SiriusXM realize that if they upped the bitrate just a slight bit the channels would sound better?
- Thread starter 97chris
- Start date
It's definitely not the worst I've heard, but you can for sure tell the sound quality isn't the best if you just listen to when you hear singers pronounce S's in songs (or when people are just regularly talking). You can notice artifacts and sometimes it bothers me and I focus on the artifacts more than the song, but it's not bad enough that I have to turn off the music and I can withstand it for long periods of time.
Yes. The audio quality of SiriusXM is a conscious decision.
Personally, I mostly find SXM audio quality to be OK for in-car listening, meaning the imperfections of the codec are largely masked by road noise.
Personally, I mostly find SXM audio quality to be OK for in-car listening, meaning the imperfections of the codec are largely masked by road noise.
I had an older Sirius Connect tuner box in my vehicle which had such terrible compression artifacts it was almost unlistenable. I replaced it with a new HU and SXV300 Connect tuner, and the audio quality difference is night and day. The compressed digital music sounds much more acceptable on the latest tuner. I wonder, did SXM make some change to the codec that newer equipment can decode well but older boxes can't?
From what I know, if your receiver uses an XM tuner it will have better quality than if your receiver uses a Sirius tuner. I know there's also tuners that can decode both the Sirius and XM satellites.
And listeners at home are probably streaming SXM, and the audio quality on the stream is quite good. I listen through my Roku on my stereo system at home and have no complaints.
Agree ... I have zero issues with the streaming quality at home or via my phone. I think it sounds pretty good in the car as well.
The factory receiver in 2020 RAM pickup sounds great. No problems at all with sound quality on any station.
You are rarely going to be using Satellite based connection in that truck, it has SiriusXM 360L. It use the onboard modem and your connected phone for data.
How new is your jeep?
SiriusXM audio observations should distinguish between hearing the satellite or streaming feed. The streaming feed should be essentially no different from thousands of other streaming audio choices.
wadio- were you saying SiriusXM from satellite sounded better than FM, or SiriusXM from streaming sounded better than FM?
Was it FM analog or FM Digital? I realize it is all entertainment, but with multiple pathways for content, helpful comments about audio are specific.
wadio- were you saying SiriusXM from satellite sounded better than FM, or SiriusXM from streaming sounded better than FM?
Was it FM analog or FM Digital? I realize it is all entertainment, but with multiple pathways for content, helpful comments about audio are specific.
Last edited:
I hear no audio difference between SiriusXM and FM in my 2017 Dodge Grand Caravan. My only issue with the satellite receiver is that the signal cuts out by some cellphone sites (not sure of the service or the frequencies being used) within about 500 feet of where I'm driving. They're overloading the front end of the receiver.
And , of course, in many locations satellite has terrestrial boosters that fill terrain or building shadows. So the pathway has an additional variant... even if the booster mirror the satellite product.
AT&T band 30 LTE service shares the 2.3 Ghz spectrum with SiriusXM. Not all AT&T sites broadcast band 30.
To chime in on the original question- Yes the satellite broadcasters are well aware of their technical options. They have expert, top quality engineering and the resources to implement their technical design. They are doing what best meets their business objective.
David, yes I recall discussions about satellite radio boosters by engineers.
Reportedly millions of satellite radio listeners in many major metropolitan areas were likely to be hearing a local booster signal rather than a satellite signal. The engineers said satellite radio broadcasters had a general authorization to operate boosters (on the same frequency as the satellite). Public information at the time was harder to find, and this made it a challenge to determine the location of the the boosters. The concern was radio frequency radiation safety at shared antenna sites. Antenna site users need to know if for example, 15 KW ERP at 2 GHz is blowing off an antenna on a pole. That is microwave oven territory. No doubt the authorizations required them to comply with safety guidelines, but as a practical matter knowledge of a site and common sense may prevail. 2 GHz antennas are more subtle than a multi bay FM antenna and may not be clearly a risk.
About the audio quality part- given the cost and logistics of back hauling the satellite modulating signal to boosters, I don't know how they did it. Considering tech at the time, I think most likely the booster modulating signal was exactly the same as the satellite modulating signal. Today they could back haul using the Internet and sync it up without it being a major motion picture.
If the satellite signal spectrum profile is two redundant signals adjacent to each other (like the FM Digital product in use) perhaps they received the satellite on one signal and rebroadcasted it with the booster on the other signal. The band pass isolation filter to make this work would be interesting to see.
An EE specializing in modulation theory might tell us what is more efficient use of radio spectrum within a given channel bandwidth:
1. Two signals that are identical (redundant).
or
2. One signal with more error correction and receiver time buffering.
The answer might be determined by the technology available when the system was originally designed, and the need for future backwards compatibility of the customer devices. If satellite radio or FM Digital radio was designed today, would it be #1 or #2 ?
Riffing on, using my favorite rant- considering that analog AM has two identical side bands, maintaining backwards compatibility, what could today's DSP technology do within a receiver to improve audio quality? Hmm... Two identical signals with a slight amount of frequency diversity. Admittedly it is a minor opportunity, but I bet the cell phone industry has exploited smaller opportunities.
David, yes I recall discussions about satellite radio boosters by engineers.
Reportedly millions of satellite radio listeners in many major metropolitan areas were likely to be hearing a local booster signal rather than a satellite signal. The engineers said satellite radio broadcasters had a general authorization to operate boosters (on the same frequency as the satellite). Public information at the time was harder to find, and this made it a challenge to determine the location of the the boosters. The concern was radio frequency radiation safety at shared antenna sites. Antenna site users need to know if for example, 15 KW ERP at 2 GHz is blowing off an antenna on a pole. That is microwave oven territory. No doubt the authorizations required them to comply with safety guidelines, but as a practical matter knowledge of a site and common sense may prevail. 2 GHz antennas are more subtle than a multi bay FM antenna and may not be clearly a risk.
About the audio quality part- given the cost and logistics of back hauling the satellite modulating signal to boosters, I don't know how they did it. Considering tech at the time, I think most likely the booster modulating signal was exactly the same as the satellite modulating signal. Today they could back haul using the Internet and sync it up without it being a major motion picture.
If the satellite signal spectrum profile is two redundant signals adjacent to each other (like the FM Digital product in use) perhaps they received the satellite on one signal and rebroadcasted it with the booster on the other signal. The band pass isolation filter to make this work would be interesting to see.
An EE specializing in modulation theory might tell us what is more efficient use of radio spectrum within a given channel bandwidth:
1. Two signals that are identical (redundant).
or
2. One signal with more error correction and receiver time buffering.
The answer might be determined by the technology available when the system was originally designed, and the need for future backwards compatibility of the customer devices. If satellite radio or FM Digital radio was designed today, would it be #1 or #2 ?
Riffing on, using my favorite rant- considering that analog AM has two identical side bands, maintaining backwards compatibility, what could today's DSP technology do within a receiver to improve audio quality? Hmm... Two identical signals with a slight amount of frequency diversity. Admittedly it is a minor opportunity, but I bet the cell phone industry has exploited smaller opportunities.
Last edited:
- Status