Good gawd this sounds like CRAP!

[ElCheapo]

I took a long road trip over the long 4th of July weekend and decided to take my XM Roady2 along. I bought it last year because I was spending a lot of time on the road and listened mostly to talk channels through its FM modulator.

Last month, I bought a new car and it has a line-in jack, so I connected that way. I was really underwhelmed with the audio quality. The 80s channel sounded particularly bad - the highs were lacking and the compression artifacts were really obvious. Some channels sounded somewhat better - KISS and Mix both seemed to have better quality. Different processing? Higher bitrates?

Does anyone have any idea what bitrate XM uses for different channels?

I spent most of the trip listening to Lex & Terry and The Schnitt Show, so quality was really a moot point - but if I was even remotely into quality audio and bought XM for that reason, I'd be sorely disappointed.

Previously, I always attributed the bad audio to the FM modulator. Now I know that wasn't the entire reason!

 

[cyberdad]

I was just in this conversation yesterday. Some channels sound pretty good, but more than a few sound just awful. Like you, at first I blamed my modulator....but I've noticed the same thing on rental cars...including those with upscale sound systems....where the xm is built in. Same goes when I plug my "sky-fi" into my xm boombox.

 

[Chad]

Shame they can't get more bandwidth or come up with a less lossy codec. I love XM, but have to agree. I have a Sky Fi with a home kit, car kit, and boom box. I also have a My Fi, and the audio is less than spectacular on both. At this point, the DirecTV feeds are almost all I use at home. Even the high speed online feeds sound better than the XM Satellite feeds in many cases. That said, I still prefer XM over the sound of FM with its over compressed/limited audio and occasional static and fading. And I have to agree with other posters. I got XM more for the programming than the audio quality. Still, there has to be a way to make it sound better.

 

[CTListener]

Kiss and Mix are provided and produced by Clear Channel, which won an arbitration ruling against XM that allows it to sell advertising on its music channels. It thus has the right to do what it wants with a big chunk of XM bandwidth and is processing the audio on its music channels quite differently from the way XM does on its own channels. The audio is a lot brighter, and the music has been "pitched" (sped up slightly) as well, as is done on many FM stations running pop or contemporary country formats.

 

[Chad]

It thus has the right to do what it wants with a big chunk of XM bandwidth and is processing the audio on its music channels quite differently from the way XM does on its own channels. The audio is a lot brighter, and the music has been "pitched" (sped up slightly) as well, as is done on many FM stations running pop or contemporary country formats.

But can they increase their bandwidth at the expense of other XM channels?

 

[livingfruitvirus]

It thus has the right to do what it wants with a big chunk of XM bandwidth and is processing the audio on its music channels quite differently from the way XM does on its own channels. The audio is a lot brighter, and the music has been "pitched" (sped up slightly) as well, as is done on many FM stations running pop or contemporary country formats.

But can they increase their bandwidth at the expense of other XM channels?

No. Nor without requiring the subscribers to purchase new equipment. This isn't like satellite television where they can create more bandwidth by sending more satellites into space.

 

[Chad]

What I meant was, can Clear Channel increase their bandwidth usage by increasing the bitrates they run their channels at, thus forcing other XM channels to run at a lower bitrate. As an earlier post pointed out, it sounds like their channels are possibly running at a higher bitrate, and I know that when they add new channels, they have to lower the bitrate of existing ones to stay within the alloted bandwidth.

 

[buttonpuncher]

Yep I think XM has gotton on the bad side of the quantity/quality tradeoff. It happened recently when they added the new channels.

When I switched from Sirius to XM about a year ago I was much more pleased with the sound quality, not anymore. Hopefully there'll be codec improvements that will solve the problem, but if they get a better codec they'll probably use it as an excuse to add more channels and it'll be back to "crappy" sound quality again.

I do like XM's music and it's obivous they have a larger library of tunes than Sirius.

 

[AZJoe]

Its not larger, its that they play more songs rom theirs. Its a philosophical difference as to which gathers larger listening audience. More familiar larger hits vs wider/deeper playlists a that might not be familar to everyone. Everybody likes something different, I know people that love XM deep playlists, and other that think they go too far, Then there are those who love Sirius style of presentation of the music, and those that think its too shallow. Its just a diff view or was to look.listen to things.

 

[livingfruitvirus]

When I switched from Sirius to XM about a year ago I was much more pleased with the sound quality, not anymore. Hopefully there'll be codec improvements that will solve the problem, but if they get a better codec they'll probably use it as an excuse to add more channels and it'll be back to "crappy" sound quality again.

The problem with codecs is XM can't just automatically update all receivers unless they find a codec that's backwards compatible with the container they use for their decoders, or they replace all the receivers (except for the Inno/Nexus/Helix). For example, XM's codec doesn't have parametric stereo, which they could significantly benefit from were it not for the fact that parametric stereo in aacPlus v2 is not backwards compatible with aacPlus v1. Were XM to upgrade to it, all receivers that can't receive a codec update would end up playing a mono sound for stereo music (parametric stereo simply separates a high quality mono signal).

However, there are two high quality channels on XM: Fine Tuning (76) and XM Pops (113). Both are in surround sound with the right receiver. If you don't have that, you'll still get CD quality stereo.

 

[wscx2000]

I agree with the "low badwith" sound. It kind of sounds like a bad download on most channels. I also agree that the Kiss and Mix stations do seem to sound a little better. I had XM when it first came out in 2001-2002, but I had a Pioneer modulater wired into the Honda Accord I had at the time (which had a sub-par audio system anyway) and it really didn't sound all that well. Now I have a Pontiac with a Monsoon system and XM is built in and it still doesn't sound as good as I thought it would. Like others, I attributed the poor sound to my Honda and to modulation, but it appears it is XM itself. I also had DirecTV and it sounded fine so what's the deal?
I keep having them refresh the signal, which seemd to help a little, but not as much as I thought it would. Maybe I am not doing it right? I wait 20 minutes, keep it on 1, then flip to 7 then to 175.
Also, my display on my screen says "no info" when I try to find the artist or song title. Is that normal?

 

[Kelly]

I'm getting fed up with the poor audio quality on several channels. I really don't feel like paying for audio quality less than a bad Mp3 file.

What the deal is related to their statistical multiplexing of their digital bandwidth. In order to add more channels, XM robs bits from others. From what I understand, typical music channels used to have in the order or 90-120 kbps, now I'm guessing my favorites like Lucy, Ethyl, and Fred, are running in the neighborhood of 30-50 kbps. As many pointed out, some channels still sound quite good, while several others are really bad.

I'm not sure whether Sirius will get caught up in the same trap when trying to add new channels to their line-up, but I'm off to cancel my XM subscription. Pity too, as I've had XM since the beginning.

 

[CTListener]

I'm getting fed up with the poor audio quality on several channels. I really don't feel like paying for audio quality less than a bad Mp3 file.

What the deal is related to their statistical multiplexing of their digital bandwidth. In order to add more channels, XM robs bits from others. From what I understand, typical music channels used to have in the order or 90-120 kbps, now I'm guessing my favorites like Lucy, Ethyl, and Fred, are running in the neighborhood of 30-50 kbps. As many pointed out, some channels still sound quite good, while several others are really bad.

I'm not sure whether Sirius will get caught up in the same trap when trying to add new channels to their line-up, but I'm off to cancel my XM subscription. Pity too, as I've had XM since the beginning.

In a country where Budweiser is the preferred beer, "American Idol" is the preferred television show, Fox is the preferred news source, and wrestlers, actors and bodybuilders get elected to high office, what makes you think an appreciable number of people give a rat's ass about sound quality on satellite radio?

 

[cool1059]

This week I finally hit wits end with the bad XM sound quality and pulled my old Sirius Audiovox PNP2 out of the retirement and reinstalled it in my car. A side by side comparison of the talk channels I frequent was sobering. Fox New Channel, BBC World Service and ABC News/Talk all sound MUCH better on Sirius than XM. On the music they both have huge SQ issues, but the Sirius channels seem to be more consistant than XM's.

It is a shame that I finally burned out on the sound quality of XM because I hate to give up Audio Visions and Watercolors in my car. On the bright side, I forgot how much better Big 80's and Prime Country are compared to 80's on 8 and US Country. ;D

 

[smashedcd]

i am a 4 year subscriber. i had it almost from the beginning. the sq in 2002 was at least good fm quality. now its not even good cassette quality. the downward spiral started in 2004 when they added 5 channels..including fungus, the blend, another hit alternative channel and 2 others. forgot what they were. and then it got even worse when they added all the college sports and mlb. the clincher was in march they added xm 17, 26,30 and escape ? oh and liquid metal..THAT is what killed the sq..but it will improve soon. they are dropping a whopping 1 channel. msnbc...

 

[CTListener]

i am a 4 year subscriber. i had it almost from the beginning. the sq in 2002 was at least good fm quality. now its not even good cassette quality. the downward spiral started in 2004 when they added 5 channels..including fungus, the blend, another hit alternative channel and 2 others. forgot what they were. and then it got even worse when they added all the college sports and mlb. the clincher was in march they added xm 17, 26,30 and escape ? oh and liquid metal..THAT is what killed the sq..but it will improve soon. they are dropping a whopping 1 channel. msnbc...

Head programming honcho Lee Abrams made a vague reference to sound quality discussions in his weekly blog entry. Perhaps the complaints are reaching critical mass, and not just coming from audiophiles anymore. Now, does XM have the balls to drop channels -- giving the Sirius spin machine a chance to tell everyone "XM now offers you LESS!" -- and bring back decent sound quality?

 

[apco25]

Where can I locate Mr. Abrams blog entries?

 

[smashedcd]

i am a 4 year subscriber. i had it almost from the beginning. the sq in 2002 was at least good fm quality. now its not even good cassette quality. the downward spiral started in 2004 when they added 5 channels..including fungus, the blend, another hit alternative channel and 2 others. forgot what they were. and then it got even worse when they added all the college sports and mlb. the clincher was in march they added xm 17, 26,30 and escape ? oh and liquid metal..THAT is what killed the sq..but it will improve soon. they are dropping a whopping 1 channel. msnbc...

Head programming honcho Lee Abrams made a vague reference to sound quality discussions in his weekly blog entry. Perhaps the complaints are reaching critical mass, and not just coming from audiophiles anymore. Now, does XM have the balls to drop channels -- giving the Sirius spin machine a chance to tell everyone "XM now offers you LESS!" -- and bring back decent sound quality?

well the loss of msnbc will hepl. oprah is already on spinning a loop plus 143 is already on..so killing msnbc gives a tiny bit of bandwith to someone.

 

[CTListener]

Where can I locate Mr. Abrams blog entries?

leeabrams.blogspot.com

 

[gerald]

I'm with ya

its not even good cassette quality

I'm a 2 month subscriber, I got XM tossed into the deal when I got a new car (Saab). It's a Harmon Kardon system and CDs and FM sound just fine. You are very correct about SQ on XM, at first I thought mebbe it was just me and I wasn't used to it or something, but doing an A/B on the weekend between blues on a local FM station and on XM is glaring.

I love the variety and most of the programming, but I'm really disappointed with the SQ. As a newbie, I had to print out the channel list for reference and I could see several handfuls of channels that could (apparently) be easily deleted. Plus I've got a question - has anyone really figured out the difference between Lucy, Fred and Ethel? I jump back and forth and they sure seem alike; often, XMU is as well.