• 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

Just curious

R

rhaney

How in the world does XM.. and even Sirius plan to dig out of this hole? Taken from here:

XM Loses:
http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/business/MI15781/

"XM, the larger of the country's two satellite radio operators, reported Thursday a loss of $270.4 million, or $1.22 per share, after dividends for preferred stockholders, for the October-December period."

Sirius Losses:
http://www1.wsvn.com/news/articles/business/MI15874/

"Sirius posted a loss of $311.4 million for the last three months of 2005, compared with a loss of $261.9 million in the same period a year ago."


With awful sound quality, mediocre channels, poor jocks, free internet radio becoming avail, and rising rate hikes.. I honestly don't see how these 2 companies will be able to last much longer. It's one thing for companies to lose a few million here and there each quarter... but we are talking about HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS each quarter.

Im not hating.. just very concerned... your thoughts?
 
"XM's CEO Hugh Panero said in a statement that the company expects to reach profitability from its operations by the end of this year, with subscription revenues reaching $860 million. He also said he expects to have 9 million subscribers by the end of the year."
Seems pretty simple. They apparently had the capital to start this thing and see it through.
 
> With awful sound quality, mediocre channels, poor jocks,
> free internet radio becoming avail, and rising rate hikes..
> I honestly don't see how these 2 companies will be able to
> last much longer. It's one thing for companies to lose a few
> million here and there each quarter... but we are talking
> about HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS each quarter.

The biggest message you can send is not to subscribe.

Of course, when they say "5 million subscriptions", are these PAID subscriptions? Are these ACTIVE subscribers?

Hell, I can say my little AM has a listener base of 50 million people*.

* Since 1958.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> > With awful sound quality, mediocre channels, poor jocks,
> > free internet radio becoming avail, and rising rate
> hikes..
> > I honestly don't see how these 2 companies will be able to
>
> > last much longer. It's one thing for companies to lose a
> few
> > million here and there each quarter... but we are talking
> > about HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS each quarter.
>
> The biggest message you can send is not to subscribe.
>
>

and be stuck with fm!! umm no thanks!! fm isnt worth what i pay for it..nothing!<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
 
> > With awful sound quality, mediocre channels, poor jocks,
> > free internet radio becoming avail, and rising rate
> hikes..
> > I honestly don't see how these 2 companies will be able to
>
> > last much longer. It's one thing for companies to lose a
> few
> > million here and there each quarter... but we are talking
> > about HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS each quarter.
>
> The biggest message you can send is not to subscribe.
>
> Of course, when they say "5 million subscriptions", are
> these PAID subscriptions? Are these ACTIVE subscribers?
>
> Hell, I can say my little AM has a listener base of 50
> million people*.
>
> * Since 1958.
>


I think your kinda rough on the whole satellite concept. I can understand about the sound quality, but this day in age, all the public cares about is if it's digital, sounds clearer then FM, and have access to 150 stations or you can walk around the streets with over 10,000 tunes in your shirt pocket.

And pretty much XM wants to promote and sell their product this way at the moment. Most people (with the exception like you)has never experienced the sound or quality of a McIntosh or Krell receiver. And there's really no need to for the average American listener. It goes to show you that many of the high quality sound system chain stores or local high end places have closed down (like Good Guys In California) or dropped the highest end companies.
With the exception of home theatre or DVD hardrive muti-room movie storage boxes, it's the only thing that you will need base components for. For primary video viewing only. And these are people who will spend 20,000 plus for high end gear that live in mansions with high end ceilings. Rich people.
Yes there's a market for males over 40 that will spend alittle bit on high end components, or classical/jazz buffs....and there fading...but for the mainstream listener which are the most. No. They don't care.

People want MP3's only because it's small storage and sounds good enough. They are not audiophile critics like yourself. And that's why Best Buy and Circuit City are still holding ground today, out competing the Audio stores that have carried components like Rotel, Krell, Parasound, and even Denon and Yamaha high end etc.
If it sounds good enough on a computer hard drive storage or any other digital components that are small,.... smaller is better. Not bigger in this case. And that's why XM is promoted to be more of an entertainment device, more bells and whistles, entertainment then for audiophiles.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by apco25 on 02/23/06 02:01 AM.</FONT></P>
 
> I think your kinda rough on the whole satellite concept. I
> can understand about the sound quality, but this day in age,
> all the public cares about is if it's digital, sounds
> clearer then FM, and have access to 150 stations or you can
> walk around the streets with over 10,000 tunes in your shirt
> pocket.

FM is cleaner than XM. The bass is muddy (my subwoofer does that waaah waaah overpowering sound instead of thumping), the highs are non-existent. The processing that FM gets nowadays, the digital STLs, the solid state digital transmitters (not IBOC)...XM loses.

How many people listen to more than a handful of stations? Realistically. I have 3 basic formats I listen to consisting of 7 channels. Does anyone REALLY intently listen to 57 channels? Other than dance, I can find it all on the FM band.

I participate in some car forums...and non-radio, untrained, carefree auto enthusaists (not necessarily the rice rocket pimped out ride folks) complain about the sound. The difference between CD, FM and XM is so great that the average soccer mom is hearing it now...and it doesn't go in favor of XM.

There must be a thousand people throwing them ideas...so far they've listened to none of them. Therefore, the strongest message we can send is not to pay.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re:

........and be stuck with fm!! umm no thanks!! fm isnt worth what i
pay for it..nothing!


And IMO FM is overpriced at that price.


Listen to the distortion,poor separation,over (and poorly) processed audio in the NY Metro market and honestly tell me it sounds good. I think not.
 
> FM is cleaner than XM. The bass is muddy (my subwoofer does
> that waaah waaah overpowering sound instead of thumping),
> the highs are non-existent. The processing that FM gets
> nowadays, the digital STLs, the solid state digital
> transmitters (not IBOC)...XM loses.

Sound quality is "good enough" for most people. Subscriptions aren't dropping astronomically because people hate the sound quality. Their music channels aren't that bad. I've heard some FM's sounding worse, due to poor processing. I work at a radio station, but at the same time, in my office, I hav XM listening capabilities during the day, and find myself quite happy with it. It's not as pure as the signal I'm putting out, but it has 100+ different options. And the traffic/weather channels are more useful then some give credit for.


> How many people listen to more than a handful of stations?
> Realistically. I have 3 basic formats I listen to
> consisting of 7 channels. Does anyone REALLY intently
> listen to 57 channels? Other than dance, I can find it all
> on the FM band.

In some places, maybe. In my market, there are 15 stations doing the same four formats. The AM's are so poorly maintained around here anymore, that hearing something like Coast to Coast AM requires you living thirty feet away from the transmitter. And something like Phil Hendrie or Air America... forget about it. Trying something different is not in programmer's minds in my market.


> I participate in some car forums...and non-radio, untrained,
> carefree auto enthusaists (not necessarily the rice rocket
> pimped out ride folks) complain about the sound. The
> difference between CD, FM and XM is so great that the
> average soccer mom is hearing it now...and it doesn't go in
> favor of XM.
>
> There must be a thousand people throwing them ideas...so far
> they've listened to none of them. Therefore, the strongest
> message we can send is not to pay.

That's not going to happen anytime soon. Those soccer moms will be listening to Oprah and Friends come next soccer season. To the casual listener, again, it's "good enough". Engineers will probably never be satisfied no matter how many suggestions XM listened to if they wanted to, but then again most of them are stuck in analog mode, and fear something like Protools.
 
> With awful sound quality, mediocre channels, poor jocks,
> free internet radio becoming avail, and rising rate hikes..
> I honestly don't see how these 2 companies will be able to
> last much longer.

You're right about one thing, the audio quality ain't great. But guess what? Most people can't tell and/or don't care. And I would dispute the suggestion the channels on either service are "mediocre." There are many fantastic channels on both.
Between the two companies, there are already 10 million subscribers on board, plus the people in their lives who share their radios. That's A LOT of believers in something that didn't exist five years ago and began during a recession. And I get far more value for my $13/mo than I do with $54 for cable TV. I listen way more than I watch TV and with sat rad I never feel like I'm surfing dozens of channels to find the least awful thing on.
Yes, there are new technologies coming to deliver audio to consumers and I expect both XM and Sirius will be in on them.
 
> > I think your kinda rough on the whole satellite concept. I
>
> > can understand about the sound quality, but this day in
> age,
> > all the public cares about is if it's digital, sounds
> > clearer then FM, and have access to 150 stations or you
> can
> > walk around the streets with over 10,000 tunes in your
> shirt
> > pocket.
>
> FM is cleaner than XM. The bass is muddy (my subwoofer does
> that waaah waaah overpowering sound instead of thumping),
> the highs are non-existent. The processing that FM gets
> nowadays, the digital STLs, the solid state digital
> transmitters (not IBOC)...XM loses.
>
> How many people listen to more than a handful of stations?
> Realistically. I have 3 basic formats I listen to
> consisting of 7 channels. Does anyone REALLY intently
> listen to 57 channels? Other than dance, I can find it all
> on the FM band.
>

I listen to about 12 stations that appeal to me, not including any talk formats, and yes, they try to overplease us with genres most people don't care for. Which degrades the individual bandwidth for each channel. it's like satellite TV, load and squeeze as many channels and degrade the digital standard picture. Because 195 channels, sounds better then a 100 your gonna pay for.


> I participate in some car forums...and non-radio, untrained,
> carefree auto enthusaists (not necessarily the rice rocket
> pimped out ride folks) complain about the sound. The
> difference between CD, FM and XM is so great that the
> average soccer mom is hearing it now...and it doesn't go in
> favor of XM.
>
It depends on the system you listen on. It also depends on the speakers and enhancers you use. I apply my DBX processor to their sound, and it improves especially when your muti-tasking. I'm, not saying it's perfect, and certain channels sound better then others because of the bandwidths there set for, but it's enough to get by the commercials.


> There must be a thousand people throwing them ideas...so far
> they've listened to none of them. Therefore, the strongest
> message we can send is not to pay.
>
 
> > > I think your kinda rough on the whole satellite concept.
> I
> >
> > > can understand about the sound quality, but this day in
> > age,
> > > all the public cares about is if it's digital, sounds
> > > clearer then FM, and have access to 150 stations or you
> > can
> > > walk around the streets with over 10,000 tunes in your
> > shirt
> > > pocket.
> >
> > FM is cleaner than XM. The bass is muddy (my subwoofer
> does
> > that waaah waaah overpowering sound instead of thumping),
> > the highs are non-existent. The processing that FM gets
> > nowadays, the digital STLs, the solid state digital
> > transmitters (not IBOC)...XM loses.
> >
> > How many people listen to more than a handful of stations?
>
> > Realistically. I have 3 basic formats I listen to
> > consisting of 7 channels. Does anyone REALLY intently
> > listen to 57 channels? Other than dance, I can find it
> all
> > on the FM band.
> >
>
> I listen to about 12 stations that appeal to me, not
> including any talk formats, and yes, they try to overplease
> us with genres most people don't care for. Which degrades
> the individual bandwidth for each channel. it's like
> satellite TV, load and squeeze as many channels and degrade
> the digital standard picture. Because 195 channels, sounds
> better then a 100 your gonna pay for.
>
>
> > I participate in some car forums...and non-radio,
> untrained,
> > carefree auto enthusaists (not necessarily the rice rocket
>
> > pimped out ride folks) complain about the sound. The
> > difference between CD, FM and XM is so great that the
> > average soccer mom is hearing it now...and it doesn't go
> in
> > favor of XM.
> >
> It depends on the system you listen on. It also depends on
> the speakers and enhancers you use. I apply my DBX
> processor to their sound, and it improves especially when
> your muti-tasking. I'm, not saying it's perfect, and certain
> channels sound better then others because of the bandwidths
> there set for, but it's enough to get by the commercials.
>
>
> > There must be a thousand people throwing them ideas...so
> far
> > they've listened to none of them. Therefore, the
> strongest
> > message we can send is not to pay.
> >
>

The avg. non radio/american does not have the time or money to run around town all day trying to find better ways to make their satellite sound better. This is something that sattelite radio is going to have to improve on.

I have had Sirius for 3 years... XM for one.. and they are both awful sound quality-wise. Yes, I know that Satellite radio is NOT CD quality.. I knew that before going into it.. Im talking about the distortion and crackling on both services.

I use to think that it was my set up in my car... It has gotten so bad over the past year that I simply dont have the energy to go back up to Best Buy and have them look at it again (I have been up to Best Buy, Circuit City, abd my car dealership at least 8-10 times trying to get this issue fixed.. and they keep telling me that everything is installed correctly).. but after my dad just got Sirius in his new car a few weeks ago.. its the same problem.. and he says he doesnt even listen to it anymore because its unbearable.

I have found a way through Verizon to listen to internet radio in my car radio.. and the sound quality is 5 times better than paying for satellite radio. It's a little pricey having to pay $44/month for unlimited broadband on my phone, but last time I checked, I cant check my email with my XM receiver.

Look, my post is in noway trying to bash satellite radio... Im simply asking how in the world they plan to get out of losing 100's of millions each quarter.... but with loss margins that they BOTH have experienced in the last year... they really need to concentrate on keeping current subscribers happy... and they need to find a way to improve the sound quality... These 10 million subscribers or whatever the number is... are going to get sick of it after a while, and say screw it.... it's not worth it. I know I have.

I dont think that XM Kiss Top 40 station is better than the CHR where I live. Their Dance channels are very poor. Their Hip-Hop stations are not very good at all. Sure, they are commercial free.. and they may have a little wider selection of songs than FM... but their overall presentation of these channels are very poor compared to FM radio.... I'd rather listen to a better sounding local CHR, than a poor sounding satellite station.
 
> > Hugh Panero is no Mel Karmazin
> >
> Thank God.
>

These are my feelings on XM stations I listen, or used to, on a regular basis:
I like
Chrome
60s
70s
80s (no longer)
90s (no longer)
U-pop
Hear Music (Huge recent improvement).
Top Tracks
Watercolors
Groove
Cinemagic
Fungus
Lucy
Squizz

Don't like:

Cafe (Rarely plays anything I like or know).
BPM (Used to be great, now it is repetitive and boring).
City (My local FM is much better).
Rhyme (Too many B sides).
Kiss (Local FM is better).

I appreciate that they have Air America because it is not available in my market.

Wish list:
Active Rocker (Squizz is forced to being Alt and Active)
Spanish/AC (They had it and got rid of it and th Spanish Pop station, then added Reggaton).
 
> > I think your kinda rough on the whole satellite concept. I
>
> > can understand about the sound quality, but this day in
> age,
> > all the public cares about is if it's digital, sounds
> > clearer then FM, and have access to 150 stations or you
> can
> > walk around the streets with over 10,000 tunes in your
> shirt
> > pocket.
>
> FM is cleaner than XM. The bass is muddy (my subwoofer does
> that waaah waaah overpowering sound instead of thumping),
> the highs are non-existent. The processing that FM gets
> nowadays, the digital STLs, the solid state digital
> transmitters (not IBOC)...XM loses.
>

Yeah, I love listening to 15 minute commercial blocks in the best high quality equpitment possible.

> How many people listen to more than a handful of stations?
> Realistically. I have 3 basic formats I listen to
> consisting of 7 channels. Does anyone REALLY intently
> listen to 57 channels? Other than dance, I can find it all
> on the FM band.

*raises hand* I have found myself flying around to a LOT more stations. Why? Because these stations are playing good tunes or MORE tunes than every AM/FM station on the dial. With XM, I have never enjoyed more hockey, baseball, comedy, rock, blues than ever before. I can flip between left and right wing radio in a heartbeat. Of course listening to the dance/electronica/house channels blow the DOORS off of FM. Did I mention I have also sat and listened to 40's music (which my grandfather might actually get a unit). I grew up with my parents balring 50's tunes, now I get to listen to them from time to time. You can find almost anything on FM...problem is it's the same 15 songs played on every station.

At work, I tune into a LOT of the old time radio which you NEVER hear on radio anymore. On top of that, Sonic Theater has some good programs. Where is there a Sonic Theater-style station on AM/FM? Hm? Oh, did I mention there is nary a commerical?

> I participate in some car forums...and non-radio, untrained,
> carefree auto enthusaists (not necessarily the rice rocket
> pimped out ride folks) complain about the sound. The
> difference between CD, FM and XM is so great that the
> average soccer mom is hearing it now...and it doesn't go in
> favor of XM.

The average soccer mom is probably brainwashed to hear the same 5 Elton John songs over and over. Not to mention the high end pimped out rice rocket is carrying some heavy duty stereo equiptment. Most cars don't.

>
> There must be a thousand people throwing them ideas...so far
> they've listened to none of them. Therefore, the strongest
> message we can send is not to pay.
>

Former listeners to the AM/FM dial like myself have thrown ideas to terrestrial radio for years as well. Focus groups, surveys, letters, phone calls. Have they listened? Nope. That is why I (and 10 million people like myself) have chosen to send the stronger message too. We stopped listening. And you'll probably never get us back. Terrestrial radio big shots laughed at us, snubbed your noses at us and told us we have no clue what we're talking about. Instead of improving your product, you're losing us in droves.
 
>
> The biggest message you can send is not to subscribe.
>

How about my message, with a five year prepayment?<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
> ...The processing that FM gets nowadays...

You must be refering to the processing that boosts the lows and highs (or drowns the midrange) and maintains the sound at a constant loudness level, thanks but no thanks.

Show me $10K worth of audio enhancing equipment and I will show you $10K worth of distortion enhancing equipment.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
> > With awful sound quality, mediocre channels, poor jocks,
> > free internet radio becoming avail, and rising rate
> hikes..
> > I honestly don't see how these 2 companies will be able to
>
> > last much longer. It's one thing for companies to lose a
> few
> > million here and there each quarter... but we are talking
> > about HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS each quarter.
>
> The biggest message you can send is not to subscribe.
>
> Of course, when they say "5 million subscriptions", are
> these PAID subscriptions? Are these ACTIVE subscribers?
>
> Hell, I can say my little AM has a listener base of 50
> million people*.
>
> * Since 1958.
>

Already did that for Sirius.. and XM.. If I ever were to have to subscribe again.. then I would go with Sirius.. Im sorry, but XM sucks. Their channels sound like my internet radio channels (shitty sweepers, etc)... not worth the money IMO,... and their dance is a joke.. which by the way.. cant touch my net radio channels.
 
> > > I think your kinda rough on the whole satellite concept.
> I
> >
> > > can understand about the sound quality, but this day in
> > age,
> > > all the public cares about is if it's digital, sounds
> > > clearer then FM, and have access to 150 stations or you
> > can
> > > walk around the streets with over 10,000 tunes in your
> > shirt
> > > pocket.
> >
> > FM is cleaner than XM. The bass is muddy (my subwoofer
> does
> > that waaah waaah overpowering sound instead of thumping),
> > the highs are non-existent. The processing that FM gets
> > nowadays, the digital STLs, the solid state digital
> > transmitters (not IBOC)...XM loses.
> >
>
> Yeah, I love listening to 15 minute commercial blocks in the
> best high quality equpitment possible.
>
> > How many people listen to more than a handful of stations?
>
> > Realistically. I have 3 basic formats I listen to
> > consisting of 7 channels. Does anyone REALLY intently
> > listen to 57 channels? Other than dance, I can find it
> all
> > on the FM band.
>
> *raises hand* I have found myself flying around to a LOT
> more stations. Why? Because these stations are playing
> good tunes or MORE tunes than every AM/FM station on the
> dial. With XM, I have never enjoyed more hockey, baseball,
> comedy, rock, blues than ever before. I can flip between
> left and right wing radio in a heartbeat. Of course
> listening to the dance/electronica/house channels blow the
> DOORS off of FM. Did I mention I have also sat and listened
> to 40's music (which my grandfather might actually get a
> unit). I grew up with my parents balring 50's tunes, now I
> get to listen to them from time to time. You can find
> almost anything on FM...problem is it's the same 15 songs
> played on every station.
>
> At work, I tune into a LOT of the old time radio which you
> NEVER hear on radio anymore. On top of that, Sonic Theater
> has some good programs. Where is there a Sonic
> Theater-style station on AM/FM? Hm? Oh, did I mention
> there is nary a commerical?
>
> > I participate in some car forums...and non-radio,
> untrained,
> > carefree auto enthusaists (not necessarily the rice rocket
>
> > pimped out ride folks) complain about the sound. The
> > difference between CD, FM and XM is so great that the
> > average soccer mom is hearing it now...and it doesn't go
> in
> > favor of XM.
>
> The average soccer mom is probably brainwashed to hear the
> same 5 Elton John songs over and over. Not to mention the
> high end pimped out rice rocket is carrying some heavy duty
> stereo equiptment. Most cars don't.
>
> >
> > There must be a thousand people throwing them ideas...so
> far
> > they've listened to none of them. Therefore, the
> strongest
> > message we can send is not to pay.
> >
>
> Former listeners to the AM/FM dial like myself have thrown
> ideas to terrestrial radio for years as well. Focus groups,
> surveys, letters, phone calls. Have they listened? Nope.
> That is why I (and 10 million people like myself) have
> chosen to send the stronger message too. We stopped
> listening. And you'll probably never get us back.
> Terrestrial radio big shots laughed at us, snubbed your
> noses at us and told us we have no clue what we're talking
> about. Instead of improving your product, you're losing us
> in droves.
>


Dude.. why do u get so defensive about this? The sound quality on BOTH satellite systems SUCK. My MOM and my DAD cant even listen to the stations because they all have crackling and poping noises in the streams.. and they soound like a 20k shoutcast stream.
 
The Audio is not what it was touted as. They said "CD QUALITY" well it isn't and I know this for a bonafide fact. One of the DJ's told me in a personal email that they played MP2 files so no they do not play CD's. CD's are the only thing that is CD quality unless you play a DAT. I don't get where kids these days thing that MP2 and MP3 are high fidelity formats or that it's somehwo better than CD's. And people will say "oh but MP formats are on computer and can be automated. Well so can CD's. Wheres my CD quality that I was told that XM was. Someone actually told me that Sirius has better audio quality. I don't know because i've never listened to Sirius. I do know XM has had a lot of problems with their satellites. Perhaps this plays a minor part but you just can't have quality playing compressed audio files. If I wanted that I'd join some MP downloading community.








> With awful sound quality, mediocre channels, poor jocks,
> > free internet radio becoming avail, and rising rate
> hikes..
> > I honestly don't see how these 2 companies will be able to
>
> > last much longer.
>
> You're right about one thing, the audio quality ain't great.
> But guess what? Most people can't tell and/or don't care.
> And I would dispute the suggestion the channels on either
> service are "mediocre." There are many fantastic channels on
> both.
> Between the two companies, there are already 10 million
> subscribers on board, plus the people in their lives who
> share their radios. That's A LOT of believers in something
> that didn't exist five years ago and began during a
> recession. And I get far more value for my $13/mo than I do
> with $54 for cable TV. I listen way more than I watch TV and
> with sat rad I never feel like I'm surfing dozens of
> channels to find the least awful thing on.
> Yes, there are new technologies coming to deliver audio to
> consumers and I expect both XM and Sirius will be in on
> them.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom