I'm in a rental car that has Sat Radio in it. Now I once had Sat Radio (XM) in my car before they screwed up the programming (in particular, the 60's channel that once played songs that barely hit the Hot 100...but I digress) and recall the audio being passable. Not on this radio...I wouldn't be happy to put an AM music station on the air that sounded like this stuff does. It doesn't quite swish but you can tell it's thinking Siriusly (pun intended) about it. Is this just the radio I'm listening on or does it really sound that bad? And the news channels are even worse...no exaggeration--AM stations with the 5khz IBOC limit sound more natural than this stuff. Is it REALLY that bad or do I just have a terrible radio?
-
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
Sat Radio Audio Quality
- Thread starter BobOnTheJob
- Start date
Yup. I wasn't impressed with XM's audio either. That, and several raises of prices made me kick the cord several years ago.
I second that. I had Sirius for a couple of years and I would always cringe every time is switched from FM to Sirius. I was really disappointed with the audio quality, especially since I was PAYING to hear low quality audio. Eventually I let the subscription run out and wandered back over to FM.
I do miss the variety of programming and the country-wide coverage though...
I do miss the variety of programming and the country-wide coverage though...
N
ncfradio
Guest
I recently purchased a GM vehicle with Sirius/XM and was very disappointed with the audio quality. I have heard better sounding cassette players. I never picked up the subscription after the trial period ended due to the audio quality. I am still getting subscription offers in the mail.......they are down to $4.99 per month for a one year agreement. Still not low enough for me to subscribe!!
I once considered getting a sat radio but just couldn't live with the audio. Cant understand why ppl would rather hear these distorted sounding stations. I'd rather listen to a scratchy record or an old cassette tape...
I can't listen to it either. I was not as bad as it became after the addition of channels.
I did find that putting -30 db earplugs in made it more tolerable once my ears get used to them.
I'm not kidding. I use them at work, so one time I left them in for the drive home, and was shocked at how much more tolerable
XM was when you can't hear the zizzing and swishing clearly. Of course you need a lot more audio power......
I, too would rather hear the degradation of a a "bad" cassette or burned-out 45.
I did find that putting -30 db earplugs in made it more tolerable once my ears get used to them.
I'm not kidding. I use them at work, so one time I left them in for the drive home, and was shocked at how much more tolerable
XM was when you can't hear the zizzing and swishing clearly. Of course you need a lot more audio power......
I, too would rather hear the degradation of a a "bad" cassette or burned-out 45.
Off course quality does matter no question about that, but these are comments from people that I wouldn't consider your average listener. The majority seem to settle on poorly ripped MP3 most of the time on their Ipod, so what's the difference between that and sat radio for their ears? They probably don't know what they are missing on. But you're right, the goal should be to bring the best possible quality anytime.
It pays to have poor hearing, or a noisy car, if you're a satellite radio fan.
Sirius is apparently still using Lucent's PAC (...OK...it's their own internally evolved version utilizing the tweaking services of Deepen Sinha, co-developer of PAC...), but that's an inferior codec compared to the HE-AAC used on the XM side. PAC is the codec Ibiquity dropped years ago.
I haven't subscribed for a few years. I canceled the service because of the sound, especially on the news/talk stations (PAC is a poor performer at stream rates of 32kbps and under, and HD AM radio would have sounded awful with it). Since they never grafted SBR (spectral band replication) into it as AAC+ variants have, Sirius used to roll off most of the music channels at 12 kHz. (current SIRI subs with a spectrum analyzer, how about now?) Shocked? So was I!
Frankly, I find 24 kbps AAC+ internet streams more satisfying. Artifacts, sure, but they're kinder to the ear.
Sirius is apparently still using Lucent's PAC (...OK...it's their own internally evolved version utilizing the tweaking services of Deepen Sinha, co-developer of PAC...), but that's an inferior codec compared to the HE-AAC used on the XM side. PAC is the codec Ibiquity dropped years ago.
I haven't subscribed for a few years. I canceled the service because of the sound, especially on the news/talk stations (PAC is a poor performer at stream rates of 32kbps and under, and HD AM radio would have sounded awful with it). Since they never grafted SBR (spectral band replication) into it as AAC+ variants have, Sirius used to roll off most of the music channels at 12 kHz. (current SIRI subs with a spectrum analyzer, how about now?) Shocked? So was I!
Frankly, I find 24 kbps AAC+ internet streams more satisfying. Artifacts, sure, but they're kinder to the ear.
ironbear said:
I'm not sure which codec they use (I'm pretty sure XM uses HE-AAC), but this is more a question of how much bandwidth they thought would be enough (quality wise) for your average listener to tolerate. It makes me cringe when I read they call these digital broadcasts "CD quality" or "crystal clear digital sound" with bitrates such as 32 kbps or 48 kbps. Even with HE-AAC I would label this at best "entertainment quality".
The fact is the quality and the bitrate of digital broadcasts has been driven down (by the broadcasters and transmission operators) since the first DAB systems... In UK, it has gone from Layer-II 192 kbps which was conceived to be the digital standard and replacement for FM (and that would be a respectful replacement) all the way down to 80 kbps, in some instances. And all the newer systems keep following that same trend.
Instead of providing at least comparable quality to FM, if not better!
Regards,
Goran Tomas
From my perspective, 96K mp3's on Ipods blow Sirius/XM away from a quality standpoint. I think this may actually sound worse than AM IBOC...both swish (at least to a degree), but the AM IBOC probably has more high end.The F Mister said:
I keep it because Mrs. Cyberdad likes the Oprah channel and some of the other stuff.
For myself, I'm flat-out appalled at how lousy the audio quality is on the music channels. While the talk channels are old school telephone landline quality....at best.
What an unfortunate joke this has become!
I first experienced XM shortly after their rollout in a rental car in San Diego. I flipped between XM and FM and thought the audio quality was reasonably comparable. Now, there's no comparison whatsoever.
There is, however a solution....if you want to pay for it. You can get high quality streaming on your computer or smart phone. I've found myself actually bypassing the satellite to listen to satellite radio in my wife's car. That's what it's come to. That's how awful and grating satellite radio audio quality has become.
Oh....of course of you pay extra for streaming audio, after a period of time (2 hours IIRC), XM's timers will kick you off the stream that you've paid extra to listen to! ???
More choices/better quality/more enjoyment with streaming. Why would anyone....at least any music listener.... want XM?
For myself, I'm flat-out appalled at how lousy the audio quality is on the music channels. While the talk channels are old school telephone landline quality....at best.
What an unfortunate joke this has become!
I first experienced XM shortly after their rollout in a rental car in San Diego. I flipped between XM and FM and thought the audio quality was reasonably comparable. Now, there's no comparison whatsoever.
There is, however a solution....if you want to pay for it. You can get high quality streaming on your computer or smart phone. I've found myself actually bypassing the satellite to listen to satellite radio in my wife's car. That's what it's come to. That's how awful and grating satellite radio audio quality has become.
Oh....of course of you pay extra for streaming audio, after a period of time (2 hours IIRC), XM's timers will kick you off the stream that you've paid extra to listen to! ???
More choices/better quality/more enjoyment with streaming. Why would anyone....at least any music listener.... want XM?
Sadly, if the bright boys that dreamed both systems up would have followed the FCC mandate for cross-compatibility, they'd have an option to combine the two system's bandwidth together and not duplicate programming on both systems, therefore they'd have room to produce something that sounds better than a tin-can-and-string. Oh well. I'd rather have FM analog radio anyday.
I agree with everyone here, although I can't hoestly say it's gotten any worse over the past year or two. I thought the quality was sad from the beginning. I have noticed though that their audio processing is a little better now on XM. The original processing didn't sound like it was even multiband processing. Either it's been set better or replaced. The music channels don't sound bad using their internet stream. I used to have two radios. I cancelled the one and added the internet option on the one remaining, so now I can listen to it anywhere with my laptop or phone.
celar said:
Not that silly, really. The lacking of these algorithms tends to show up much more quickly in speech (which has less masked and irrelevant audio) than music, which tends to provide a better mask and allow things to be discarded with less obvious degradation. New algorithms currently being worked on actually detect the difference, and apply an entirely different type of compression to speech than to music.
Nope, seriously listen to Howard 100 and the other talk stations. It has full 15k or so audio, the other talkers roll off around 5-6k and sound like AM. Even when there are spots played or music, it does sound different.
And who is listening to what more, Howard 100 or the Bluegrass channel?
And wouldn't it make sense to allocate the most bandwidth to the highest profile channel? So when people go check it out they don't have the no high end swishy experience? The codec allows for dynamically changing the bandwidth amongst ALL of the channels on the bird, not just on a one-by one basis.
I also had my (only) encounter with satellite radio in a rental car. It was an XM service, and the very first thing I noticed was the poor audio. It sounded like there were holes in the frequency spectrum.
After about 4 hours, I started to notice repetition in the playlist on the country channels. If a terrestrial PD was told that their average listener tunes in for 5 hours at a time, would they repeat songs that quickly? Not unless it was a CHR format!
If the sound quality on a Sirius receiver is even worse than XM, I'll be sure to stay away from Sirius receivers.
After about 4 hours, I started to notice repetition in the playlist on the country channels. If a terrestrial PD was told that their average listener tunes in for 5 hours at a time, would they repeat songs that quickly? Not unless it was a CHR format!
If the sound quality on a Sirius receiver is even worse than XM, I'll be sure to stay away from Sirius receivers.
listner1 said:
I agree that the audio has been lousy (XM)....but not getting worse....over the last couple of years. But my memory is that when they were first were getting started, the audio was quite a bit better than it is now. Then they started adding channels, and the sound quality on the music channels took a major hit.
- Status