• 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

SIRIUS VS XM - SOUND QUALITY

A

acheron1982

Got a question for you guys and this may have been touched on before.

Sirius vs XM?

Which one has better sound quality?

Will reciever device impact sound quality? If so, which do you recommend? (phone is out of the question due to data charges).

Do you forsee improvements in sound quality for any of these providers?
 
I thought XM (in a Escalade) sounded better than Sirius (in a Range Rover)... With no data caps, I use Sirius IR...
 
Factory Chrysler Sirius (2012) radio sounds like crap with swirly twangy music; old XM plug and play sounds a lot better than the in-dash POS Sirius, in my ears opinion.
 
Both Sirius and XM sound pretty terrible to be honest.

Even the web stream doesn't sound that great when you think about how much a person has to pay for it.
 
There was a time that the music channels had cd quality or close to it. But now almost all of the Siruis channels are of poor audio quality. I notice the biggest difference when I switch to FM. The FM is so full and natural sounding. Sat radio had a poor Internet sound. The only reason I get it is because it is a free trial with a new car. I never will pay for it because I paid for upgraded speakers in the car and putting crap audio on good speakers does not make the audio sound better!!!
 
Now that Sirius and XM have merged; their combined number of channels have exceeded the satellite's capability to provide CD-like quality. There is just not enough bandwidth to house the number of channels that they do and still provide quality audio.
 
faaradar said:
Now that Sirius and XM have merged; their combined number of channels have exceeded the satellite's capability to provide CD-like quality. There is just not enough bandwidth to house the number of channels that they do and still provide quality audio.
Click to expand...

You are confused. The company airs many of the channels on two networks.
This is what Satrad 2.0 is about, combining both 12½MHz wide spectrum slices into a single 25MHz wide chunk.
 
"This is what SDARS '2.0' is about, combining both 12 1/2 MHz spectrum slices into a single 25 MHz chunk."
Click to expand...

Which they will still figure out a way to overload, like they've done with the existing 12.5 MHz bands, so even with the wider spectrum everything'll still come out overly-compressed and bit-starved. I guarantee that'll happen. Where there's a will, there's a way. After all, these days it's quantity, not quality, that counts.

Makes me glad I'll never give the SDARS monopoly any of my money.
 
WJPYFM said:
There was a time that the music channels had cd quality or close to it. But now almost all of the Siruis channels are of poor audio quality. I notice the biggest difference when I switch to FM. The FM is so full and natural sounding. Sat radio had a poor Internet sound. The only reason I get it is because it is a free trial with a new car. I never will pay for it because I paid for upgraded speakers in the car and putting crap audio on good speakers does not make the audio sound better!!!
Click to expand...

There was NEVER a time the channels were close to CD quality. I've been on board with Sirius since 2004, and the audio at first on many music channels was splashy, rumbly -- all over the place. Over time it got a lot better (still not CD quality) then it got a little worse -- where it is now. I listen at work online with earbuds and at home in the bedroom with a custom boombox for the old Audiovox PNP3 and it's good enough. The online stream isn't bad, and streaming in the car sounds better than the car dock for the PNP3.
Don't get me wrong; I like good sound. For most purposes, this is not great but it's good enough for casual listening. I have my home stereo and music library for the real hi fi fun. :)
 
Yes D_V, they will add things like mobile video, which MobaHO! had from the getgo, and we know what happened to MobaHO!, but of course Japan has been more high teck for a long time.
 
ai4i said:
faaradar said:
Now that Sirius and XM have merged; their combined number of channels have exceeded the satellite's capability to provide CD-like quality. There is just not enough bandwidth to house the number of channels that they do and still provide quality audio.
Click to expand...

You are confused. The company airs many of the channels on two networks.
This is what Satrad 2.0 is about, combining both 12½MHz wide spectrum slices into a single 25MHz wide chunk.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're using two networks and multiple satellites; but I still submit that the company is forcing too many channels for whatever infrastructure they operate. My experience with Sirius tells me that since the merger, more channels have appeared and sound quality has significantly decreased. Even their telephone retail sales people are aware. I had a nice lady try to offer the service to me for $4.95 per month and I politely declined as the I told her the audio quality wasn't worth that price. She just laughed and said, "I know, I'm so sorry."

Not her fault.

I will be eager to see what the quality of the audio is after the bandwidth increase. Thanks for the correction.
 
Honestly, most people have proven that they are fine with internet streaming sound quality. Most listen to compressed streams on their smart phones quite often, so it's kind of become the accepted norm. (Not really that many audiophiles left). Therefore, most would rather have more content with lower sound quality on satellite, rather than a limited number of channels with CD type sound.
 
BRH said:
Honestly, most people have proven that they are fine with internet streaming sound quality. Most listen to compressed streams on their smart phones quite often, so it's kind of become the accepted norm. (Not really that many audiophiles left). Therefore, most would rather have more content with lower sound quality on satellite, rather than a limited number of channels with CD type sound.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, at all, with your assessment. Personally, I think that the internet stream on my iphone sounds better than the quality over the satellite.
 
Maybe it's just a generational thing, but I hate the sound of 'typical' MP3's and grungy poorly digitized music and voice. I would rather have 'AM quality' analog audio that is pleasing to the ears, even if it has hiss, fading, or slight noise, my brain can filter that out, but I can't restore missing digital bits.
 
I can't speak for the web stream but I think XM2.0 is the way to go such as with the edge for sound qualety. You'll get less of a stereo immage then you would with serius, but it wont sound swerly either. It'll also have a better frequency response then XM1.0. XM1.0 is your second best choice for sound folowed by serius which whild having wider stereo imaging, swerls like crazy. I've also noticed that some of the big beats will be chopped off sometimes on serius as in the drumbs of the songs.. Not a single one comes close to wide-band AM, FM or cd qualety audio in my opinion..
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom