XM Sound Quality

[LA_Guy]

XM Does process...

They have racks and racks of Omnia processors - just like the typical FM station.

Personally, the processing they do sounds worse then any artifacts I hear. They use AAC for coding, which is the best available at low bit rates. In my car (Roady 2) I can't hear artifacts, but sure can hear procesisng!. At Home (Skyfi 1 hooked to a GOOD system), the artifacts become audible - but the processing is even more audible.

For casual listening though XM sounds pretty good - and their programming blows away FM radio.



> > > The biggest improvement is that your local stations
> > process
> > > the hell out of the music they play. They boost the
> lows
> > > and highs and maintain the volume at a consistantly high
>
> > > level.
> >
> > I can't stand that! Horrible. I can care less what a
> > spectrum analyzer says. I like the quality and it sounds
> > nice in my car. That's what really matters to me. Some
> > people like how fm processes the audio. It's all personal
> > preference.
> >
> I am an audiophile (I am more probably sensitive to sound
> more than 99% of the public) and I have noticed a difference
> in he channels. Some music channels sound more muddy. The
> talk stations are really cut down.
>
> With that said, I really appreciate that XM does not process
> their sound like FM. I find it increasingly difficult to
> listen to the FM processing after adjusting to the XM sound.
> This poses additional problems for FM in the future.
>

 

[listner2]

Re: XM Does process...

> They have racks and racks of Omnia processors - just like
> the typical FM station.
>
> Personally, the processing they do sounds worse then any
> artifacts I hear. They use AAC for coding, which is the best
> available at low bit rates. In my car (Roady 2) I can't hear
> artifacts, but sure can hear procesisng!. At Home (Skyfi 1
> hooked to a GOOD system), the artifacts become audible - but
> the processing is even more audible.
>
> For casual listening though XM sounds pretty good - and
> their programming blows away FM radio.

Have to agree with you there! The artifacts are sometimes not real noticable, but if you do an A/B test with like the AOL Radio or Direct TV it becomes more apparent.

Sounds like on the talk channels they are doing more broadband AGC with a real slow release time and not much multiband processing. Of course I would think it would sound much better with a small amount of AGC with a quick release time and more multiband processing which is less noticable. For example, listen to Open Road when they put phone calls on the air. They must peg the meters on the console with the callers. You hear the processing grab it and bring it way down, then it takes forever to release back to where you can hear it again.]

I like listening to WLW which is on now, but it sounds like they are trying some kind of spacial enhancement, and it sounds like it's being fed through the roll in the center of a roll of toilet paper!
>
>
>
> > > > The biggest improvement is that your local stations
> > > process
> > > > the hell out of the music they play. They boost the
> > lows
> > > > and highs and maintain the volume at a consistantly
> high
> >
> > > > level.
> > >
> > > I can't stand that! Horrible. I can care less what a
> > > spectrum analyzer says. I like the quality and it sounds
>
> > > nice in my car. That's what really matters to me. Some
> > > people like how fm processes the audio. It's all
> personal
> > > preference.
> > >
> > I am an audiophile (I am more probably sensitive to sound
> > more than 99% of the public) and I have noticed a
> difference
> > in he channels. Some music channels sound more muddy. The
> > talk stations are really cut down.
> >
> > With that said, I really appreciate that XM does not
> process
> > their sound like FM. I find it increasingly difficult to
> > listen to the FM processing after adjusting to the XM
> sound.
> > This poses additional problems for FM in the future.
> >
>

 

[THEInsultant]

Re: XM Sound Quality - it is different.

> > > most web streams sound better than any xm channel
> >
> > In most cases I think you're right. Many times the XM
> > on-line streams sound better and clearer than the audio I
> > get on the MyFi.
> >
> The major difference between FM and XM is the high
> frequencies. If you don't have your system set to reveal
> alot of high end, XM may sound fine. If you do have your
> high end up, you will notice (with or without audio
> processing) FM is WAY cleaner than XM. Of course FM is only
> transmitting one analog signal, and XM has how ever many
> hundereds of channels in the digital space they should only
> be transmitting a few. I think they should have put some
> more sats up or something so they could do better quality
> before they add channels.
>
> I agree, many internet streams sound better than xm now. The
> XM channels on AOL Radio sound real nice!
>

I have to agree the sound quality on XM is a dissapointment. Their streaming on the higher setting DOES sound cleaner than most of the sat channels. Still, having the right format is appealing to me. Too bad they can't squeeze more out of what bandwidth they own with a better codec.

<P ID="signature">______________
--- THE Insultant ---</P>

 

[Ai4i]

> ...the average consumer could care less about a spectrum analyzer.

I am confused.
Do you mean that the average consumer cares about the spectrum analyzer and therefore "could care less" than they do because they care about them.
Or, do you mean the opposite of what you said, that they really do not care about the spectrum analyzer and therefore could not care less.

Who was it who once said that to mean what we say, we must say what we mean, or was that to say what we mean, we must mean what we say?<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>

 

[mikl73]

Re: XM Sound Quality - it is different.

> > > > most web streams sound better than any xm channel
> > >
> > > In most cases I think you're right. Many times the XM
> > > on-line streams sound better and clearer than the audio
> I
> > > get on the MyFi.
> > >
> > The major difference between FM and XM is the high
> > frequencies. If you don't have your system set to reveal
> > alot of high end, XM may sound fine. If you do have your
> > high end up, you will notice (with or without audio
> > processing) FM is WAY cleaner than XM. Of course FM is
> only
> > transmitting one analog signal, and XM has how ever many
> > hundereds of channels in the digital space they should
> only
> > be transmitting a few. I think they should have put some
> > more sats up or something so they could do better quality
> > before they add channels.
> >
> > I agree, many internet streams sound better than xm now.
> The
> > XM channels on AOL Radio sound real nice!
> >
>
> I have to agree the sound quality on XM is a dissapointment.
> Their streaming on the higher setting DOES sound cleaner
> than most of the sat channels. Still, having the right
> format is appealing to me. Too bad they can't squeeze more
> out of what bandwidth they own with a better codec.
>

they could but they chooose a codec that doesnt allow it
in many discussions the use of the OGG codec is meantioned many times
i can testify from my on streaming online that OGG is better then xm's codec at low bitrates.

but they picked something and put money into it... OGG is open source and big commercial ventures like to spend money among things. They also like to have someone the can blame for lackings and failures.