# XM and Sirius sound quality



## syd7890

Does anyone know how XM and Sirius compare to one another in sound quality, and how it compares to FM stereo. I'm considering Sirius for my home stereo and I'm a little concerened about sound quality. I'm guessing that it's not on par with CD quality or MP3's with a decent bit rate, but I wouldn't want anything less than what you get off the satellite tv channels or FM.


----------



## davetroy

I've only had XM in my car, playing through an FM modulator. Sound quality is about the same as FM.


As for Sirius, I've only had it at home, and only for a short while. My unit is the SR-H550. Sound quality on the classical stations, with good interconnects, is better than FM but not nearly as good as CD. Sound quality on the pop and jazz stations is somewhere between AM and FM. There's a world of difference. Personally, if I didn't listen only to classical, there's no way I could deal with the sound on the rock, pop and jazz stations.


----------



## MattBarstow

I honestly think that XM is a lot better than Sirius. I have had both in my car and actually like the quality of XM a lot better.


----------



## mngmikes

i've had both xm GM factory and sirius kenwood head units in my car and to be honest i found the sirius dropped out less around large buildings and had better sound!


----------



## Tweak48




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syd7890* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does anyone know how XM and Sirius compare to one another in sound quality, and how it compares to FM stereo. I'm considering Sirius for my home stereo and I'm a little concerened about sound quality. I'm guessing that it's not on par with CD quality or MP3's with a decent bit rate, but I wouldn't want anything less than what you get off the satellite tv channels or FM.



I run Sirius (via DISH net box) through a fairly high end 2 channel system and it sounds VERY good. I also run it through my autos.


Sirius is not as good as a factory CD played on a respectable ($500) CD player.


Sirius is better than any MP3 I have ever heard.


Sirius compared to my $700 FM tuner with roof antenna is not quite as good when tuned to the very best FM stations, but otherwise is as good. This is because must FM stations have fairly low standards for SQ and overcompress to maintain dial visability.


Sirius is better than any mobile mobile FM setup because of the absolute lack of mulitipath distortion and resulting phase shift in the audio signal.


I have heard both auto and home XM set-ups and they sound very good also.


----------



## ldavid20

Would Sirus or XM be better for a Sports bar loud noise because of crowd (so does quality matter when you have to blast the audio?)


----------



## narcispy

I have xm in my car though my pretty expensive stereo system Alpine deck to the xm tuner and I've been dissapointed at times, to me the FM channels sound a lot better especially in the highs. The only time I hear sirius is at work though our in home receiver but the quality seems a lot better. I called up xm the other week to complain about their sound quality in order to cancel my account and ended up getting 4 months free of the service (I will end up quitting afterwards).


----------



## aidano

People are always surprised when I tell them that the sound quality of Sirius through my Kenwood Excelon headunit is nowhere near as good as CD. It's close to FM except without any hiss.


----------



## theyhateme459

I have sirius in my car and house and I think the quality is very good!


----------



## MattBarstow

I'm surprised how many people really prefer Sirius. I'm a tried and true XM fan.


----------



## Bob Z

After a couple of years of having Sirius at home and in the car, I decided to get satellite radio for my business. Unfortunately, the business requires a commercial subscription, not a residential one. After finding out that the Sirius commercial sub allows only the music channels and not anything else while XM allows everything. I went with XM.


Like others have said, a good CD will beat Sirius. But after listening to XM's music channels, Sirius is far superior! After listening to Sirius, XM sounds like someone encased my speakers in a tin can.


I'll keep XM for the areas in my business I spend less time in, but for the place I spend most of my hours, I may have to break down and get a Sirius commercial account. It's that bad.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bob Z* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> After a couple of years of having Sirius at home and in the car, I decided to get satellite radio for my business. Unfortunately, the business requires a commercial subscription, not a residential one. After finding out that the Sirius commercial sub allows only the music channels and not anything else while XM allows everything. I went with XM.
> 
> 
> Like others have said, a good CD will beat Sirius. But after listening to XM's music channels, Sirius is far superior! After listening to Sirius, XM sounds like someone encased my speakers in a tin can.
> 
> 
> I'll keep XM for the areas in my business I spend less time in, but for the place I spend most of my hours, I may have to break down and get a Sirius commercial account. It's that bad.



You're comparing the sound of the two services on two different systems, how do you know that Sirius would not sound just as bad on the business system or that XM would not sound better at home or in the car.


The only reason I ask is that most comparisons have not yielded the same results as yours.


Pat


----------



## AALLOCA

I have 2 rcvrs in my car.... sportser and streamer.... both through fm out with terresterial antenna taken off.


I know that it will probably improve with a hard wire setup which I intend when I get a new car.


When I used to take these in and feed them via aux out into my stereo it was thing and low quality.


Now I use Dish Networks feed in my home of most of the Sirius Channels minus Howard is superb. Sounds as good as any cd. I use Logic 7 processing and it comes out full with deep bass and clarity. Volume is perfect.


I was told this improvement was due to increase in bandwidth size given by gov to TV satellites versus radio.


Only complaint is its missing howard. Which I still hear in car albeit less quality on audio


XM have heard over at a friends though Dish and it was good quality, however I find their music programming to be lacking in 80's new wave/rock and singersongwriter rock.


----------



## Bob Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pat6366* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You're comparing the sound of the two services on two different systems, how do you know that Sirius would not sound just as bad on the business system or that XM would not sound better at home or in the car.
> 
> 
> The only reason I ask is that most comparisons have not yielded the same results as yours.
> 
> 
> Pat



Because I've tried the Sirius equipment in my office before. I just can't leave it there during business hours without a commercial account.


Also, the car system is using an FM mod over the Ford factory equipment (not even JBL). It still sounds better than XM direct wired.


Sorry I didn't make all that info available in the previous post.


----------



## barbie845

Sirius FM Mod sounds better then XM direct connect?


I refuse to get into yet another SQ discussion but I must say this: Check Please!!


----------



## jasonblair

My sister got Sirius free in her Chrysler 300c Hemi for a year. All I have to say is I am glad I never bought into sat radio! The bitrates were awful on all stations! It sounded like a Realplayer audio stream over a slow internet connection... kind of like a 92kbps mp3... or lower. I'll take FM sound quality over it any day


----------



## xzitony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jasonblair* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My sister got Sirius free in her Chrysler 300c Hemi for a year. All I have to say is I am glad I never bought into sat radio! The bitrates were awful on all stations! It sounded like a Realplayer audio stream over a slow internet connection... kind of like a 92kbps mp3... or lower. I'll take FM sound quality over it any day



SQ over content, eh? An old debate










Commercials do sound great on FM and HD Radio though, I will give you that


----------



## fuddvd

I own both in my big rig,They are about the same in sound quality IMO, but sirius has better signal coverage. Traveling down the Columbia gorge in Oregon on I-84 I loose xm but sirius is fine. I've noticed the same problem occurring with any obstruction covering the south horizon with xm.I imagine it has to do with xm having stationary satellites.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bob Z* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> After a couple of years of having Sirius at home and in the car, I decided to get satellite radio for my business. Unfortunately, the business requires a commercial subscription, not a residential one. After finding out that the Sirius commercial sub allows only the music channels and not anything else while XM allows everything. I went with XM.
> 
> 
> Like others have said, a good CD will beat Sirius. But after listening to XM's music channels, Sirius is far superior! After listening to Sirius, XM sounds like someone encased my speakers in a tin can.
> 
> 
> I'll keep XM for the areas in my business I spend less time in, but for the place I spend most of my hours, I may have to break down and get a Sirius commercial account. It's that bad.




bob how would sirius know where your installing it.


----------



## HDDVD2344

i have Sirius in my car and i love it!


----------



## bigrig

From my car's head unit (Clarion DXZ735MP, with optional Sirius tuner), here is how I would rank sound quality:

CD - 192kbps MP3 - FM - Sirius


Matt


----------



## psyduck103

I must have received a bad unit. Polk xrt12 It sounded like a cross between AM radio and a cell phone.The compression and low bit rate made me feel like I couldn't breath. Digital cable radio blows it out of the water. By the way; Hi this is my first post.


----------



## pernar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *psyduck103* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I must have received a bad unit. Polk xrt12 It sounded like a cross between AM radio and a cell phone.The compression and low bit rate made me feel like I couldn't breath. Digital cable radio blows it out of the water. By the way; Hi this is my first post.



Well, some of the talk stations are pretty highly compressed.


The music stations vary in quality, based on popularity and type of programming (e.g. the metal station is more heavily compressed than the top few rock channels). Specifically, "Classic Rewind" sounds close to CD quality to my ears. "Hard Attack" is nowhere close.


I had XM for about 8 months, and the only thing they have on Sirius IMO is better stereo seperation. The sound quality itself and the programming are FAR better on Sirius. I do miss Cinemagic though.


----------



## Bob Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> bob how would sirius know where your installing it.



When I said "my business", I mean it is actually my business. I own it. I'm the boss, complete with employees. Now, I try to keep the employees happy (f'instance, I make sure all the employees have health insurance, no matter what my cost is, and I keep the fridge fully stocked with beer and other liquid refreshment for after hours use







), but I have to acknowledge the ability to be ratted out exists.


Many OSHA complaints start from disgruntled ex-employees, too.


----------



## mdrums

I have had both Sirus and XM.

For programing I prefer:

XM Comody and the traffic stations

Sirus for the music and sports stations and the songs they play


I feel that on the music stations though that XM sounds better

On the talk stations XM definity sounds better.


----------



## wid3angle

Whether Sirius or XM, sound quality comes nowher near CD. FM modulation just makes things worse.


This is simply another case of providers pushing as much content as they can through limited bandwith. The same goes for satellite TV as well as cable. They believe its fine to trade off quality for more content.


----------



## jaledyehya

Hi Everybody.

I have had both services for a while. maybe this is helpful for somebody


sound quaility.......I think XM has better quality when you play music channel but when you go to sport, news some talks is almost the same thing.


About talks shows.....definitive sirius is the pioneer on that


About Latin music....nothing compares to XM......special not too much repetition compare to sirius.


About commercials.....definitive XM put more commercial in their service that sirius


the rest is almost the same in their service.


----------



## captain_japan

You really can't compare the sound quality of SIRIUS from DISH Network or XM from DirecTV, because your satellite receiver is not receiving the lower bitrate signals from the SIRIUS/XM satellites. The receivers' signals are coming directly from a hardline high bitrate repeater system from SIRIUS and XM's headquarters. Therefore, there cannot be a comparison there.


You also run into a problem when you take a signal compressed with a proprietary algorithm...then captured (by DirecTV's satellites) and recompressed with DirecTV/DISH Network's proprietary encoding. Compression is much more noticeable. This is why separate streams are provided.


To compare it to television: it's like someone judging a broadcast NBC station's quality, rabbit-ears or off-air versus cable, which is relayed through a higher-quality network of systems.


----------



## keithaxis

all i can say is that after a year I got rid of XM solelyl due to the terrible terrible sound quality...you cannot listen to it at home if you have any kind of quality system and you get fatigued at higher volumes in the vehicle...I was very disappointed in the sound quality, enough to say no more...


I now have an Ipod using Apple Lossless and wow....there is something that sounds close to cd quality


Axis


----------



## HDDVD2344

yeah i have Sirius in my car and the sound quality is great!


----------



## bigrig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDDVD2344* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> yeah i have Sirius in my car and the sound quality is great!



Huh! They must send you the secret higher bitrate channels!


----------



## bhummel2001

I have 6 XM subscriptions, but I still think their sound quality stinks. It is OK for the car, and portable devices, but forget it for the home.


If you have a high quality audio system, then you will dislike the sound of XM going through it.


Too much compression.


I just got a Pioneer Inno and I hate it. Worse sound quality of any portable that I have owned. Looks neat, but sounds lousy.


----------



## dstroot

I just bought two new cars, with Sirius capability "built in". I have never had sat radio before but from the advertizing I thought it was CD-quality. I activated the service in one of the vehicles yesterday to try it out.


I also have:


FM/AM

CD

iPod Integration


The results were similar to an earlier poster:


#1) CD

#2) iPod (decent bitrates)

#3) FM

#4) Sirius (no hiss, no mulipath, but still sounds like streaming audio on the internet, quite compressed - sports talk shows were terrible)


I was surprised by the variablity in SQ on Sirius as well. Now for the content vs SQ issue I DO like the content! So in the end I may keep it, but NOT for the SQ which I found to be dissapointing.


HTH,


Dan


----------



## dnewhous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *syd7890* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does anyone know how XM and Sirius compare to one another in sound quality, and how it compares to FM stereo. I'm considering Sirius for my home stereo and I'm a little concerened about sound quality. I'm guessing that it's not on par with CD quality or MP3's with a decent bit rate, but I wouldn't want anything less than what you get off the satellite tv channels or FM.



There are a bunch of homers being paid by Sirius to go to forums and brag about how good it sounds. My only experience with Sirius was a free 3 day internet trial which I also did with XM. XM offerred 64 kbps WMA, Sirius offerred 27 kbps WMA. Why does Sirius only offer such a low bitrate on the internet radio? Because they can't offer any better. With the bitrate and audio codec they are using (PAC at 48 kbps or 32 kbps, I've seen claims for both bitrates) they just can't deliver in the sound quality department.


From the honest people on these forums it's clear that XM sounds slightly inferior to analog FM and Sirius sounds like AM radio without all the noise.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There are a bunch of homers being paid by Sirius to go to forums and brag about how good it sounds. My only experience with Sirius was a free 3 day internet trial which I also did with XM. XM offerred 64 kbps WMA, Sirius offerred 27 kbps WMA. Why does Sirius only offer such a low bitrate on the internet radio? Because they can't offer any better. With the bitrate and audio codec they are using (PAC at 48 kbps or 32 kbps, I've seen claims for both bitrates) they just can't deliver in the sound quality department.
> 
> 
> From the honest people on these forums it's clear that XM sounds slightly inferior to analog FM and Sirius sounds like AM radio without all the noise.




You talk about being Honest,

then post nothing but BS......


sirius streams at 128-132kbps online for an extra 2.99 a month...


and saying that sirius pays people to pump it's product makes you sound like a Homer and is laugable at best!


----------



## dnewhous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You talk about being Honest,
> 
> then post nothing but BS......
> 
> 
> sirius streams at 128-132kbps online for an extra 2.99 a month...



The "CD quality" online service is a new thing. I'm pleasantly surprised by that. It's surprising that they would offer an online service that sounds better than the satellite broadcast. But the online stream isn't going to do any good in your car. Are you suggesting the satellite stream is the same quality? You can measure the bit rate of the satellite channels by the amount of time you get recording to a portable device.


Please tell, what codec are they using for the "CD quality" online stream? I doubt you know what "codec" means.


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The "CD quality" online service is a new thing. I'm pleasantly surprised by that. It's surprising that they would offer an online service that sounds better than the satellite broadcast. But the online stream isn't going to do any good in your car. Are you suggesting the satellite stream is the same quality? You can measure the bit rate of the satellite channels by the amount of time you get recording to a portable device.
> 
> 
> Please tell, what codec are they using for the "CD quality" online stream? I doubt you know what "codec" means.




you deliberately gave false information.


desperation I guess!


----------



## dnewhous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mercury* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> you deliberately gave false information.
> 
> 
> desperation I guess!



I accidentally gave false information because of a bad assumption - they would never offer internet radio service that sounded better than the satellite service.


----------



## Kysersose

Stop with the accusations please.


----------



## barbie845

Neither service is CD quality, online or on a radio. Also neither service advertises that they are CD quality, they advertise 'digital' quality which may be seen as misleading, but it is true. My cell phone is digital, but the SQ is worst than awful.


----------



## Oinky Mac

I made my choice based on programming. Mainstream reviewers often gloss over the programming differences, saying both services offer pretty much the same thing. But XM has a great acoustic rock lineup with XM Cafe, The Loft, and Hear Music. I couldn't find that on Sirius.


----------



## Figgie




----------



## ashardin

I think one of the important things to remember is you have to take into account the audio systems the sat. radio is going through. Anyone running through an FM modulator in the vehicle is killing their SQ, no matter how the original broadcast sounded.


I cannot speak to Sirius' SQ other than a few demos, but I'm very pleased with the performance of XM in both of my vehicles. My truck has a Pioneer AVHD-P6500DVD Head Unit with the Pioneer XM tuner hardwired (GEX-910 I think, I'm not positive). This is output into my 1400 watt system with 2 pairs of infinity components, separate midbass, and dual IDMAX 12's and I'm very happy with the sound. My car has a lower end Pioneer deck and the cheaper Terk interface with Kicker Components and it sounds very good as well.


Just make sure you are comparing apples to apples. I'm sure both systems sound pretty crappy in stock systems. But everything sounds crappy in those!


----------



## espresso_1967

I need someone to clarify something for me. I stream Sirius from my DishHD recieve into my computer and record some of the shows on Area 33. I have been saving them as 320kbps but was told they are not 320kbps but more like 192kbps, is this correct or am I missing something here? Any info is appreciated.


----------



## bhummel2001




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *espresso_1967* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I need someone to clarify something for me. I stream Sirius from my DishHD recieve into my computer and record some of the shows on Area 33. I have been saving them as 320kbps but was told they are not 320kbps but more like 192kbps, is this correct or am I missing something here? Any info is appreciated.




Sounds like you are trying to build a library.... Don't waste your time trying to save Sirius or XM songs.


Reason #1 They run them all together so mp3's sound awful with the breaks at the start and end.


Reason #2 Sound quality is marginal. Get Rhapsody if you want to build a great collection of QUALITY mp3's. 9.99 a month for all you can eat. TUNEBITE lets you locate your downloaded files whereever YOU want to put them.


I think I picked up 1200+ complete CD's in the first 5 weeks. I am now paying for 3 simultaneous Rhapsody subscriptions. I handed them out for Christmas presents. I got tired of my teenagers paying a dollar a song to iTunes or whomever.


I am averaging 1 cent per CD. GREAT sound quality and a most reasonable price I think you will agree.


----------



## espresso_1967

No actually that is not what im doing, I dont collect single tracks but DJ Mixes from Area 33, trance, house etc. but my question was exactly that, I save the mixes through sound forge at 320kbps so is it really 320kbps or 192kbps as it was pointed out to me. The stream is coming from DishHD reciever directly into my computer so the sound, in my opinion is great. Just want to know if I should be saving them at 192 or 320kbps.


----------



## dnewhous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bhummel2001* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Reason #2 Sound quality is marginal. Get Rhapsody if you want to build a great collection of QUALITY mp3's. 9.99 a month for all you can eat. TUNEBITE lets you locate your downloaded files whereever YOU want to put them.



You confim what was speculated when this service was announced: that they take the satellite stream and re-encode it to a higher bandwidth stream.


----------



## espresso_1967




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *espresso_1967* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I need someone to clarify something for me. I stream Sirius from my DishHD recieve into my computer and record some of the shows on Area 33. I have been saving them as 320kbps but was told they are not 320kbps but more like 192kbps, is this correct or am I missing something here? Any info is appreciated.



Ok maybe I was not clear, what I need to know is the compression of Sirius on Dish Network as I have been told that the recordings I do from Dish network are not 320kbps but more like 192kbps. I record shows from Area 33 from my DishHD reciever into my computer and save the files to 320kbps using Sound Forge 7.0. I have a friend that ran a few spectrum analysis and tells me that my files are not 320kbps but more like 192kbps. So at this point the quality lays from the Dish reciever that im recieving, so if anyone knows anything about the quality of stream that might be coming from the Dish Network, please post any info.


Thanks in advance


----------



## aegrotatio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I accidentally gave false information because of a bad assumption - they would never offer internet radio service that sounded better than the satellite service.



Whether it is intentional or not the online streaming and DiSH Network/DirecTV qualities may sound better or not depending on the listener. Sirius and XM aren't intentionally trying to make any particularly delivery platform sound better or worse, but they are trying to get the best they can out of all platforms. Each platform has unique characteristics.


For example, DiSH Network and DirecTV have to convert the signal to Musicam (MPEG layer-2) format. The audio source needs to be processed to take maximum advantage of the Musicam codec or it sounds poorly. A similar processing technique is used for the online WMA stream and the online RealPlayer streams, one tuned for the low bitrate service and one tuned for the high bitrate service. And of course the satellite platform using PAC at different bitrates for each class of channel.


XM Radio has a little more work because they deliver over a couple more platforms: XM Online using WMA at low bit rate, WMA at high bit rate, AOL Radio AAC at low bit rate, AOL Radio AAC on high bit rate, DirecTV using one bitrate on Musicam (MP2). And, like Sirius, the satellite platform on AACplus at different bitrates for each class of channel (talk, niche music, pop music, etc.).


The characteristics of the resultant sound are different from the processing and compression used with the codec used on the satellites. I much prefer the DiSH Network/DirecTV audio quality to any other source but that is entirely subjective!!


You should be interested to know that the online streaming channels are all at the same two bitrates. All DirecTV and DiSH Network channels are at a single 192k (Musicam) bitrate. The satellite radio channels are at different bitrates ranging from 16kbps-64kbps. Each platform uses a different codec so the bitrates are only interesting for the bandwidth consumed. Audio quality is totally subjective at this point.


----------



## aegrotatio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You confim what was speculated when this service was announced: that they take the satellite stream and re-encode it to a higher bandwidth stream.



This is completely untrue.

The online stream is source differently. It has nothing to do with the satellite stream except for the audio source.


----------



## rf75

Have Sirius, XM, DirecTV, and broadband ('net streams of both services; hi-quality Sirius option).


In order of perceived AUDIO quality (better music channels):


Sirius hi-q net stream

XM DirecTV (but frequent drop-outs)

XM Satellite (Delphi Roady)

XM subscriber net stream

Sirius Satellite (Audiovox)

Sirius regular (subscriber) net stream

XM AOL Radio (barely listenable)


FM radio fits between the XM satellite and net streams IMO. Real FM, with multipath and negligible dynamics, not what FM could be if anyone cared.


The sat streams are highly compressed and hard to listen to in a high-resolution situation (headphones in a quiet room) but adequate for the car. The DirecTV streams of XM are still easily recognized as compressed, and depending on the music and your ears may not be enjoyable quality-wise.


That said, non-commercial-interrupted humanly-programmed music is so compelling I can't decide which sat radio system to drop.


I find better talk choices on Sirius and much better music programming on XM. But I'm easily bored by the consultant-ed tested never-unfamiliar programming on nearly all FM and 94% of Sirius.


----------



## Trebor Pyn

IMO


I have XM over Directv.......Digital connection(optical).....poor sound experience through higher end system. My MP3 player sounds as good through headphone jack. I have not been impressed with the play list or the talk,talk,talk.....I know I am listening to XM.


6 month sub /Sirius came with my 06 F150

Stock HU......sounds great......i never listen to FM/AM anymore and rarely listen to the CD player. Some channels sound better than others.....Area 33 , the Beat , Jazz channels sound almost CD quality........70's, Roadhouse country, sound more like FM.


I went ahead and paid for a 3 year sub.


Although not very high quality, I really enjoy streaming online at work.


I would assume that the differing opinions here have to do with the equipment being used and how it is intergraded into your sound system.


XM or Sirius......Dtv or Dish......satellite is my cup of tea

Trebor


----------



## Art Sonneborn

I have Sirius in my new Mercedes. The sound quality is way way below CD and rather repetitive. Still I'm keeping it since ,although the quality is low with tons of channels to change to, it gives more more variety than I would have without.


Art


----------



## ZinMe

I have XM Radio and I think the sound quality is quite poor. I have not compared to Sirius. I have noticed that some channels sound substantially better than other channels on XM-- I'm not sure why that is, but overall, the sounds quality is worse the CD, MP3 or FM. Don't pick satellite radio based on sound quality- it loses hands down.


----------



## xzitony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rf75* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Have Sirius, XM, DirecTV, and broadband ('net streams of both services; hi-quality Sirius option).
> 
> 
> In order of perceived AUDIO quality (better music channels):
> 
> 
> Sirius hi-q net stream
> 
> XM DirecTV (but frequent drop-outs)
> 
> XM Satellite (Delphi Roady)
> 
> XM subscriber net stream
> 
> Sirius Satellite (Audiovox)
> 
> Sirius regular (subscriber) net stream
> 
> XM AOL Radio (barely listenable)
> 
> 
> FM radio fits between the XM satellite and net streams IMO. Real FM, with multipath and negligible dynamics, not what FM could be if anyone cared.
> 
> 
> The sat streams are highly compressed and hard to listen to in a high-resolution situation (headphones in a quiet room) but adequate for the car. The DirecTV streams of XM are still easily recognized as compressed, and depending on the music and your ears may not be enjoyable quality-wise.
> 
> 
> That said, non-commercial-interrupted humanly-programmed music is so compelling I can't decide which sat radio system to drop.
> 
> 
> I find better talk choices on Sirius and much better music programming on XM. But I'm easily bored by the consultant-ed tested never-unfamiliar programming on nearly all FM and 94% of Sirius.



Guess you don't have the Hi-Q AOL Radio streams, then? I'm curious where you'd put those.


----------



## mdrums

I have Sirius in my new Jeep Grand Cherokee with the upgraded stereo system and on my boat with a customer stereo and I have XM in my H2 with the upgraded stereo system and I have XM in the house throught D*. XM music channels sound much better than Sirius.


To me Sirius has a compressed cheap compueter sound to the treble and XM has a thin sound but much more listenable than Sirius.


Once the free subscription with Sirius is up there is no way I will pay to subscribe although I will miss the NFL channel.


----------



## Gary1

I have had both SIRIUS and XM and used the same PIE Interface on the same truck and the XM using a MYFI sounded better than SIRIUS did using a Stiletto 100 and the same goes both with the same set of headphones


----------



## aggieheels

The main problem is that they are all a little different. I got one of the first XM radios with the Pioneer unit that had the box under the driver seat and an FM modulater in my Xterra. Factory stereo was poor. Sound was not great.


Next I had the Delphi w/FM modulator in my Mitsubishi. Factory stereo was much better. Sound was better.


Delphi connected to my Yamaha receiver. Sounded even better.


Polk XRT connected to my Denon receiver. Sounded great


Polk XRT to my Denon run through my X-Fi Platinum soundcard. Sounds really really good.


JVC DVD-A w/XM adaptor for car (not FM modulator). Doesn't even sound like the same product as my prior car stereo set-ups. Sounds really good.


With the variability in sound in these configurations, I think you would need to do A vs B comparisons with the same equipment. However, different units are going to have different quality FM modulators. There is really a huge difference in sound quality of amplifier units and set-ups. Because of the variability in the sound quality of individual stations and the lack of similar source material to do an A vs B comparison, choosing a better sounding company between XM and Sirius is not possible.


----------



## dnewhous

Now I'm curious about a related issue. I have read statements by Sirius-heads that XM's satellite broadcast has higher background hiss and some background clicking and popping noises because XM uses cheaper broadcast equipment. Is there any truth to this?


----------



## NJTEX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Now I'm curious about a related issue. I have read statements by Sirius-heads that XM's satellite broadcast has higher background hiss and some background clicking and popping noises because XM uses cheaper broadcast equipment. Is there any truth to this?



It's true, the "Sirius-heads" would say that for sure! LOL


----------



## stealthie1

I have Sirius units in 2 cars, one new 2007 Volvo with upgraded HU and a slightly older Audi with a factory Bose HU. I've found that between the 2 cars I have varying results with signal reception and how good the sound is on the same stations. (Area-33 & The Beat primarily)

When comparing the programming on similar channels I find that there are more varied songs and DJ's on the Sirius channels than on the similar XM channels (XM81-BPM or The System). I have XM via DirecTV at home and listen to that plenty, and am quite happy with the overall sound quality with all of the services, other than the reception issues I have in the Audi. (I don't have reception problems in the Volvo when driving in the exact same places though.)


----------



## MoFoEd

I have Sirius at hooked hooked up to my AVR and the SQ is similiar FM radio, so the SQ overall is not great but not terrible either. It's just regualr Stereo sound to me.


----------



## Tinman

I have XM in 4 cars. Sound quality "USED" to be quite good 2 years ago. But competition with Sirius and the ensuing compression has made it almost unbearable to listen to. I had 7 subs, but canceled the home one's due to SQ. When my next year runs out on the cars, I won't renew. Shame. At this poit FM sounds WAYYYY better, especially the highs in all 4 cars.


Marc


----------



## dnewhous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tinman* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have XM in 4 cars. Sound quality "USED" to be quite good 2 years ago. But competition with Sirius and the ensuing compression has made it almost unbearable to listen to. I had 7 subs, but canceled the home one's due to SQ. When my next year runs out on the cars, I won't renew. Shame. At this poit FM sounds WAYYYY better, especially the highs in all 4 cars.
> 
> 
> Marc



The standard music channel bit rate for XM used to be 48 kbps which, given their codec, should give sound quality very similar to analog FM. Has anyone used a portable player to test the bit rate recently?


----------



## bubba5

I have XM, and on the highway with the trees on the side I loss signal all the time especially in the right lane, and now in the summer with the leaves on the trees (trees on South side), so I drive in the left lane a lot, its anoying, can they get a better signal?


----------



## dnewhous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bubba5* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have XM, and on the highway with the trees on the side I loss signal all the time especially in the right lane, and now in the summer with the leaves on the trees (trees on South side), so I drive in the left lane a lot, its anoying, can they get a better signal?



Your post is off topic. This thread is about sound quality, not reception quality.


----------



## tedmales




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Your post is off topic. This thread is about sound quality, not reception quality.



Go Go Go forum Police.


----------



## hphase

I recently had a chance to hear Sirius in a rental car. When I found a similar channel on Sirius to what I listen to on XM (The Vault on Sirius, Deep Tracks on XM) I noticed that I could hear compression artifacts in the car on Sirius. I don't notice these artifacts in my own car when listening to XM. My only take-away from this experience is that Sirius uses less bits on the channel I listened to in my rental car than XM does on the channel I listen to in my own car. I'm not really talking about the relative audio performance of either car. I'm talking about the ability to hear compression artifacts. Both services sound similar (bad) on voice channels, but I expect them both to cheat with these channels so that they can cram as many channels as possible into their service. I don't need full fidelity for baseball games, just consistent coverage, something I can't do on the (AM) radio after sunset.


FWIW, I'd choose XM over Sirius for that genre. As far as programming, Sirius sounded like a '90s version of a station playing '70s "progressive" music. XM sounded just a '70s station playing '70s "progressive" music. I've listened to the former and done the latter, so I think my comparisons are valid.


Flame suit on...


----------



## JMMHouston

I have an Inno for XM and the sound quality stinks. I love the content and it's really too bad.


The sq from the D* version of the channels is better. I don't have Sirius to compare to. I can't imagine it being much different.


----------



## joerod

No complaints here... The sound is good...


----------



## JWKessler

I have no experience with XM, but have a few Sirius systems. Sirius compresses the heck out of talk streams and they are in mono to further save bit rate. Listening to music on these streams can be a painful experience. In particular OutQ's weekend music has been rather awful sounding. Recently Sirius gave OutQ a stereo stream, but they are still compressing it a lot. It sounds better, but still not great.


The main complaint involves high frequencies. It sounds as if the original audio is being replaced by a synthetic hiss. This is obvious with symbols and sibilance in speech and music.


The Sirius music streams benefit from the poor quality of the talk streams. There is much less compression and the improvement is quite noticeable. I can still hear some artifacts in higher frequencies, but at a greatly reduced level and less often.


All in all I like the service and have not listened to local radio at all in the past three years.


----------



## bubba5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Your post is off topic. This thread is about sound quality, not reception quality.



I guess I am in trouble, should I go sit in the corner.


----------



## crakadikt

I have had sirius for two years with no problems. Sound quality is great.


----------



## TV Casualty

Just came home with a '07 Vibe yesterday, came with XM. I had the "upgraded sound" option, which was a 7-speaker Monsoon setup...CDs sound great.


What surprised me was how lackluster XM sounded to me. Even if it was great I really didn't plan on keeping it after my 3 month free trial is over (don't listen to the radio really outside of local sports talk), but wow. Disappointing to say the least.


----------



## toasty22

lol.........


----------



## PrinceLH

I have heard Sirius in a rental vehicle and on Dishnetwork and have a subscription with XM in my new Saturn. After listening to both, I prefer the sound quality of XM to Sirius. The only drawback to XM is the signal dropouts when close to buildings or heavy folliage. I would still go with XM, because I prefer their lineup of stations.


----------



## B&W700guy

I have Sirius satellite....does it sound good, not really. But many of my customers have XM, and it sounds the same as Sirius...too compressed! But Sirius has Howard


----------



## ClubSteeler

To me Sirius counded noticably better.. However my sirius had a strong external FM Mod while the XM just had the built in Mod... so it might not be a fair comparison.


Honestly... They are pretty darn similar. One person has Sirius sounding better, the next prefers XM. Every channel is NOT equal. Your favorite channel may sound better on one than its corresponding channel on the other.


The bottom line is: At BEST.... The sound quality is NEAR FM, but not quite as good, and no where near CD quality. While channels of lesser popularity and talk are much worse than FM.


Sat Radio fans defintiely do not subscribe for the amazing audio quality, but more for the content.


Moral of the story: Don't waste money on expensive speakers


----------



## NJTEX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClubSteeler* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> To me Sirius counded noticably better.. However my sirius had a strong external FM Mod while the XM just had the built in Mod... so it might not be a fair comparison.
> 
> 
> Honestly... They are pretty darn similar. One person has Sirius sounding better, the next prefers XM. Every channel is NOT equal. Your favorite channel may sound better on one than its corresponding channel on the other.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is: At BEST.... The sound quality is NEAR FM, but not quite as good, and no where near CD quality. While channels of lesser popularity and talk are much worse than FM.
> 
> 
> Sat Radio fans defintiely do not subscribe for the amazing audio quality, but more for the content.
> 
> 
> Moral of the story: Don't waste money on expensive speakers



For home use I agree, for mobile use I've slowly gravitated to the position that Sat radio actually sounds better overall than FM based on typical FM reception issues and heavy handed stero to mono blending.


Interesting thing that you mentioned expensive speakers. To my ears, using a polrtable with earbuds provides a very good listening experience. It's when you listen through home speakers (not even expensive) that you start to notice Sat radio's deficits.


----------



## ikeb

i tried sirius for a year - then tried xm for 3 months and got rid of both - sound quality is fair at best - but i do get xm with dtv and its ok for background music. I'm very disappointed that satellite radio has such mediocre sound quality - i even mentioned it to a dtv vp i ran into one day and he said - "first i ever heard of that".


is hd radio any better than xm or sirius?


----------



## bigrig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClubSteeler* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Honestly... They are pretty darn similar. One person has Sirius sounding better, the next prefers XM. Every channel is NOT equal. Your favorite channel may sound better on one than its corresponding channel on the other.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is: At BEST.... The sound quality is NEAR FM, but not quite as good, and no where near CD quality. While channels of lesser popularity and talk are much worse than FM.



Yep. There you have it.


We can lock the thread now.










Matt


----------



## Shan

I for one cannot believe anyone can stand satellite radio. The best stations sound like crackle and hiss free AM. The talk radio stations are pretty much unlistenable. Are some people's ears really insensative enough to consider this any good? I've tried both Sirius (wanted Howard Stern) and XM (Free from GM for 3 months) and couldn't stand either. Even though I had XM for free, I listened to it the first day for 20 minutes and could stand it no more. Went back every so often thinking it had to be a signal glitch that made it sound so bad. I was convinced my radio was broken until I signed up to listen to it on my computer and it sounded just as tinny. Never listened again. If it sounds bad on low quality factory audio radios, then you know something is wrong.


They need to reduce quanitity and increase quality before I would ever consider either of them again.


Just my opinion.


Shan


----------



## ClubSteeler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I for one cannot believe anyone can stand satellite radio. The best stations sound like crackle and hiss free AM. The talk radio stations are pretty much unlistenable. Are some people's ears really insensative enough to consider this any good? I've tried both Sirius (wanted Howard Stern) and XM (Free from GM for 3 months) and couldn't stand either. Even though I had XM for free, I listened to it the first day for 20 minutes and could stand it no more. Went back every so often thinking it had to be a signal glitch that made it sound so bad. I was convinced my radio was broken until I signed up to listen to it on my computer and it sounded just as tinny. Never listened again. If it sounds bad on low quality factory audio radios, then you know something is wrong.
> 
> 
> They need to reduce quanitity and increase quality before I would ever consider either of them again.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> 
> Shan



You did have something wrong if Sirius sounded like AM... Or maybe you tried to use their sadly neutered FM Modulators. Sirius through the AUX in port on my car stereo sounds good.. not great.. but MUCH better than AM music.


----------



## Shan

It was a Sirius tuner in a Pioneer AVIC-Z1 Navigation system. For what it is worth, I have heard it over a stereo system at a friends house with one of the home tuners and it sounded just as bad.


In truth, XM is what I think sounds like AM and Sirius is somewhat better, but not by much.


It just amazes me that they can charge money for it. When they move to 128kb bitrates at a minimum, I'll take another look. For now I will stick with the IPOD and Podcasts or MP3s.


To each his own, I guess.










Shan


----------



## Rammitinski

I probably wouldn't subscribe to either of them specifically, but I do occasionally listen to the Sirius music channels that I get with my Dish package, mainly as background music - sometimes even just through the TV (like late at night when I'm on the computer). If I hear something new that I really like, I just get it on CD and play it on my dedicated, 2-channel system, if I want to do any serious listening.


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It was a Sirius tuner in a Pioneer AVIC-Z1 Navigation system. For what it is worth, I have heard it over a stereo system at a friends house with one of the home tuners and it sounded just as bad.
> 
> 
> In truth, XM is what I think sounds like AM and Sirius is somewhat better, but not by much.
> 
> 
> It just amazes me that they can charge money for it. When they move to 128kb bitrates at a minimum, I'll take another look. For now I will stick with the IPOD and Podcasts or MP3s.
> 
> 
> To each his own, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shan



You're either exaggerating a great deal or you have some pretty high quality AM stations in your area. Have XM in two different cars, one built in and one through aux input and neither are as bad as you are making it out to be.


----------



## Shan

Portland, OR. Not sure AM is any better here than it is anywhere else. AM and Sat both suck, just in different ways; AM has no highs to speak of and the highs on sattelite are tinny and warble. What it really boils down to for me is that all of it is unbearable...I won't listen to AM any more than satellite. I am just constantly surprised that some people will. I keep hoping for the revolt where the masses tell the Sat providers their signal sucks and to fix it, yet people just keep paying for poor quality so it never improves.










Shan


----------



## Pat6366




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Portland, OR. Not sure AM is any better here than it is anywhere else. What it really boils down to for me is that all of it is unbearable...I won't listen to AM any more than satellite. AM and Sat both suck, just in different ways; AM has no highs to speak of and the highs on sattelite are tinny and warble. I am just constantly surprised that some people will. I keep hoping for the revolt where the masses tell the Sat providers their signal sucks and to fix it, yet people just keep paying for poor quality so it never improves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shan



The high quality AM was a joke. I doubt the revolt will ever happen, as the percentage of discerning listeners is pretty low. Perhaps if the merger ever goes through eventually they will weed out some of the content that doesn't drive substantial subscription numbers and focus on quality, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Pat


----------



## Shan

Ya, would be nice if they merge and run the same number of channels that only one of the vendors has today across more sats at higher bandwidth. Your probably right that it won't happen. No biggie. I am satisfied with my Ipod and MP3s. And I am not knocking anyone for listening the sat. If it works for them then


----------



## keithaxis

it works for background noise and that is about it..I had xm for 6 months and it was hideous how poor it sounds if you try and turn it up...so, If you use it as background noise it works fine..but for real listening, going lossless with a portable device gives much, much more...I tried xm and the very, very poor sound quality drove me to cancel. But, there are so many people now days where "quantity" matter much, much more than "quality'. So if you like quantity without quality and either satellite radio service is the one...sure not for me.


----------



## hphase

Well, if you go by the opinions here, it really doesn't matter. Sounds like a discussion about Coke and Pepsi. Round and round with no decision. Just preferences.


----------



## Rammitinski




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithaxis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So if you like quantity without quality and either satellite radio service is the one...sure not for me.



Sound just like the satellite video services







.


----------



## Steve Mehs




> Quote:
> Ya, would be nice if they merge and run the same number of channels that only one of the vendors has today across more sats at higher bandwidth.



No it wouldn't. There's a good chance a bunch of my favorite channels would be axed. I'm a dual subscriber and have many favorite stations from each service. I don't want some bean counter telling me what a combined company should offer. I like XMs programming style, and I like Sirius' programming style. Sometimes I listen to Squizz, sometimes I listen to Octane. I like both, I want a choice, so no axing channels, no merger.


----------



## rufo

I just got XM on a whim... I'm using a SkyFI2 receiver in my Car with a two-year-old Alpine head unit, and the car's stock speakers. Running it via line-in, my iPod sounds fine, but holy crap - I had no idea the sound quality was so bad. I really, really like the content and programming on XM, but I don't think there's any way I could pay for it considering how over-compressed and lo-fi the stations I like to listen to sound. I've heard 96kbps MP3s that sound better; hell, I can stream better audio over the EVDO on my Treo for free. (And before you ask, yep, I made sure the FM modulator was turned off).


Luckily I only paid 40 bucks for the kit and got three free months, and I've been curious for years - but I was severely unimpressed. If I call to cancel and they give me some free months I guess I'll keep it, as I do like the content, but overall I'm not quite impressed enough to keep it.


----------



## kevin j

XM's going to be improving the sound of their music channels starting on 8/5 btw.


----------



## bigrig




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kevin j* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> XM's going to be improving the sound of their music channels starting on 8/5 btw.



How? Got any links?


Thanks,

Matt


----------



## kevin j

Go to XMFAN.com or XM411.com they have the info on the improvement.


----------



## kevin j

I'm listening to Deeptracks as I type and it definitely sounds better imho.


----------



## CoCoKola




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dnewhous* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There are a bunch of homers being paid by Sirius to go to forums and brag about how good it sounds.
> 
> From the honest people on these forums it's clear that XM sounds slightly inferior to analog FM and Sirius sounds like AM radio without all the noise.



Claptrap. show proof. lol


I have heard both on various systems.

Serius is clearly better in sound quality than XM. I have XM in my new car, and I cringe every time the singer says a work with "S" in it. The compression is so poor, there are nothing but artifacts in the sound. It sounds like everything above 15k is missing. All S'es sound the same = crap. A careful listen to cymbols and other instraments wiht high amounts of high-frequency output you will realize they are just not reporduced. The low end on both systems are okay, better than FM, but about as good as a low-bitrate MP3 system. High frequencies are poor on both, but XM is worse than AM / Cassete tape.


I would love to have someone provide top rated radios for each and record them 16+ bit rate on the same song. Then we could compare them with the original and matematically show the differences.


I sure hope the impovement today will change my mind.


As a professional working with sounds reenforement over 17 years, I can say they both suck, but XM sucks worse. I get XM free for three months on my built-in car stereo. I can't stand to listen to it.


----------



## Terminator840

You all must have some connection issues or something. I have my XM Inno hardwired to my factory Monsoon system and it sounds just as good as FM radio. A properly installed XM unit will sound good in a car. Using a FM modulator= bad sound.


----------



## hphase




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kevin j* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Go to XMFAN.com or XM411.com they have the info on the improvement.



Their "improvement" is claimed by adding additional processing from Neural. Adding "quality" with additional audio processing is always snake oil. That's a lot different than any changes to the bit-rate reduction algorithm.


By the way, my less-than-scientific survey says that, on the similar-style music channel that I listened to on both services, XM came out ahead on quality. I mention this to say that my first comment was not because I hate XM.


----------



## JOHNNYV.3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bhummel2001* /forum/post/9382863
> 
> 
> I have 6 XM subscriptions, but I still think their sound quality stinks. It is OK for the car, and portable devices, but forget it for the home.
> 
> 
> If you have a high quality audio system, then you will dislike the sound of XM going through it.
> 
> 
> Too much compression.
> 
> 
> I just got a Pioneer Inno and I hate it. Worse sound quality of any portable that I have owned. Looks neat, but sounds lousy.



If it's so bad, then why do you have 6 subscriptions? I have the polk xrt12 hooked up to a very good home system and it's not perfection, but it's definitely fine for what it is....


----------



## SpeedDemon

I have spent some time with Sirius and XM radio in both of my father's cars where has them directly connected without modulators and the SOUND QUALITY is still AWFUL for both (one of them is a BMW and the other a Mercedes with nice sound systems). If you enjoy listening to 64kbps MP3 internet radio streams then you will also likely enjoy Sirius or XM. If you are the type of person who still buys real CDs instead of purchasing 128kbps AAC files from iTunes then just keep walking and don't waste your money on these awful technologies.


I do see a future in both Sirius and XM though if they can step up the quality to 128kbps AAC levels; an acceptable sound quality level that most can tolerate.


----------



## thestaton

I've had Sirius in 4 cars so far and I can't get enough. I think they both sound about the same, hell at this point anything is better than clear channel.


----------



## Goatweed

I have 2 radios, an old school XMPCR and an Audiovox Xpress that I use in the car via cassette adapter & in the Belkin boombox in the yard. The XMPCR sounds phenominal, mainly as my sound card (Creative Xgamer - old but still kicking) drives the audio and in the car, the cassette adapter sounds astonishingly great - better than FM to my ears! I have a stock Toyota radio, so it's nothing fancy and while most times cassette adapters are awful but to me it sounds great.


----------



## jsamuels

Had Sirius for 4 years through a Kenwood HU. Always felt I could here the impact of the compression. New car with XM with stock HU -- subjectively sounds better.


----------



## codee

I have a pioneer DEH-P7800MP headunit in my jeep, along with some upper end speakers/subs/amps. I also have XM and sirius both connected directly to the headunit using a GEX-P920XM for XM, along with a SIR-PNR2 for Sirius. I also have a CD-IB100II which is a iPod interface for the deck. The Sirius and ipod sound great in my vehicle, while the XM sounds "muddy" or not as clear and crisp. I would think these units would perform the same, as they are both connected to the deck directly via inputs? I haven't had any other opportunities to compare them directly other then at bestbuy and the like...


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CoCoKola* /forum/post/11225432
> 
> 
> I have XM in my new car, and I cringe every time the singer says a work with "S" in it. The compression is so poor, there are nothing but artifacts in the sound. It sounds like everything above 15k is missing.



Everything above 15k is missing. Here is a chart made by Wireman and posted on XM411:


----------



## PrinceLH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/12296587
> 
> 
> Everything above 15k is missing. Here is a chart made by Wireman and posted on XM411:



I often wondered that, while listening to XM. I have very good ears, especially above 15k, and noticed there was something missing. Must be a way of saving bandwidth. I like my XM service, but it needs to get the sound a little more balanced, especially the high end. It reminds me of a good quality standard cassette tape, before the days of Compact Disk.


----------



## dj9

I bought and activated a Sirius reciver today. I'm undecided as to whether I like it or not. To put it simply, some Sirius stations sound superior to the others. My Pioneer car stereo does a good job of making FM radio sound OK, and it does the same with some of the Sirius stations. Bass sounds OK, if not overstated.

The better-sounding stations are good enough that they don't sound *bad*... just sort of... weak. I suppose I'll test it further It sounds a lot like when I encoded songs to ~70kbit Ogg Vorbis in order to fit as much as possible on a 256MB SD card - and they were just fine in environments where there was noise. Maybe Sirius will sound better during the daily drive.


----------



## Zeemer

For me XM is great due to very poor FM reception at my home. I installed it on my VSX-91THX receiver and find that it is not as good as the best CDs, but better than many. I have the receiver set on ext. stereo and after setting up with MCACC, XM sounds very good indeed. Not all of XM sounds good. The best for me are the modern Jazz, Trance, and other more recently recorded stuff. The 40 year old rock sounds like AM (crap). For me it's all in the source and processing; I can "make" XM sound very good. One thing I don't like is constantly adjusting my Paradigm subwoofer level control due to very inconsistent bass levels received from XM.

I also have XM in my cars. Same story as above. It sounds equal to FM to me, but then I have factory and average quality head units in all. The only reception quirks I've had are when driving under larger underpasses. Gone for a sec then right back.


----------



## silvermaxd

I put the sportster 4 in my car and listening with the FM modulator...it is low low quality...static is always present. Good thing I didn't get a lifetime subscription. Should have given HD radio a try. I was expecting it to be as good as FM but it's worse....Don't waste your time and money on this crap!!!!


----------



## mercury




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *silvermaxd* /forum/post/12457578
> 
> 
> I put the sportster 4 in my car and listening with the FM modulator...it is low low quality...static is always present. Good thing I didn't get a lifetime subscription. Should have given HD radio a try. I was expecting it to be as good as FM but it's worse....Don't waste your time and money on this crap!!!!




I love my sirius and WILL NEVER go back to FM again.


----------



## Ken Ross

I had the Sportser 5 installed and, for the first time, was impressed with the sound of satellite radio in my car. I found that the sound quality was close to that of my local FM stations...a first! Now I'm not sure if it's the radio, Sirius sound quality or a combination of both. I think as with other technologies, little attention appears to be paid to how the satellite receiver affects sound quality.


At any rate, I just tried the XM Xpress RC in the same car since I was largely attracted to the really nice display on that unit. But I was surprised at the difference in sound quality. Using the same setup, the Xpress RC just sounded more compressed and less 'musical' along with being kind of fatiguing to listen to. Again, I don't know if this is a function of the receiver, XM or a combination of both. The last time I had XM was in my Acura TL and it sounded OK, but not up to FM sound quality.


The bottom line is that I'm surprised given the fact that most reviewers, such as CNET, seem to pick XM as having better sound quality. Based on my comparison, I would disagree strongly. That certainly wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with CNET by the way.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *silvermaxd* /forum/post/12457578
> 
> 
> I put the sportster 4 in my car and listening with the FM modulator...it is low low quality...static is always present. Good thing I didn't get a lifetime subscription. Should have given HD radio a try. I was expecting it to be as good as FM but it's worse....Don't waste your time and money on this crap!!!!



You can't condemn the radio or the service due to the way you hooked it up. The FCC severely cut the allowable power to these devices that use FM modulation to transmit the signal to your car radio. The results will almost always be noisy due to the very low power. The best way to hook this up is via an aux input if you have one on your car radio. The difference will be more than night and day.


----------



## vic4news

I've just installed the Sirius sportster 4 in my Jeep Wrangler which has factory radio and speakers and it sounds just as good as FM radio. I used the direct antenna connection. Of course, the faster you go in the Jeep the higher you need to turn up the volume to hear the radio over the road noise.


----------



## ClubSteeler

When I got a new car stereo with an Aux input jack and a built in graphic EQ, Sirius sound quality is MUCH improved, although still absolutely not CD quality, about on par with FM on music channels, and worse on talk channels.


I've found Sirius to have better sound quality than XM. Although XM radios have good FM transmitters where some Sirius models are useless without an external tranmitter, or direct wiring.


----------



## dj9

After a few days (and turning off the "Loudness" DSP on my receiver, which also was causing subwoofer problems in my car), Sirius sounds just fine to me, in my car.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vic4news* /forum/post/12461399
> 
> 
> I've just installed the Sirius sportster 4 in my Jeep Wrangler which has factory radio and speakers and it sounds just as good as FM radio. I used the direct antenna connection. Of course, the faster you go in the Jeep the higher you need to turn up the volume to hear the radio over the road noise.



The funny thing is even my wife, who has a tin ear, can hear the better sound of Sirius. How CNET gave XM the nod is beyond me. Perhaps when they did their review, things were not as they are today?


----------



## nakedeye

First let me say this. They both stink up the house. I got into sat radio thinking that it was CD quality. Boy was this a let down.


My first unit was an outboard kenwood tuner that interfaed with my headunit. Sirius. My god it was awefull. The sound qulity was so compressed. Any s sound drove me nuts. I couldn't take it and get rid of it a month later.


Then I got an XM SkiFi2. Loved it. The sound was certainly compressed, but the vocals were not horribly crushed.


I got rid of that unit and went to the TAO. I think it's sound was a bit lower than the SikFi2. I liked it on the whole.


Then I moved to the Inno. My god the thing is awesome. Th sound is a bit better than the Tao, but not as good as the SkiFi2. Now it could be that XM has played with thier signal since then.


I thin alot comes down to the Codec. PAC (sirius) is just not there in the midrange. AAC+ (XM) has got it beat!


----------



## ClubSteeler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nakedeye* /forum/post/12468127
> 
> 
> First let me say this. They both stink up the house. I got into sat radio thinking that it was CD quality. Boy was this a let down.
> 
> 
> My first unit was an outboard kenwood tuner that interfaed with my headunit. Sirius. My god it was awefull. The sound qulity was so compressed. Any s sound drove me nuts. I couldn't take it and get rid of it a month later.
> 
> 
> Then I got an XM SkiFi2. Loved it. The sound was certainly compressed, but the vocals were not horribly crushed.
> 
> 
> I got rid of that unit and went to the TAO. I think it's sound was a bit lower than the SikFi2. I liked it on the whole.
> 
> 
> Then I moved to the Inno. My god the thing is awesome. Th sound is a bit better than the Tao, but not as good as the SkiFi2. Now it could be that XM has played with thier signal since then.
> 
> 
> I thin alot comes down to the Codec. PAC (sirius) is just not there in the midrange. AAC+ (XM) has got it beat!



Your observations were true in the past. Recently, Sirius has the better sound quality without a doubt. XM has chosen to squeeze in 40 more channels over the same bandwidth. I can no doubt hear the difference side by side. Not all channels are created equally though. The more popular channels are sampled at a higher bitrate. So it could be possible that your favorite channels were actually better on XM.


Sat Radio is full of superb content and entertainment. It is not, not does it claim to be, CD quality. When it first launched and didn't have so many channels, it was. It was even called CD Radio at one point. Those days are long gone. Even as Sirius CEO Mel K says, "We are not targeting audiophiles."


----------



## nakedeye




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClubSteeler* /forum/post/12468587
> 
> 
> Even as Sirius CEO Mel K says, "We are not targeting audiophiles."



Sad but true.


It COULD be an amazing thing...


----------



## ClubSteeler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nakedeye* /forum/post/12469131
> 
> 
> Sad but true.
> 
> 
> It COULD be an amazing thing...




Well... With current laws, it really can't, unless one provider decided to drop all talk, traffic, comedy and sports and offer music only.


Now if the merger is approved.. in a few years, when they start eliminating redundancy, they will be freeing up a lot of bandwidth, and possibly could again, become CD quality on the most popular music channels.


Without the merger though, this will never happen. More likely both companies will go out of business eventually.


----------



## nakedeye

People don't care about sound quality on the most popular channels, that is the crux of the issue.


Do the people who listen to the top 20 on 20 actualy care???


I wish that they would pettition the fcc to let up more bandwith. The latest Sats for XM have the potential for the uppped abdnwith.


----------



## ClubSteeler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nakedeye* /forum/post/12469565
> 
> 
> People don't care about sound quality on the most popular channels, that is the crux of the issue.
> 
> 
> Do the people who listen to the top 20 on 20 actualy care???
> 
> 
> I wish that they would pettition the fcc to let up more bandwith. The latest Sats for XM have the potential for the uppped abdnwith.



The other frequencies are being used. In fact, there is a common problem wiht in-home wireless routers operating out of spec and transmitting frequencies that are interfering with Satellite Radio reception. The frequency bands are THAT close.


----------



## Ken Ross




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nakedeye* /forum/post/12468127
> 
> 
> I thin alot comes down to the Codec. PAC (sirius) is just not there in the midrange. AAC+ (XM) has got it beat!



It's funny, I find exactly the opposite! About an hour ago I had my friend sit in my car as I switched from Sirius to XM. I didn't tell him my preferences, but he felt that Sirius sounded less compressed with a fuller mid-range. So my wife, my buddy and myself all seem to agree (at least with the equipment I was using). So I don't know why people find disparities when comparing these two systems, but it could be the equipment to some degree or differences in how they connect the equipment.


I think the only valid way to compare the systems in the automotive environment is with the same car stereo system and the same connection methodology. Otherwise you're not really comparing apples to apples. It's also possible that the variable bitrate of Sirius is providing more depth to the music that demands it. At any rate, to me and those I've had listen, Sirius sounds better.


So I'll stay with Sirius and return the XM.


----------



## sebberry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClubSteeler* /forum/post/12468587
> 
> 
> Even as Sirius CEO Mel K says, "We are not targeting audiophiles."




Hell, they're not even targeting the MP3 people..


The stations that i like on Sirius sound like an internet radio stream made for 56k dialup connections


----------



## chriso59




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sebberry* /forum/post/12536670
> 
> 
> Hell, they're not even targeting the MP3 people..
> 
> 
> The stations that i like on Sirius sound like an internet radio stream made for 56k dialup connections



Ditto, it is downright painful to listen to the stations I do! I really with they broadcasted at a higher bitrate


----------



## nakedeye

Well I must say that listening to music these past two dys on XM I have been wondering if I blew my tweeters....


NO FREAKING TREBLE AT ALL!!!


----------



## goofygrin

I'm a long time sirius subscriber (and stockholder







).


Recently I bought a new stereo on ebay and it came with anabelle xm receiver.


So, I've got:

pioneer 9800bt

mtx 5 channel amp

phoenix gold components

cdt coaxials

10 sub


pretty decent for a budget system...


xm is pbus, hard wired (not sure the model)

sirius is through the aux input, sportster replay


after listening to xm only for a couple weeks, here's my impressions...


Content is like everyone says, xm more eclectic, sirius more hits/repetition.


Quality?

Xm is missing highs and lows (have to boost both with the eq, 16 band on my headunit).

Sirius is muddier, but more full sounding (if that's somehow possible?)


Both are fatiguing to listen to for long periods of time...


For me the qualty goes:

cd

mp3

good fm

sirius

xm

bad fm


----------



## Gls747

I have very good Sirius in the car, Volvo's upper end system, a real pleasure. I bought home units, was surprised at how inexpensive, and so was the sound. Low volume, no dynamics, no highs, plugged into a home system. It actually sounded better on the boom box Sirius makes for $80. I think the weak link may be the cheap adaptor that puts into the home stereo and contains I assume the DAC chips. On the home stero the Stratus 6 unit comes in a distant to third to CD's and then FM. Classical and Jazz did seem better than rock.


----------



## TVOD

The poor sound quality via the satellite distribution is directly a result of the low bitrates used for the PAC digital compression. No improvement in receiver hardware, such as DACs, will overcome that limitation. If one desires better quality at home, they can use the services from providers like Dish or the high quality internet streams (128k wma). The latter works on a variety of phones too. IMO these streams sound better than FM.


----------



## EricST

I just re-actived XM in my car and notice from the 8 months of listening to my iPod via the AUX input that the iPod sounds way loader then XM. I Liston to 80's on 8 the most and ESPN.The muisc side sounds clear but the volume is deffenty loader with Ipod via AUX.


----------



## Brad Bishop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EricST* /forum/post/19156213
> 
> 
> I just re-actived XM in my car and notice from the 8 months of listening to my iPod via the AUX input that the iPod sounds way loader then XM. I Liston to 80's on 8 the most and ESPN.The muisc side sounds clear but the volume is deffenty loader with Ipod via AUX.



On most of the radios you can adjust the line-out audio level. I think, by default, they're set on something like 3/5. I usually just set mine to 5/5.


----------



## bgillyjcu

anyone that has seen my sig....thanks for checking out my new blog and please join the facebook page. This is a passion of mine that I've had for about 5 years now and I'm going after it. Please support me in this endeavor as you all have done on this forum for nearly 7 years!!!


----------



## warholsbluecat

I tried the app on my android - pathetic quality. Pandora on high quality, hell even regular quality KILLS the terrible sound quality of the app they have.


----------



## gsmollin

I bought a subscription to XM on my 2008 Infiniti M35x, because I like the traffic reports that are sent to the navigation unit. They are pretty accurate and up-to-the-minute. There are also the spoken reports on a few channels.


The music performance is pathetic, however. Even pop music, simple vocals with an accompaniment, sounds like computer-generated speech. No highs, no lows, no dynamics, and there is certainly no excitement. Classical music sounds like a flock of crows is squawking Mozart. The sound quality is well below FM analog broadcast. Without the traffic reports, I would have never considered it.


----------



## locke6854




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gsmollin* /forum/post/19354314
> 
> 
> Even pop music, simple vocals with an accompaniment, sounds like computer-generated speech.



Thats probably because it is. Pop music today overuses the auto-tune effects and filters. I think they're going for that sound. But i know what you mean about the sound quality in general.


----------



## SalD

At 128K, it's significantly less good than CD quality (1440K), and probably not as good as a decent FM receiver. The advantage is that all the channels are clear--not bunched together at the end of the dial. Unfortunately, if you listen a lot, you'll begin to hear a lot of repetition in your areas of interest. If you want music around the house or in the car, it can't be beat. But not for the center of your main stereo.


----------



## ikeb

Only one word describes XM sound quality in my Lexus LS460 and on my iphone 4 - - TERRIBLE - but the traffic information is great.


I mostly stream my ipod or iphone to the car's receiver using apple lossless.


----------

