# Sirius or XM. Sound Quality and Future Enhancments



## satradio91

Hello,


I currently listen to the Sirius via the OEM stereo in my car. I plan on replacing the OEM headunit in the near future and will have to buy a satellite radio receiver. I love the content on Sirius but like many others I am not satisfied with the sound quality.


I know that before the merger XM had marginally better SQ, is this still true? Also do modern receivers have better SQ than some of the original ones? The stereo in from 2003.


I have been reading rumors about some features of satellite radio 2.0 such as on-demand and a Pandora competitor. What satellite network will get these enhancements? What network will continue to receive new enhancements throughout the years? Is the content the same on both networks?


Lastly if I purchase a yearly subscription to sirius can it be transferred to XM when I change my system?


Thanks.


----------



## rc05

I'll see if I can answer some of your questions.


Subjectively, XM sounds better than Sirius to me. It's not a huge difference though and you might not think it's better. I think they use different codecs though, and XM's may be better.


The purported 2.0 features are only going to be on the XM platform. It's rumored that they want to move everyone to the XM platform, but the Sirius side is getting a new satellite early this year, so that may not be happening for a while, if at all. I'm betting the XM network will be the one they're trying to move forward with, though. The 2.0 features right now are only "Xtra channels" which are only on a few new XM radios. Otherwise, the content is the same with the exception of MLB play by play on XM only, and I think Howard Stern is only on the Premier XM package. XM also has a very small handful of music channels that are only on XM. I'm probably missing some channels, but in general, the content is the same.


You can get cross-platform multi radio discounts now, but I'm not sure if you can transfer a yearly plan between them yet.


----------



## satradio91

Thanks for the reply. The interesting that sirius is getting a new satellite. I wonder if SQ will improve after? Would you think that an improved headunit/ sound processor will help the SQ of sirius?


----------



## rc05

The new satellite is probably for backup right now in case the three old satellites go out, as they're reaching the end of their lifetime. I'm not sure if getting a new head unit will improve things, maybe marginally, but Sirius's compression is pretty noticeable.


----------



## shelbygt500

I had an XMp3 portable unit up until two years ago when XM added their "artist fee" to the bill and decided to give it up as I only had it for one talk show and the music channels sounded like crap. Last year my wife bought a new car with sirius and I couldn't believe how crappy it sounded. The HD radio in her car sounded much better. XM and Sirius compress their channels so much, I don't know who would pay for it. It sounds like your listening through a thin wall. I use Pandora through my Iphone and it sounds much better in the car than satellite. JMO


----------



## zoetmb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shelbygt500* /forum/post/21553838
> 
> 
> I had an XMp3 portable unit up until two years ago when XM added their "artist fee" to the bill and decided to give it up as I only had it for one talk show and the music channels sounded like crap. Last year my wife bought a new car with sirius and I couldn't believe how crappy it sounded. The HD radio in her car sounded much better. XM and Sirius compress their channels so much, I don't know who would pay for it. It sounds like your listening through a thin wall. I use Pandora through my Iphone and it sounds much better in the car than satellite. JMO



Totally agree. Pandora sounds phenomenally better than Sirius. One of the problems with Sirius (don't know if this is also a problem with XM) is that there are tremendous phase distortion problems. I don't know if this is an artifact of the compression or an artifact of the satellite transmission.


If you listen to the different signal (Left minus Right) on Sirius, you hear sound artifacts that sound exactly like the sound effects that are usually used in movies when they show a satellite in orbit. It's uncanny.


----------



## satradio91

Thanks for the replies.


So it it seems there is no real difference in SQ between the two, i'll just get an XM unit.


My biggest problem has been that sat radio is much quieter than the other sources requiring me to increase the volume until there is distortion. Hopefully a new radio will fix that.


----------



## Netko350Z

I just got a new vehicle with Sirrius. I had a XM portable unit in my old SUV and the SQ of Sirrius is HORRIBLE. Bitrate sucks. XM sounded way better.


----------



## Jetmeck

Had Sirius for years and think some of you have faulty receivers as mine has always been very clear and near cd quality.


----------



## Geremia P.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jetmeck* /forum/post/21771088
> 
> 
> Had Sirius for years and think some of you have faulty receivers as mine has always been very clear and near cd quality.



Try a pair of these.


----------



## Jetmeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Geremia P.* /forum/post/21771107
> 
> 
> Try a pair of these.



BS......try a better receiver. Nothing wrong with Sirius and no I don't work for them.


----------



## Brad Bishop

While I think the receiver can make a difference in audio quality, I've noticed a definite drop in quality over the years on XM and Sirius (actually haven't listened to Sirius in 3 years) but the drop is there.


When they first started up ≈10 years back it really did sound great and that was one of their selling points.


----------



## EricST

Agree ,I do. The over all audio qty via my iphone pluged into the AUX port is 10 X better then XM from my head unit in my car.


----------



## Jetmeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EricST* /forum/post/21781451
> 
> 
> Agree ,I do. The over all audio qty via my iphone pluged into the AUX port is 10 X better then XM from my head unit in my car.



Thinkin you need the above hearing aids....come on guys...really ????


----------



## Geremia P.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jetmeck* /forum/post/21784385
> 
> 
> Thinkin you need the above hearing aids....come on guys...really ????



Really. XM and Sirius over satellite sound terrible.


----------



## Jetmeck

actually it sounds fine. check your equipment...........


----------



## EricST




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jetmeck* /forum/post/21786237
> 
> 
> actually it sounds fine. check your equipment...........



What's to check? All I know is the volume level is 10X loader via ipod ->AUX then the XM.

I have a standered Hyundai head unit with built in XM.

And BTW, I cancelled my service last night.


----------



## Savageone79

Yes the iPhone app sound quality is what the satellite quality should be. The satellite feed is much worse especially in the high end. If you have speakers that don't reproduce the high end well you can hide a lot of the faults.


----------



## Jetmeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Savageone79* /forum/post/21807330
> 
> 
> Yes the iPhone app sound quality is what the satellite quality should be. The satellite feed is much worse especially in the high end. If you have speakers that don't reproduce the high end well you can hide a lot of the faults.



whatever guys if you put in a cd in your head unit it will be the same deal as far as volume goes. Signal strength. That way on most every HU you will find and your iPhone mp3 is better than your satellite ? Be real.


----------



## Brad Bishop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jetmeck* /forum/post/21808680
> 
> 
> whatever guys if you put in a cd in your head unit it will be the same deal as far as volume goes. Signal strength. That way on most every HU you will find and your iPhone mp3 is better than your satellite ? Be real.



I'm really not sure what you're arguing at this point. Are you saying that if I turn up the volume on my satellite radio source that I can make it as loud as a CD?


I think you did make a minor point earlier in the thread that the quality (not volume) of the satellite source is dependent on the components and I'll admit to having different performance with different tuners from the same satellite company (when Sirius and XM were separate).


That said, most people (and I'm thinking you're the sole exception) would agree to these statements:

- "The quality of the music on satellite radio (both sides, XM & Sirius) is worse today than it was back when it started due to them adding more channels and increasing the compression (digital)."

- "Some channels sound better than others because some channels are more heavily compressed. As an example, SiriusXM Hits 1 is probably the least compressed and sounds the best. Even then it leaves a lot to be desired to how it used to sound."

- "Over the years the engineers have tweaked the compression and sometimes this resulted in better sounding channels"

- "At no time was satellite radio as good as a CD. It has been as good as a good-quality mp3 in the past but that is not how it is currently."


I've personally experienced varying degrees of quality over the years. I remember around 2006 when I thought Sirius' compression was getting out of hand and it really sounded bad. I remember them fixing it a few months later. Then I remember when I switched from Sirius to XM and I thought XM sounded muddier, but their play lists were a lot better.


Since that time I've definitely noticed a degradation in quality on their satellite fed service. I'm not Mr. Audiophile, either hooking up all sorts of equipment to measure it. I've just noticed that it sounds a lot worse today that it has in the past. I really wish they'd drop a dozen channels and bump up the bitrate on the rest of them.


----------



## EricST

All I know is the qty isnt good enough for me to keep paying for it when plugging my ipod into the AUX input and listening to my MP3's sounds 10X better,clearer and Loader.


----------



## bwturner1951

Interesting discussion here ladies and gents. I gave up Sirius about a year ago when I got so hacked off at them for keeping the Sirius and XM components separate, requiring a subscription to each even if you have an XM ready radio HU in your car and a Sirius Home Connect tuner in your home. My wife really likes Sirius though so last night I relented and reinstated my account. I signed up for one radio (Sirius HomeConnect connected to my A/V system) and internet streaming.


If I am understanding this discussion correctly, it sounds as if the internet streaming has better sound quality (subjectively) over the direct satellite signal. I have an externally mounted antenna for my HomeConnect tuner so I never have any issues of signal loss but if there is empirical evidence that the signal quality (bit rate/compression) is that much better over internet maybe I need to rethink my choices.


----------



## Savageone79

Well the Internet feed is 64kbps AAC where as the satellite feed is variable but usually 24-46kbps. So even at the highest bitrate the satellite feed is less than the Internet. Given the same source material the Internet feed should always be better.


----------



## hphase




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Savageone79* /forum/post/21850039
> 
> 
> Well the Internet feed is 64kbps AAC where as the satellite feed is variable but usually 24-46kbps. So even at the highest bitrate the satellite feed is less than the Internet. Given the same source material the Internet feed should always be better.



Interesting. I know there are lots of faux experts contributing to this thread, but in spite of that, there may be some truth to the story. Recently I rented a car that had an add-on XM receiver that plugged into the aux input on the radio. I figured I could save a few bucks next time by using my XM internet streaming app (with my all-you-can-eat data plan) so I figured I'd try it out. Apart from a few places out in the boonies where the stream couldn't keep up, I was amazed at how much better the phone sounded than the sat radio. More separation, better sound, and all through the same aux input on the same radio. And it's not just volume (we all know louder is better, right?)


I know these topics are sometimes considered state secrets, but I wonder if XM has implemented another round of data rate squeezes on their satellite platform, further crippling the sound from what it was just a few weeks ago. Oh for the good old days of separate Siruis and XM systems and higher data rates per channel.


What reliable programs are there that can determine the current data rates being used via sat and on-line?


----------



## Rob1956

Sound quality on Sirius and XM can be excellent. But the services severly limit the bitrate to most channels. Howard 100 and 101 get the full bitrate possible and music, when they play it, sound great. I have a Sirius Sportster 5, a pretty recent radio and some channels sound awful. I recently heard Fleetwood Mac's "Go Your Own Way" on Classic Rewind and Lindsay Buckingham's guitar solos sounded like they were under water. The opening electronic sounds from the Moody Blues' "Your Wildest Dreams" sounded all over the place. I heard "Go Your Own Way" on Stern's channel coming out of a break and it sounded near CD quality. So Howard gets the good stuff, most other channels are second class citizens, I guess. Spa also sounds good.


----------



## norbert26

As of last fall when the Edge and Lynx radios were released XM on the XM side of the platform has begun broadcasting extra channels only available on the edge and lynx radios. This quietly began with NO announcement from XM. You can also hear these extra channels with an online sub.


----------



## bliptrip




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Savageone79* /forum/post/21850039
> 
> 
> Well the Internet feed is 64kbps AAC where as the satellite feed is variable but usually 24-46kbps. So even at the highest bitrate the satellite feed is less than the Internet. Given the same source material the Internet feed should always be better.



This. Doesn't matter what Sirus / XM receiver you are using, the sound quality for music is REALLY lacking. 30kbs does not sound good, even for talk radio. I had to turn off "Here Comes The Sun" on one of the rock stations on my truck's Sirus receiver because it sounded like it was being played underwater.


Even an internet feed of 64kbs is inexcusable.


Unfortunately as more young car buyers come forward there will be no incentive to improve the sound quality. Satellite radio is being sold to 20-somethings who have been raised on super compressed ipod music cranked to distortion through low quality earbuds. They just don't know there is better sound quality to be had.


----------



## Cornflakeguy

I recently changed vehicles and went from a Sirius aftermarket headend to a XM OEM. The difference in sound quality was very noticible. But I chalk that up to the new car having the tweeters in the dash. Its just a better setup.


I wont talk about how XM wants to stick it to me and charge me more just to have Howard Stern. I mean Sirius and XM are the same company, right? They need to get their head out and realize the majority of us are there for Howard and Howard only.


----------



## dclark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hphase* /forum/post/21874894
> 
> 
> 
> What reliable programs are there that can determine the current data rates being used via sat and on-line?



Back in the day when the xm forum was active, got more than a post every month (we all left sat!) it was possible to determine bit rate with an xm myfi portable. The myfi's (I still have one in a drawer) could be set to record,you would see much it recorded (length) and doing the math, you could determine bit rate. The more is was able to record, the lower the bit rate.

XM back in the early/mid 2000's had a bit rate of around 48kbps, at least that is what I remember Deep Tracks was at. Then they started adding stuff like extra spanish stations (yeah, like that's just what we need, right?) and they dropped the rate over the years until it is at around 28kbps. At that point, even my wife noticed it and we canceled it. If you called them after each downgrade, they'd same the same thing- adjust the bass and treble controls!

The feed off my iphone was much better sounding but it still was horribly, horribly dynamically compressed. The beginning of U2's "Streets Have No Name" would be as loud as the crescendo, AC/DC's "For Those ABout To Rock" would have the canon volume dropped to be the same level as the rest of the song. If you were to record this on a tape deck, I bet the needles would stay at the same reading, always!

Last I went to their website, they were boasting having "digital quality sound"- what the F--- is that supposed to mean?


----------



## rc05

The Xtra channels sound a lot better, it's too bad they don't have anything good playing on them.


----------



## wizard06

Here is the situation as far as I see it. I have had multiple sirius radios of both factory and aftermarket variety. For a while it sounded really good but around early May 2011, sirius changed their channel line-up (I guess for it to be more like XM). Thats when the sound quality went bad. It began to sound like the radio was underwater; really gurgled sound. This was on my aftermarket kenwood radio as well as on my wife's 2010 fusion. I recently purchased a new kenwood head unit and was informed that it required an XM tuner and not a sirius tuner. After the install, I noticed the sound quality was much better. Meanwhile, my wife just purchased a 2013 mustang and it has sirius in it. It sounds just as horrible as the other sirius radios did. This is a brand new car with this awful sounding sirius satellite radio in it. In my opinion, since the (so called) merger, they are letting the sound quality of sirius go down while maintaining a higher quality feed with the XM side. If you want it to sound better, opt for the XM and not sirius.


----------



## millerandy

EXACTLY my experience. I thought maybe I was just dreaming, but I noticed the sound quality diminish when the lineup and channel numbers changed. Music is tinny and garbled. If it doesn't improve by my next renewal date, I'm out. Internet radio is MUCH clearer through the same system (AND NO it's not a receiver issue).


----------



## DarkVenture

I have a starmate 5 hooked up through line audio to a good aftermarket system. Quality is better than FM most of the time, but surely not CD quality. The most annoying thing about it is that high hats and other high-pitch instruments get hit by the compression, and it sounds like they are being played underwater or through a sewer pipe. It's definitely not a system for audiophiles, there is more distortion than FM but without the fading, hiss, interference and other things that degrade FM. I would say overall slightly better than FM.


----------



## Feirstein

Audio dynamic range compression (a bad practice) is one issue that Sirius/XM is guilty of, but it is not the same as the trend on Sirius/XM toward lower bit rates. But perhaps the compression of music's dynamic range helps reduce the damand for higher bit rates. Combined, the overall sound quality of music is at an all time low and makes the listening experience not that all enjoyable. If it were not for the news channels I would drop the service immediately. Ever notice that when Sirius/XM puts out a user survey they never ask about sound quality.


----------



## dclark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarkVenture*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/30#post_22267511
> 
> 
> I have a starmate 5 hooked up through line audio to a good aftermarket system. Quality is better than FM most of the time, but surely not CD quality. The most annoying thing about it is that high hats and other high-pitch instruments get hit by the compression, and it sounds like they are being played underwater or through a sewer pipe. It's definitely not a system for audiophiles, there is more distortion than FM but without the fading, hiss, interference and other things that degrade FM. I would say overall slightly better than FM.



You must have some real crappy FM stations in your area or a junk FM tuner; FM sounds better than sat radio. Noise? FM s&r is around 70db, most won't notice it and with the dynamic compression that most stations use, unnoticeable.

Freg response for both is the same.

stereo separation? Maybe the same, maybe better for FM. Interestingly, sat radio uses FM style multiplexing as part of its cuisinart sound processing. Stereo is

multiplexed into one channel, then multiplexed back into stereo at the player. Why? Because one channel uses less bandwith.

Dynamic range- sat is always, always, always horrible. FM can be better, all depends on the station.

Lossy compression- FM far, far superior because they don't compress it. Sat reduces talk/music to as low as 28bps making everything sound unnatural, irritating, etc. Call them up and complain and they tell you to turn treble up- haha!


----------



## TVOD

I first got a Sirius receiver 6 years ago and thought it sounded abysmal. Metallic highs (of what little where there) and 'flanging' effects made music nearly unlistenable. Adding high frequency eq boost only made the artifacts worse. The SQ was far inferior compared to most FM even with their typical agressive dynamic range processor squashing. I nearly gave up until I tried the 'CD' quality stream which at that point was 128k wma. While not quite CD quality, it was IMO better than most FM. I would say that this is still true with the AAC+.


I haven't used a Sirius sat receiver for some time. I had listened not too long ago on a Best Buy demo station and even on the small speakers the audio was horribly artifacted. It amazes me still when someone reports the Sirius sat audio as sounding good. The quality of the receiver and the audio system will not correct the damage done by low bitbrate PAC without SBR. Some people I've met do not seem to hear data compression artifacts. Lossy compression uses psychoacoustics to minimize the loss of aural spectral information so the sensitivity likely varies.


----------



## dclark

I'll concede that xm online sounds better, but it is still horribly, horribly dynamically compressed. Listening to U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name"

the quiet intro is as loud as the the rest of the song. Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing", Stings part in the middle is as loud as the crescendo when the

song explodes.

Pandora gives dynamic range all for the price of $ 0.00.


----------



## RCbridge

I am also a newbie to Sirius because of a recent automobile purchase, I surely like the variety of music available but the sound quality is not so good!!

I have a 6 month trial so if no improvement after that so long Sirius.


----------



## sgayres

New car with built-in Sirius. I will definitely NOT be renewing Sirius when the free trial expires because of the excessive MPEG compression. I used to work with sound files and my goal was to get my sound files as small as possible but still sound acceptable. This is not acceptable. I know what MPEG Layer-3 compression sounds like and what I hear is compression. It's horrible. I won't even listen to the talk or comedy stations because the sound is so bad.


This underwater effect some of you are hearing on certain stations is real and is NOT because of our equipment. It may be due to our location and the particular satellite serving our area. I'll use my iPhone and stream TuneIn over Bluetooth before I subject myself to Sirius.


----------



## Feirstein

If Sirius/XM wanted to converge over to an XM only product one would think that all the vehicles being produced would sport XM only radios. But that is not the case. Sirius/XM continues to sell both Sirius and XM products. There does not seem to be a play of any kind being impliminted. Forget about better audio quality; that does not seem to be in the cards at all.


----------



## hellok

Alright, tell me this. If DirecTV is so awesome and can blast 300 HD channels to your living room, why can't SiriusXM send 320kpbs music streams to your car radio? I don't get it. Are they ripping everyone off?


----------



## lilleddy

Thanks,

I searched for answers and found them here, supporting my own observations. I have subscribed to Sirius for about 8 years. First with a portable unit for my car purchased at Radio Shack, then through an IGig radio in my dodge and a Sportster in my home. (I was always a little angry that an Internet subscription did not come with my two radio subscription). I realized the fidelity was not up to par with FM\CD quality immediately when first, the volume was lacking, and two, happened upon same song being played on Sirius and an FM station at the same time. The difference I heard between he FM station and the Sat station playing the same song was like the difference between lets say something like AM Stereo (never heard AM stereo, but assume it to be better than mono AM) and playing a CD. I was OK with this as I was in the beginning of my romantic '70's Retro Interlude, lol.


Recently, in the past six months I guess, I have noticed the quality has taken a nose dive, mostly noticeable in quite musical passages when the sound seems to be bubbling up through bucket of water. This is the same on both my car radio (Igig, stamped with the Sirius logo), and my home sportster with outdoor antenna. Now, to further support my observations, my wife has a new Toyota with an XM subscription. Her FM and XM sound equally good.


If it is a question of bandwith/bitrate, I would vote for less channels. If the quality was improved to CD, with fewer channels I would even pay more! Do we really need five different classic rock channels, five (very bad) comedy channels? I enjoy Howard sometimes, but Howard 101? (extremely awful). That is a total waste of energized particles.


My interlude, as so my Sirius subscription has come to an end.


Thanks for giving me this platform,

Lilleddy


----------



## atc1989

I just bought a new 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee and am coming from a 2008 Chevy Cobalt. The Cobalt came with XM and for 5 years now I have really liked the sound quality from that. Now that I have the Grand Cherokee which has a Sirius receiver, I am disgusted with the sound quality. The compression of the Sirius system is horrid. So much so I almost regret purchasing a new car.


How do we improve the sound quality of SiriusXM? In particular for those with Sirius branded receivers. Something needs to be done.


----------



## dclark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *atc1989*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/30#post_22633648
> 
> 
> I
> 
> How do we improve the sound quality of SiriusXM? In particular for those with Sirius branded receivers. Something needs to be done.



Nothing can be done. In all fairness, I did try the online xm/siris app on my iphone and it sounded much better, digital compression was almost as good as

Pandora. However, it still had that bricked dynamic compression that made louds and softs the same, which bugged me. GIve Pandora a try, it is amazing

when compared to sat radio. When I tried Pandora, I cancelled my xm subscription that week.

If you have a compressed music enhance function on your HU, that could help. I have a Clarion 609 with three different

levels of sound "restoration" and it really helps a lot.


----------



## rc05




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hellok*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/30#post_22613298
> 
> 
> Alright, tell me this. If DirecTV is so awesome and can blast 300 HD channels to your living room, why can't SiriusXM send 320kpbs music streams to your car radio? I don't get it. Are they ripping everyone off?



You realize TV satellite dishes are like 2 feet in diameter and the satellite radio antenna is an inch or 2 (if even that).


----------



## fastjayjay

Just bought a new Lincoln Hybrid with SAT and have not had any sound problems. It has a SYNC Applink which could have an influence on the sound.


----------



## I WANT MORE


They have pretty much sealed the deal for me. The only reason I subscribe to SiriusXm is for sports. Mainly live playbyplay. When I first subscribed you could get almost all college football games home and away broadcast. Now it is pretty much just the home team broadcast with a few exceptions. The sound quality on these broadcasts is atrocious.

I have always been able to get a deal on my subscriptions so I have remained a subscriber. If things don't change I will probably not renew.


----------



## TweezerMan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *atc1989*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/30#post_22633648
> 
> 
> I just bought a new 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee and am coming from a 2008 Chevy Cobalt. The Cobalt came with XM and for 5 years now I have really liked the sound quality from that. Now that I have the Grand Cherokee which has a Sirius receiver, I am disgusted with the sound quality. The compression of the Sirius system is horrid.



I just want to echo this experience. I've been an XM subscriber since 2001 or 2002 and through a succession of vehicles and receivers have always been very happy with it. But I just bought a new BMW. The premium sound system is very nice, but Sirius is the only sat radio option. The bitrate compression artifacts are terrible! I can hardly listen to music on this thing, and even BBC World Service sounds bad.


And since I'm complaining about Sirius vs the joys of XM, let me just add that I'm one of the handful of folks who actually listens to CSPAN radio on XM, and I really miss it on Sirius. So far I've not found anything unique to Sirius to love.


----------



## HwayAudio

Sirius sound quality is horrible. I have a new Ford explorer with SYNC that allows easy comparison to HD radio, Pandora, and the Sirius stations. I cant see buying the subscription for music. They better get it together fast. Folks who want to hear quality sound will not buy it.


----------



## capitol5555

The quality of sound on my 2010 Mustang's premium reciver stinks. Terrible sound quality. My dealer agrees.


----------



## Gary J

Are there any comparisons of bit rates between Sirius smartphone apps and satellite radio?


----------



## DarkVenture

The app sounds much better. I think it is at least 128k, whereas the radio sounds like 64k.


----------



## Gary J

I believe the radio is vbr and the algorithm gives higher rates to music and popular channels but I do not know much about the internet apps.


----------



## sfm

It boggles my mind that people actually pay for this ****... I have a new car with Sirius and the quality is just awful... I know that after my "free" 6 month subscription is up I won't be renewing.


----------



## Gary J

Sirius or the car?


----------



## RCbridge

Same here a newer car with a 6 month subscription but when in is over it is over!!!


----------



## millerandy

Cancelled a few weeks back. Now I'm getting automated spam phone calls from Sirius - they use multiple numbers that just call and hang up. I'm on my second blocked number so far.


----------



## macfawlty

I got a 2013 Ford Explorer to replace my 2003 Explorer. The new one has Sirius in the MyFordTouch screen system. I have never had Sirius before, but have multiple XM receivers; one in my old Explorer installed aftermarket along with the FM modulator. I've never been thrilled with the quality of the XM signal compared to CD or FM (not that I ever listen to FM). It sounds like a 60kbps MP3. But this Sirius system on the Ford is so bad if is nearly unlistenable (unless you are one of those kids who listen to songs extensively played through your cellphone speaker). The highs are brittle and thin and it sounds so downsampled.


I have the top of the line sound system on the new Ford, but no question that the aftermarket XM unit in my other Ford is definitely way better. I am ok listening to MP3s for convenience, but still buy CDs rather than MP3 downloads. But as another said; The quality is like comparing a 320kbps MP3 to AM radio. Perhaps it is the Sirius signal being so much worse than XM. I'm pretty pissed. I was really looking forward to a BETTER QUALITY signal with the new Ford... quite the opposite.


I won't continue the Sirius after the trial. Trying to push this sh#t out to customers, Sirius should be ashamed. Raise your finger high.


----------



## millerandy

Just blocked the third different harassment phone number from SiriusXM. They've called 4 times in the last 24 hours.


----------



## Super Dave




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerandy*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/30#post_22944233
> 
> 
> Just blocked the third different harassment phone number from SiriusXM. They've called 4 times in the last 24 hours.


If you are on the Do Not Call List file a complaint for every call, they get fined and it will make you feel better. But you need to tell them to put them on their DNC list since you have/had a business relationship with them.

https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx?panel=2


----------



## SXMHelp

Hi Millerandy -


We would like to help. Send us an email with your contact info to [email protected] and we'll be able to place you on our DNC list from there.


Thanks,

SiriusXM Digital Care Team


----------



## Darin

After all these years, I've finally had my first experience with satellite radio (in my car). I remember back when DirecTV switched from their former music provider to XM, and feeling that the audio quality went down, and I didn't really like their programming as well as their previous provider (forgot now who that was), at least for the channels I listen to. I just found out they had a "free preview"... stumbled upon the fact when I suddenly started getting traffic info in the navigation system in my car. So I tried the satellite channels, and sure enough they were on (or at least most of them). But wow, it really sounds bad. Really really bad. I normally capture streams off of internet radio stations (like 1mix radio, etn.fm, sonomafm, etc.) and put them on SD cards to play in the car. Those range anywhere from 128-320kbps, depending on the station, and generally sound very good. Satellite radio can't even compare. Even much worse than FM (not to mention HDRadio). I'm not even sure if my car has XM or Sirius hardware (it's an '11 Audi A4, FWIW).


I can't believe people pay for this. Seems to me they'd be better off if they could combine some of their content into fewer channels to allow for higher bandwidth to each channel. I'm sure some would complain about losing their favorite channel, but what good is your favorite music if it sounds bad? I would consider paying for the traffic data, but the audio channels are just horrible.


----------



## Gary J

In my car Sirius sounds better than FM. BTW the bitrate varies by channel - higher for music and more popular channels.


----------



## Brad Bishop

If I remember correctly you used to and may still be able to pay for just traffic. If you have the right hardware you can even get weather data from them.. It works pretty well.


----------



## capitol5555

My dealer's radio tech (Ford Dealer) will replace my complete radion system, stil under warranty. This was offered to me, no argument from me or the dealer. They would not elaborate as to what the new radio system will do to eliminate the problem with the poor sound quality of my Sirrius radio in my 2010 GT Mustang.


I will post my results to you after I check out my new system.


----------



## Digital Rules




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *capitol5555*
> 
> . . . . the poor sound quality of my Sirrius radio in my 2010 GT Mustang.


Don't get your hopes up too much. It will still sound like crap. Analog FM runs circles around satellite radio. (HD radio even sounds much better & that's still not a very high bar)


----------



## capitol5555

When I purcahsed my Mustang, the sound quality from Sirrius radio was excellent. I understand Sirrius made changes to their sateliite. I have XM radio in my '07 Buick and it is excellent ever since I purchased the car.


I have nothing to lose by having a new system/radio installed in my Mustang. If it does not solve the problem, I will cancel my Sirrius subscription.


----------



## billbaker68

I cannot see anyone being happy with sirius xm quality at least what I get in Saskatchewan Canada. I read a description of phase distortion and that describes it. I listened to a distorted song directly from the xm receiver on high quality headset - the same distortion was there. I happened to have the same song on MP3, sounds fine on the headset and over the system. I sent requests for help to sirius XM to which I received a promise that someone would call - they did not!! I would switch to a high quality provider in a second if I had that option ( would miss BB kings bluesville though).


----------



## Brad Bishop

The sound quality was pretty good about 7ish years ago. The playlists were pretty good, too. They actually tried to focus on it.


Then some marketing guys decided more was better and they kept cramming new stations onto the satellites until we ended up with the muck that it is today.


The thing is: I can understand cable or satellite (TV) adding new channels. There's always some channel someone is screaming for. With satellite radio, who's screaming for any channel? There's 20ish rock channels.Yes, there are different subsets of rock but you could easily squeeze that down into just a few channels. There's no on clamoring for the a new modern Reggae (or whatever) channel. You could easily cut back on what they have now and no one would notice. Most people don't even know how many channels they have. They'd probably guess over 100 but they wouldn't know beyond that so it's not like that magic high number is pulling people in. They've added 20 or so channels when they released the Lynx (SiriusXM 2.0) but who cares. What channel is in that new set that anyone say, "You know, I can't live without it." (or more importantly, I wouldn't pay the subscription without it).


Still, more and more channels are added and we end up with a sub-par listening experience. I'm not even audiophile guy and I think it's sub-par. I don't need CD quality but I'd like a decent MP3 quality sound.


I have lifetime so I use it. I like it for the mere fact that I can drive from city to city and still stay on the same station and listen to it without hunting for another local station like we used to do. I can't say I'd recommend it to friends or family (especially now that lifetime subs are gone) nor would I pay some monthly fee of $20ish for it.


----------



## Gary J




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Bishop*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23019179
> 
> 
> You could easily cut back on what they have now and no one would notice.



Marketing research and experience does not back you up. Most people lean to more channels than quality. Same for TV.


----------



## mfreeman6

I've had 2 Infiniti's with XM and the sound quality was really good. I had no complaints whatsoever. I just traded off my Infiniti G37 and got a VW Jetta that came with a Sirius Sat tuner. When I activated the new radio I was horrified by the sound quality. I thought the Jetta sound system must be crap, but when I double check the FM sound quality, it sounds ok. Not nearly the quality of the Bose stereo in the G37, but good enough to listen too. What is up with Sirius? I just renewed for a year and after reading the posts in this forum, I'm seriously considering cancelling. I thought maybe there was something I could do to improve the sound, but now I'm not so sure. I'm terribly disapointed!


----------



## Gary J

Mine sounds as good or better than FM in a Mercury.


----------



## Sleephil

I know this is a stale feed but - I like the XM content and also don't like the sound quality. I have the iPhone app subscription for SiriusXM and I think the sound quality is better. I just plug the phone in to my head unit via USB and it works very well. You do need a good data plan. We have several cars so this avoids a subscription for each car - just about $3/ month for the iPhone after the first car.


I also have an Airport express and Apple TV connected to my home sound system and this gets me XM there as well.


It has been a good solution for me.


----------



## Kraw

wow.. thought I was crazy! I was an early adopter, had it since 2001. We (wife and I) have always loved XM. Have it in the car and truck (pioneer and delco/bose). Now I have a new Jeep and have a Sirius receiver. The first thing I noticed was the horrible compression! I thought maybe it was my Jeep, but this weekend, I spent some time with family and rode in my dad's Ram and mom's Kia.. both have factory Sirius and both sounded horribly compressed. I guess I won't be adding a 3rd vehicle to my sub when the 12 mos trial is up. Too bad because I really wanted NFL/NASCAR


----------



## DarkVenture

There is way too much compression on sirius. Hihats and other high frequency instruments sound extremely distorted as a result. I wish they would drop the useless channels and free up the bandwidth for better sq on the stuff people actually want to listen to.


----------



## Mamchur

Guys, first of all - thank you for this thread and taking the time to write some observations. I never write myself and feel guilty, so this time, having come out of my ordeal with FREE 2nd Day UPS SiriusXM Edge unit with car and vehicle kits to replace my Sirius Sportster 4, I have myself several observations:


1. Sirius is being phased out and will be gone by 2015. They are squeezing it out of the pipeline and the tech department at SiriusXM Corp is very aware of that. This is a done deal. Sirius platform is over. Whatever new Sirius unit you buy - it'll have only old technology and bad codec sound.


2. XM is being replaced with SiriusXM but on XM platform. Thus, everyone with XM is cool. SiriusXM is slightly better for extra channels. Sound difference is immediately better on XM or SiriusXM from Sirius units.


3. Be nice when contacting Sirius, and they WILL HELP. They do want to keep you as a customer - $15 a month is a very solid revenue. They'll go out of their way to ensure the next $45 billing takes place. Don't use them because of this, but work with them. Their email and FB page respond within minutes/hours. I found them to have and conduct excellent communication, and whoever has bad experience probably has bad attitude to begin with. Being nice goes a long way.

*My story*: after reading this forum, I just wrote a short, polite, well-substantiated email of frustration to their generic support how Sirius sound quality sucks and has gotten worse and I love the service, but consider to quit it and have issues recommending the company to my friends, since the quality sucks. They emailed and CALLED me NEXT DAY! A wonderful lady from NY gave me a day to research new XM units (she warned me that it'll be a "like new" refurbished unit), pick one (I didn't go for Lynx as I don't need the touch screen and felt unethical pushing for the most expensive item for free). I asked for Edge. She said - yes, will send it with a car kit. I said I'll need a house kit too and would love to buy a refurbished discounted one. She said no worries. 48 hours later, for free, at my door were two boxes - with both kits and the Edge in them! The service swap took about 3 minutes over the phone and was free as well. That's it! I have new Edge with both kits for free, switched over for free, and am a forever happy customer, recommending the company left and right. *Customer experience of the decade for me, hands down!*


4. *Mounting in cars*: GUYS, c'mon - be creative. Here's what I've been doing for years (and that's also why I didn't want Lynx). Buy industrial velcro by Velcro or 3M. Attached the soft side to any flat surface in your car; stick the studded velcro to the bottom of the car dock. Voila! I even travel with a soft velcro - stick it on in friends' and rental cars, and later when it's time to give the car back - just wipe with water or alcohol - and it leaves no marks and no damage. Industrial velcro keeps the unit very secure and even has enough strength and resistance for me to push all the buttons. Five years of velcro mountain and going. Zero footprint, zero damage to the car, super neat and looks great. Lynx's car dock doesn't have a flat bottom - thus I ruled it out right away.


5. Also, Edge seems to be an easier unit to control via simple genre buttons and a nob. Lynx is a beautiful, great unit - so if you're stuck in between and don't care about physical buttons and flat car dock surface - get it. I played with Lynx at Best Buy - it is amazing. No bugs, no nothing. One of top tech products out there. Maybe in a new car I'll consider Lynx a year or two from now. Edge works very nicely too. Sound is definitely not CD quality, but is "good enough" (I produce music and have JBL towers, Tascam monitors, 12 gage wiring, etc. at home, so very picky - Edge sounds good enough for me, GREAT to everyone else).


6. Sirius antennas work great with XM units. I didn't have to rewire my home or car - and both have 100% reception via very old Sirius antennas on the new SIriusXM Edge unit. That's it!


So, the bottom lines:


- XM is better sound than Sirius

- Sirius bye bye by 2015, XM here to stay

- SiriusXM Inc. knows about it and works with customer on it

- be nice, polite, professional when communicating with them, use their FB page for answer within minutes

- Velcro is the best mountain option!


Good luck!

Yuri


----------



## jhnnny

Wow, there is a lot of BS on here.


First, we can only hope "Sirius" will be gone by 2015, but it won't be, nor will XM. What wasn't mentioned is that the radios that are in your brand new 2013 Jeeps and 2013 Fords were designed and built years ago- like 5-10 years ago. That's how far out new cars are designed, including the Sirius or XM radios. There is no way for Sirius to be gone by 2015 because there will be cars being built with Sirius radios in them in 2015- those cars have a life expectancy of at least 10 years- how do you feel Ford would like it if they built a car with an obsolete (or near obsolete) radio in it? At some point- I suspect Sirius/XM will start putting a hybrid radio into cars which will be able to receive current XM/Sirius signal and whatever new signal the company will broadcast when it completely merges.


See, Sirius/XM has a limited amount of bandwidth that it purchased from the Government. I've heard people discuss that when the government initially put aside the spectrum for satellite radio they anticipated only one provider. Congress demanded two, so the FCC simply split the spectrum in two. Regardless, Sirius/XM are currently splitting that bandwidth into two separate systems to broadcast essentially the same channels. So, they have to broadcast two 80's channels, two 90's channels, etc. Eventually, and I mean like waaaay down the road, Sirius and XM will completely merge which will allow them to only broadcast one 80's channel, one 90's channel on a combined bandwidth. In theory, that should allow for a much better sounding product with much higher bandwidth. That product will most likely utilize the XM sat constellation, and probably the XM radios, but not necessarily. The idea that XM or Sirius sounds better now is silly, IMO. They both use the same bandwidth and likely very similar compression formulas....


HOWEVER, individual channels on both Sirius and XM can and do sound better or worse depending on the station. As some astute writer above pointed out- nothing sounds better than Howard 100 on Sirius. And I mean NOTHING. Nothing on XM, nothing on Sirius, because Howard negotiated in his contract to have a set bandwidth on Howard 100. And no, you won't get that with the Howard channel on XM- it sounds like crap. Because Howard didn't negotiate for that. Ive noticed that some music channels sound better than others. For example, on Sirius, for some reason I think the Springsteen channel sounds horrible. But others, such as the GD Channel, sound a bit better (but bad compared to regular radio). I assume that Sirius and XM play with different bitrates/bandwidths on different channels, for reasons I don't completely understand.


On Sirius, the worst sounding channels are the traffic channels and then the play by play channels.


But we can hope, at some point in the future- when they finally combine the bandwidth and Sirius/XM truly becomes one, the channels will sound better. Whether your current XM or Sirius radio will work then, I've no idea....but remember, Sirius/XM guaranteed the government when it merged that no radio would ever become obsolete- which means that they likely will send you a brand new one if necessary...


----------



## Gary J

If it is a lot of BS your BS is nothing new! Why don't you add some BS we don't already know?


----------



## Michael P 2341




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob1956*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments#post_21941001
> 
> 
> Sound quality on Sirius and XM can be excellent. But the services severly limit the bitrate to most channels. Howard 100 and 101 get the full bitrate possible and music, when they play it, sound great. I have a Sirius Sportster 5, a pretty recent radio and some channels sound awful. I recently heard Fleetwood Mac's "Go Your Own Way" on Classic Rewind and Lindsay Buckingham's guitar solos sounded like they were under water. The opening electronic sounds from the Moody Blues' "Your Wildest Dreams" sounded all over the place. I heard "Go Your Own Way" on Stern's channel coming out of a break and it sounded near CD quality. So Howard gets the good stuff, most other channels are second class citizens, I guess. Spa also sounds good.


I'm the new owner of a Lincoln MK Z with "My Touch". I can't believe how bad Sirius sounds in my Lincoln. It's beneath the quality of the car. While this is my 1st Sirius satellite radio, I have been getting the Sirius music channels for years as part of my Dish Network subscription. The Sirius music channels sound 1,000X better over Dish than is does in my MK Z. While listening to "Classic Rewind" in the car I heard a song with a comb-filter effect that did not belong. Just to be sure, I ran into the house and tuned to the same channel on my TV while the song was still playing. Sure enough, the SQ on my TV blew away the car receiver.


As to Howard 100 & 101, just for curiosity I tuned to one of them for five minutes. Sure enough the SQ was 100x better than Sirius Patriot or The Catholic Channel. So little bandwidth is allocated for those channels that sometimes the phone calls are not intelligible.


I'm on a 6 month "trial" subscription. If the channels I actually listen to continue to sound "under water" (comb filter / Doppler effect) I doubt I will subscribe.


----------



## Gary J

Are you really comparing two different sound systems in two different places at two different times? Thought so.


Despite the quality of the car I would have it checked with a "1,000X better" difference. I think it sounds pretty good in my Mercury.


----------



## Brad Bishop

I think I'll add that while sound quality for SiriusXM is not what it could be and not what it has been in the past, it's fair to say that it's about FM Quality.


Regarding the talk radio channels: I listen to them quite frequently and I've never was at the point where the compression was so bad that it just sounded garbled. If anything, the talk radio channels sound just fine for what they are: talk radio. During some of the bumper music it's probably the equivalent of AM. That's about it. If you're having a problem listening to someone calling into the show you're listening to and everything else is fine but the call then it's likely the person's cell phone.


If you're expecting "CD Quality" on all channels then you're going to be disappointed. If you expect AM/FM (with similar playlists, as well) but it works everywhere and you pay for that and you're OK paying then you'll be satisfied.


The 'it works everywhere' really is nice to me but I have lifetime. I don't know that I'd dish out $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for 'it works everywhere' when there are nice alternatives such as podcasts, Slacker, Pandora, etc. - but that's just me.


----------



## Michael P 2341




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary J*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23260178
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing two different sound systems in two different places at two different times? Thought so.
> 
> 
> Despite the quality of the car I would have it checked with a "1,000X better" difference. I think it sounds pretty good in my Mercury.


Two different sound systems at the same time. My car was in the garage, I ran into the house while the current song was still playing. It was Yes "Leave It". The compression on Sirius was so bad it sounded like "Itchycoo Park" (Comb-filter/phased). No such crappy sound on the same channel via Dish Network.


Either "My Lincoln Touch" has a crappy D/A converter or Sirius is over-compressed to the nth degree.


Also the two "Howard" channels sound fine. First he screws Sirius' inverters by selling his options the same week he got them and then he hogs up all the bandwidth.


----------



## Michael P 2341




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Bishop*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23261629
> 
> 
> I think I'll add that while sound quality for SiriusXM is not what it could be and not what it has been in the past, it's fair to say that it's about FM Quality.
> 
> 
> Regarding the talk radio channels: I listen to them quite frequently and I've never was at the point where the compression was so bad that it just sounded garbled. If anything, the talk radio channels sound just fine for what they are: talk radio. During some of the bumper music it's probably the equivalent of AM. That's about it. If you're having a problem listening to someone calling into the show you're listening to and everything else is fine but the call then it's likely the person's cell phone.
> 
> 
> If you're expecting "CD Quality" on all channels then you're going to be disappointed. If you expect AM/FM (with similar playlists, as well) but it works everywhere and you pay for that and you're OK paying then you'll be satisfied.
> 
> 
> The 'it works everywhere' really is nice to me but I have lifetime. I don't know that I'd dish out $20 (or whatever the going rate is) for 'it works everywhere' when there are nice alternatives such as podcasts, Slacker, Pandora, etc. - but that's just me.


What I'm hearing is not "AM or FM" quality -it's friggin' SHORTWAVE quality - a phasey mess!


----------



## Gary J

Nothing changes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary J*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23260178
> 
> 
> Are you really comparing two different sound systems in two different places at two different times? Thought so.
> 
> 
> Despite the quality of the car I would have it checked with a "1,000X better" difference. I think it sounds pretty good in my Mercury.


----------



## Brad Bishop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael P 2341*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23264259
> 
> 
> What I'm hearing is not "AM or FM" quality -it's friggin' SHORTWAVE quality - a phasey mess!



Then my guess would be either:

a) there's something wrong with your tuner or wiring and you should contact Ford about it.

b) your expectations are too high


Maybe find someone and get a loaner Sirius unit (PNP) that you could plug into your stereo's Aux-In and see if it sounds any better. That'd at least let you know: "OH, it's my stereo," or, "Oh, that's just about as good as it gets"


I think what I wrote above is a fair assessment of the current sound quality and I think most others would agree.


----------



## I WANT MORE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Bishop*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23265733
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael P 2341*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23264259
> 
> 
> What I'm hearing is not "AM or FM" quality -it's friggin' SHORTWAVE quality - a phasey mess!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then my guess would be either:
> 
> a) there's something wrong with your tuner or wiring and you should contact Ford about it.
> 
> b) your expectations are too high
> 
> 
> Maybe find someone and get a loaner Sirius unit (PNP) that you could plug into your stereo's Aux-In and see if it sounds any better. That'd at least let you know: "OH, it's my stereo," or, "Oh, that's just about as good as it gets"
> 
> 
> I think what I wrote above is a fair assessment of the current sound quality and *I think most others would agree.*
Click to expand...

Not me. The sound quality is atrocious. I mostly listen to sports talk and live pbp. Atrocious.......


----------



## Michael P 2341




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Bishop*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23265733
> 
> 
> Then my guess would be either:
> 
> a) there's something wrong with your tuner or wiring and you should contact Ford about it.
> 
> b) your expectations are too high
> 
> 
> Maybe find someone and get a loaner Sirius unit (PNP) that you could plug into your stereo's Aux-In and see if it sounds any better. That'd at least let you know: "OH, it's my stereo," or, "Oh, that's just about as good as it gets"
> 
> 
> I think what I wrote above is a fair assessment of the current sound quality and I think most others would agree.


I did contact Lincoln about the issue. The local dealer was no help.


----------



## joeepistonee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Michael P 2341*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/60#post_23267257
> 
> 
> I did contact Lincoln about the issue. The local dealer was no help.



That's because it's SiriusXM's problem, not your dealers. It's a known issue, at least by me. I don't know how many customers I have had to try three times as hard to keep their service because of this issue alone. I've never listened to a Sirius, as I have XM, but i could listen to my sisters Kia Soul just to check it out.


----------



## sqmzeea

Interesting discussion here - I just traded in my 2009 Audi A4 with Sirius for a Cadillac ATS with XM and I think the new XM Radio is crap compared to Sirius. All the highs distort with compression artifacts.... won't be renewing my sub. Never really noticed any compression artifacts on the old Sirius radio.


----------



## meckhardt

Since I notice many people complaining about recent purchaces versus their older units, I wonder if the problem is somehow related to the newer receivers? I have 2 older XM units - one in a factory radio in a Hyundai (2009) and one in an aftermarket XM box from like 2003. I also had a aftermarket receiver added to my 2005 Ford. All of these sounded fine - pretty much like a reasonable quality MP3. Very little if any phasing issues and good fidelity - certainly not great but in a car it sounded good. I have a new ford explorer 2013 with Sirius and the quality is horribly phasey. And no I do not need my ears fixed. I put the cars side by side and listened to the same content and 6 different people could easily hear the difference. I have also rented several cars (fords, chryslers etc ) With Sirius and without exception, they all had the phasey sound on all music channels - no variation. So my conclusion was that this was a Sirius issue but it seems some people have the opposite experience. I am hoping to be able to rent something NEW with XM so I can compare the new XM receivers to my older ones - but until then, my ears tell me that Sirius sucks.


----------



## Gary J

I just got a new Bimmer with the optional, upgraded sound system so it's all about the signal. It sounds great. Have not touched the equalizer.


----------



## JA Fant

All,


I have enjoyed sat radio , whether it was XM or Sirius, in my OEM GMC Truck since 2005.


----------



## sqmzeea

Ok, so our 2014 Ford Explorer has an 'old' Sirius radio and it sounds great - no compression artifacts at all. So the Cadillac ATS that the new SiriusXM radio that sounds like crap.


Seems like Sirius XM are making great steps backward in terms of sound quality.


----------



## dclark

Has nothing to do with the receivers, not a thing. Look, the bit rate is under 30kbps. Stop, think about how low that is- it is very, very low. No receiver will add bits to the signal.

And, before someone mentions those mp3 compressed music enhancers that some stereos have, they can't turn a sonic turd into a gem. I have one on my Clarion and it only made the XM sound more shrill.

This is one of the reasons why sat radio is dying.There used to be two busy sat radio forums, now just one and it is pretty dead. I don't anyone who still subscribes to it.

It doesn't take long to figure out that Pandora (or anything else on a cell phone) blows away sat radio and is free as well..


----------



## Gary J




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dclark*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/90#post_23725851
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with the receivers, not a thing. Look, the bit rate is under 30kbps.



How about some references for that? In fact the bit rate is variable. If fact bandwidth also varies by channel.


----------



## comfynumb

I just loosely read through this thread. I've been a Sirius customer for 7 1/2 years and recently upgraded to include their Internet streaming service. I have to say it sounds WAY better than the satellite service so if someone told me the sat version is around 30kbps I'd say that was about right for most channels, Howard Sterns channel being one of the exceptions but not the only one that my ears tell me is higher quality it also seems that at night channels like classic vinyl sound better, so I'm assuming they somehow increase the quality, this is true with their sat service and Internet based sounds good all the time. Also it seems to me the quality of their sound has decreased over the years and it was getting to the point I was going to cancel my subscription, so when I added their Internet service it was a big improvement. I'm still not sure if I'm going to renew this year because I've been listening to a lot of Internet radio lately. That said IR is a real crap shoot and even the high quality ones do not sound as good as Sirius Internet, so I'm on the fence.


----------



## STEELERSRULE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *comfynumb*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/90#post_23726952
> 
> 
> I just loosely read through this thread. I've been a Sirius customer for 7 1/2 years and recently upgraded to include their Internet streaming service. I have to say it sounds WAY better than the satellite service so if someone told me the sat version is around 30kbps I'd say that was about right for most channels, Howard Sterns channel being one of the exceptions but not the only one that my ears tell me is higher quality it also seems that at night channels like classic vinyl sound better, so I'm assuming they somehow increase the quality, this is true with their sat service and Internet based sounds good all the time. Also it seems to me the quality of their sound has decreased over the years and it was getting to the point I was going to cancel my subscription, so when I added their Internet service it was a big improvement. I'm still not sure if I'm going to renew this year because I've been listening to a lot of Internet radio lately. That said IR is a real crap shoot and even the high quality ones do not sound as good as Sirius Internet, so I'm on the fence.



A lot of people feel this way about satellite radio. Myself included. If Stern was not on there, I would be(and most likely will be when his contract expires), gone. There are just so many better options for music out via the internet and elsewhere.


PANDORA, TUNE IN RADIO, I HEART RADIO, SLACKER, etc... The sound quality from those services alone are VASTLY SUPERIOR too SiriusXM that it really makes them look like a joke at this point.


And as far as content, with MLB.TV, you can get all the radio of MLB games you want(plus TV if available). I "think" the NFL may offer a RADIO ONLY SUBSCRIPTION of it's games, but I am not sure of that. Anyone who knows, please chime in.


So SiriusXM "EXCLUSIVE" content is really down to H. Stern IMHO. I know others will chime in that they do not care, which is fine. But for a lot of us here, and elsewhere, he is the main reason we are staying. Plus the price drop for yearly service. They charge me full price, I will be gone. Even H. Stern is not worth that amount.


----------



## comfynumb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *STEELERSRULE*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/0_100#post_23727233
> 
> 
> A lot of people feel this way about satellite radio. Myself included. If Stern was not on there, I would be(and most likely will be when his contract expires), gone. There are just so many better options for music out via the internet and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> PANDORA, TUNE IN RADIO, I HEART RADIO, SLACKER, etc... The sound quality from those services alone are VASTLY SUPERIOR too SiriusXM that it really makes them look like a joke at this point.
> 
> 
> And as far as content, with MLB.TV, you can get all the radio of MLB games you want(plus TV if available). I "think" the NFL may offer a RADIO ONLY SUBSCRIPTION of it's games, but I am not sure of that. Anyone who knows, please chime in.
> 
> 
> So SiriusXM "EXCLUSIVE" content is really down to H. Stern IMHO. I know others will chime in that they do not care, which is fine. But for a lot of us here, and elsewhere, he is the main reason we are staying. Plus the price drop for yearly service. They charge me full price, I will be gone. Even H. Stern is not worth that amount.





Your absolutely right, if Stern goes they will probably fold. But the thing is with Internet radio the quality is all over place, I'll find a station I like and sadly it's like 22kpbs and sound like old AM radio. At least Sirius Internet is consistent and although not very loud, sounds very decent and I find it as good as Pandora and others, although I haven't tried Pandoras premium service. So yeah the only thing stopping me is the sound quality of most IR.


----------



## tveli

I've had sirius subscription(s) since early 2005 and will probably consider to drop it when Howie leaves. It is quite useful to me even without Howie however, as I discovered by signing up 6 months before Howie arrived on Sirius.

Most recently I've been using XM car receiver and TTR1 table-radio at home, sometimes wired to big amp & timeframe speakers.


I find sirius/XM a great combination with OTA/cut-the-cord, providing audio for many of the 'cable tv channels' that i do not subscribe to to pay comcast to get.

For example, CNN and FOX can be interesting to listen to.

On CNBC, those interminable adful american-justice shows can be nice for a long drive.

And the sports MLB/NFL is very nice !

Although for some probably-contractual reason, foxnews is only via the satellite, not via the internet streaming.


My car stereos haven't been good for many years, so that's the limiting factor for my travelling audio... For next vehicle purchase, i am intending to max out the factory stereo, and am questioning whether to get sirius, especially to the sound quality issues on the music channels.


Fwiw:

Occasionally the Howie channels play compilations of awesome music performances that have been on the show.

Via those complations you can hear some amazing & unique renditions at a suitable bandwidth, over the satellite as well as via internet audio stream .


----------



## comfynumb

Howard is not the reason I have Sirius, but I understand it's the reason many do. To be honest I haven't really listened to him since he went to satellite radio. He was crude enough then and IMO it's just a raunchy show. If Sirius survives when and if he leaves is a good question, they better offer him a ton of money, but they are in debt mega bucks, the last I heard they were they were in debt a billion or two, ouch!


----------



## I WANT MORE

I have had Sirus for 100 years, give or take, and have not listened to 1 second of Howard. If he goes, good riddance. I have Sirius for sports. Sports play-by-play to be specific. Thank-you


----------



## comfynumb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *I WANT MORE*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/100_100#post_23730625
> 
> 
> I have had Sirus for 100 years, give or take, and have not listened to 1 second of Howard. If he goes, good riddance. I have Sirius for sports. Sports play-by-play to be specific. Thank-you





Lol!


----------



## tveli

Sirius content is great without Howard too but probably not good enough for Sirius to sustain their business after Howard leaves...

It will be nice if the music channels recover some of the Howie bandwidth for a while after Howie goes - so we can get better quality at least until SiriusXM tanks permanently and their satellites are sold on EBAY as orbital scrap.


----------



## dclark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary J*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/90#post_23726637
> 
> 
> How about some references for that? In fact the bit rate is variable. If fact bandwidth also varies by channel.



Do a search on bit rate and myfi. Yes, bits vary by channel, some might have 25kbps or less! About 6 years ago, i think the max rate was 38kbps, then they started to really crush it.

People have done the math using a Myfi. The Myfi has a small amount of memory, the trick is to clear it, record a station until it is full. do the math to determine the bit rate..

Back then, even though it was a higher rate than now, people called to complain (including me) and the XM people all seem to have the same script :

"What? You don't like the sound? We haven't gotten any complaints. Have you tried adjusting the bass and treble?"

Like playing with the tone con controls will bring back the sound! Back then, they were still claiming "Digital quality sound". WTF is digital quality sound?

But, getting back to the question, the last time I saw numbers for bit rates, the range was somewhere between 26 -28, but much less for some talk channels and I am sure by now, those traffic report channels probably sound like someone is underwater.

If you were to record something at 28kbps on your pc, it would sound like sat radio. Try the internet streaming version of xm and you'll find it sounds much better. It does because it uses a 128kbps rate, at least 4x better than sat. Of course, dynamically, the sound is still crushed.


----------



## comfynumb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dclark*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/100_100#post_23735230
> 
> 
> Do a search on bit rate and myfi. Yes, bits vary by channel, some might have 25kbps or less! About 6 years ago, i think the max rate was 38kbps, then they started to really crush it.
> 
> People have done the math using a Myfi. The Myfi has a small amount of memory, the trick is to clear it, record a station until it is full. do the math to determine the bit rate..
> 
> Back then, even though it was a higher rate than now, people called to complain (including me) and the XM people all seem to have the same script :
> 
> "What? You don't like the sound? We haven't gotten any complaints. Have you tried adjusting the bass and treble?"
> 
> Like playing with the tone con controls will bring back the sound! Back then, they were still claiming "Digital quality sound". WTF is digital quality sound?
> 
> But, getting back to the question, the last time I saw numbers for bit rates, the range was somewhere between 26 -28, but much less for some talk channels and I am sure by now, those traffic report channels probably sound like someone is underwater.
> 
> If you were to record something at 28kbps on your pc, it would sound like sat radio. Try the internet streaming version of xm and you'll find it sounds much better. It does because it uses a 128kbps rate, at least 4x better than sat. Of course, dynamically, the sound is still crushed.





Agreed and I think in this mp3 download era much of our music quality is suffering. Why make it sound good for ear buds?


----------



## Gary J




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dclark*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/90#post_23735230
> 
> 
> Do a search on bit rate and myfi. Yes, bits vary by channel, some might have 25kbps or less! About 6 years ago, i think the max rate was 38kbps, then they started to really crush it.
> 
> People have done the math using a Myfi. The Myfi has a small amount of memory, the trick is to clear it, record a station until it is full. do the math to determine the bit rate..
> 
> Back then, even though it was a higher rate than now, people called to complain (including me) and the XM people all seem to have the same script :
> 
> "What? You don't like the sound? We haven't gotten any complaints. Have you tried adjusting the bass and treble?"
> 
> Like playing with the tone con controls will bring back the sound! Back then, they were still claiming "Digital quality sound". WTF is digital quality sound?
> 
> But, getting back to the question, the last time I saw numbers for bit rates, the range was somewhere between 26 -28, but much less for some talk channels and I am sure by now, those traffic report channels probably sound like someone is underwater.
> 
> If you were to record something at 28kbps on your pc, it would sound like sat radio. Try the internet streaming version of xm and you'll find it sounds much better. It does because it uses a 128kbps rate, at least 4x better than sat. Of course, dynamically, the sound is still crushed.


Channels are VBR. Yes they are right. The better the playback equipment the better it sounds. I now have it in a upgraded sound system in a BMW and it sounds great. You may also have hearing issues. Also bias issues. Whatever, there are many reports of it sounding great in this thread.


----------



## comfynumb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary J*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/100_100#post_23736753
> 
> 
> Channels are VBR. Yes they are right. The better the playback equipment the better it sounds. I now have it in a upgraded sound system in a BMW and it sounds great. You may also have hearing issues. Also bias issues. Whatever, there are many reports of it sounding great in this thread.





I think your right to a point







but nothing is going to help the satellite feed, it's just bad. On the other hand the Internet feed is much better but in no way shape or form is it CD quality.


----------



## CorpITGuy

Sirius sounds awfully lossy on my 2013 Ford F-150. iTunes music service sounds great.


This is definitely a new problem: I had a standalone XM unit in my last car and it sounded like MP3 quality. This Sirius radio in my truck sounds like 64k streaming Internet audio from 1998.


Very disappointing.


----------



## DrDon

Off-topic posts removed.


Let's keep it about the sound quality and something a little more technical than "it sucks."


I, for one, would like to hear comparisons between older radios and the new SiriusXM branded radios. Just got the Edge and I can't tell if it actually DOES sound better or it's my brain playing tricks just because it's new and I shelled out $$ for it. I can't A/B the Roady 2 since it fried and this one replaced it.


----------



## comfynumb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrDon*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/100_100#post_23871614
> 
> 
> Off-topic posts removed.
> 
> 
> Let's keep it about the sound quality and something a little more technical than "it sucks."
> 
> 
> I, for one, would like to hear comparisons between older radios and the new SiriusXM branded radios. Just got the Edge and I can't tell if it actually DOES sound better or it's my brain playing tricks just because it's new and I shelled out $$ for it. I can't A/B the Roady 2 since it fried and this one replaced it.





I have the older Sirius replay and it still sounds pretty good, but I think the satellite feed has gotten steadily worse over the past 8 years I've had the service. The internet feed is very decent IMO. One thing I will miss is being able to rewind my music if I want to hear a song again.


----------



## Gary J

Yes the sound quality is better with built ins and depends on the car's sound system in my experience. It sounds good in my EDGE and Mariner and better in my BMW with the sound system upgrade option.


----------



## comfynumb

I'd rather demo them in my house to be able to hear the differences, I've heard some of the best car audio systems and they aren't HT or music room quality. The quality of the satellite feed has steadily degraded over the years, It may be ok for the car but in the house it sounds bad and the internet feed is the only way to go.


----------



## dtv757

xm in my 12 Buick LaCrosse sound good.


----------



## machpost

My wife and I have factory Sirius in both of our cars, an '09 Volvo C30 and a '11 Mustang convertible. While CDs and MP3s sound great in the Volvo, Sirius sounds really tinny. The talk/sports stations are particularly painful to listen to. In the Mustang, however, Sirius seems to sound much better, especially when played loud. I think the acoustics of the passenger compartment and the design of the audio system can really make or break satellite radio's sound quality.


----------



## msimanyi

My free year of Sirius service expires tomorrow, so reading this thread was quite interesting.


I've had the service for years, in my prior vehicle. Despite putting in a very good stereo system, the sound quality of Sirius on it was awful. There were times I thought it was unlistenable.


My new truck came with the service, and it has a decent sounding system. Sirius - from satellite - is awful. It's better from my cell phone service, but Pandora's free "high quality" service is considerably better, and Spotify sounds considerably better than that.


I probably won't renew. The monthly service fee basically gives me "instant on" Sirius service, while I have to wait for bluetooth to synch to use any cell-phone based service. Spotify's service costs about the same and sounds vastly better, so I'm likely going that way, at least until Sirius wakes up and fixes their sound quality problems.


Mike


----------



## sfm

Simply baffled by all of these "sounds good" comments in reference to Sirius... I have an upgraded sound system in my '13 Audi which is only ok (sorry but IMO there is no such thing as a good sound system in a car) and mp3's from an ipod/memory card or a good FM station sound significantly better than the crap from Sirius. Needless to say (though I will) I did not renew Sirius once the "free" subscription expired.


----------



## allbaugh_04




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sfm*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/90#post_24066818
> 
> 
> Simply baffled by all of these "sounds good" comments in reference to Sirius... I have an upgraded sound system in my '13 Audi which is only ok (sorry but IMO there is no such thing as a good sound system in a car) and mp3's from an ipod/memory card or a good FM station sound significantly better than the crap from Sirius. Needless to say (though I will) I did not renew Sirius once the "free" subscription expired.



I somewhat disagree about the "no such good thing as a good sound system in a car". With the proper amplification, components and imaging, you can make a car sound very good, not monitors on a desk, in a studio good, but it CAN sound good.


But I agree with satellite radio sounding like crap, it's nothing compared to even 128kbps mp3s. Pretty sure Pandora uses 192kbps which sounds nearly flawless to me. Spotify uses 320kbps to premium subscribers which I've heard in my friends car being streamed, sounded amazingly good.


They need to increase the bandwidth, which I imagine is not going to be cheap via satellite.


----------



## DrDon

Really only a couple of ways to do it. Change compression methods, which would render existing receivers obsolete (unlikely) or cut enough channels from the lineup to improve the quality on the others. The channel cut would most likely lead to a loss of subscribers and a price hike on the remaining which would shed even more subscribers. Also unlikely. Quality purists such as us will look for alternatives. For the masses the programming appears to be aimed at, I sort of doubt the sound quality is an issue. We're dealing with an America that thinks MP3s and multiplexed stereo FM sounds fine.


----------



## Feirstein

After 5 years I just dropped Sirius from my Ford Edge because of the decreased sound quality. My daughter played Pandora through my system and it sounded far superior. I do miss the news feeds however. Digital FM and even AM sounds better with their very low bit rates. They use a far superior technology.


----------



## I WANT MORE


I am right behind you. 5 radio subscriptions.


----------



## Gary J

I dropped Sirius in my 2007 Ford Edge too. However I am keeping it my 2013 BMW X5 because it sounds great - not CD great but very good. Must be equipment, acoustics or something.


----------



## DarkVenture

I noticed an increase in sound quality in the past 4 weeks or so.


----------



## Mamchur

Gary J, what "upgrade" do you have in your BMW?? I just got a brand new 2014 BMW 428i with Harman Kardon sound upgrade and the Sirius sounds horrific. Much worse than my old Honda or home Edge (SiriusXM) unit. Did you get the technology package? Can you elaborate more on that upgrade? I'm so disappointed I don't want the car (I pre-ordered it, so feel completely screwed - I own it, and Sirius absolutely sucks).


----------



## kbeam418

Just got a Sirius tuner from my parents, and I the quality is better than FM in some ways and a lot worse in some ways. On "Classic Vinyl" there is no high end and obviously is low bit rate,and is also much more dynamicly compressed than the local FM stations, BUT it's better than FM because there is no odd atmospheric distortion and there also is more bass. Could be my head unit of course.


----------



## Gary J




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mamchur*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24172632
> 
> 
> Gary J, what "upgrade" do you have in your BMW?? I just got a brand new 2014 BMW 428i with Harman Kardon sound upgrade and the Sirius sounds horrific. Much worse than my old Honda or home Edge (SiriusXM) unit. Did you get the technology package? Can you elaborate more on that upgrade? I'm so disappointed I don't want the car (I pre-ordered it, so feel completely screwed - I own it, and Sirius absolutely sucks).


Premium $900 upgrade. Try loading your BMW's hard drive with 320 kbps music then listen to the difference. For me Sirius is closer to that than to FM and better than the Ford Edge I had for sure. Also turn it up a bit - if you don't you need adjustments with the equalizer.


----------



## Mamchur

Do you have navigation? Apparently, Navigation has built-in CIC Sirius Afair unit and non-navigation are stand-alone Champ2+ Sirius units (whatever that means). The sound difference is drastic. I do not have navigation and there's no possible equalization that can rescue the sound in my setup. It does sound like 32 kbs.


----------



## Gary J

Yes I have Nav. Don't know what that would have to do with Sirius though. Why don't you go listen in another vehicle like yours to rule out defective hardware.


----------



## Mamchur

You just nailed it. Your unit is a part or the navigation unit. It is confusing, but that's what it is. If you have navigation - you get a CIC AFAIR unit, which apparently sounds great (like in the cars I test drove). If you get just "satellite radio" option - you get a standalone unit called Sirius Camp2+, which sounds like total crap. To understand all this took me a few days of research (and I am in the music business, so for common people it's a totally buried truth). I called BMW and they told me they are not trained on this matter. Well - that's what it is. By getting a GPS you somehow get good sounding circuit. By getting a radio - you get crap.


----------



## Gary J

But you said you got " Harman Kardon sound upgrade". Does that mean better speakers but still a cheap satellite radio?


----------



## Mamchur

Yes, correct. Which is just obscene and pisses me off. I'm taking it on with the dealership - this should've been disclosed. I can't even tell you how bad that Sirius Champ2+ sounds through these 16 Harman Kardon speakers. I honestly feel cheated and pranked - like installing a Chevy Cruz engine into a Lamborghini body and selling it at a full Lamborghini price. I can't believe they even install that crap into a brand new 428! Will keep you posted on how it goes down. There is nothing that can be done after market to fix the issue either. Only a new car with the technology package (extra $3K) - which I would've paid had I known. I work in the music and it matters A LOT to me. Very upset.


----------



## kbeam418




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mamchur*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24177611
> 
> 
> Yes, correct. Which is just obscene and pisses me off. I'm taking it on with the dealership - this should've been disclosed. I can't even tell you how bad that Sirius Champ2+ sounds through these 16 Harman Kardon speakers. I honestly feel cheated and pranked - like installing a Chevy Cruz engine into a Lamborghini body and selling it at a full Lamborghini price. I can't believe they even install that crap into a brand new 428! Will keep you posted on how it goes down. There is nothing that can be done after market to fix the issue either. Only a new car with the technology package (extra $3K) - which I would've paid had I known. I work in the music and it matters A LOT to me. Very upset.



I wouldn't expect much







My parents Cadillac CTS has Sirius and it sounds like crap too. My aftermarket stereo in my car which, which isn't crap, sounds bad too. Adding treble at 17.5 k did help a lot though.


----------



## Gary J




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mamchur*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24177611
> 
> 
> Yes, correct. Which is just obscene and pisses me off. I'm taking it on with the dealership - this should've been disclosed. I can't even tell you how bad that Sirius Champ2+ sounds through these 16 Harman Kardon speakers. I honestly feel cheated and pranked - like installing a Chevy Cruz engine into a Lamborghini body and selling it at a full Lamborghini price. I can't believe they even install that crap into a brand new 428! Will keep you posted on how it goes down. There is nothing that can be done after market to fix the issue either. Only a new car with the technology package (extra $3K) - which I would've paid had I known. I work in the music and it matters A LOT to me. Very upset.


That is bad because everything else BMW is first rate. My Sirius and Tech package is all good. May I suggest visiting bimmerfest.com forums and see what the guys (which include dealer reps, repair guys, enthusiasts) say about it.


This would seem to serve as a word of caution to all makes and model buyers to double check what you are getting against expectations. There are lots of complaints about signal quality here and to be sure it is not CD quality but sometimes that is not telling the whole story.


----------



## Mamchur

Thank you for the tips, guys. I'm taking it on with the dealership and will keep you posted on the results. Bimmertech is certainly an option. Once again - in such expensive and premium brand like BMW (especially custom ordered) - sales people should be trained in these facts, even if it matters as much to only 1% of the customers. I know it matters to more than 1%, probably 50%, but people overall are just unaware of different technologies, options, and sound possibilities. I expect to hear some kind of solution from them. As silly as it sounds - this sound issue is extremely important to me and honestly spoils the entire ownership experience of a brand-new luxury vehicle. I think we as customers and they as dealers also need to be communicating this to SiriusXM corporate. The idea of selling luxury and performance cars with upgraded speakers and 32 kb sound is autraucious. If they have to put a couple more satellites into the orbit - they should then. With 30 million customers with 1.2 accounts average by at least $120 a year they have the opportunity to improve the overall technology and owe it to their customers. For now - I blame BMW (and Cadillac) - they are premium brands with supposedly full attention to every detail - it should be them and not me finding out the fine differences between decoding in CIC and Champ2+ Sirius modules. I should be allowed to be a "stupid customer" who pays the $, takes the keys, and enjoys the full premium experience.


----------



## shahram72

I have XM in my 2005 Acura RL which has a phenomenal (for factory) 10 speaker 5.1 sound system. CD's and DTS CD's and DVD-AUDIO sound amazing. All but a few SiriusXM stations sound terrible. Very low bit rate. I only listen to news or comedy, the music just sounds too bad on my system. They just charged $105 to my card. I'm gonna call them and tell them to cut that in half or they can keep it. The music is not a viable product for listeners like us.


----------



## Brad Bishop

I've had Sirius/XM over 10 years now. The sound quality has changed over the years as noted.


One thing I recently noticed is that, in my Honda Civic, it sounds OK (SCC1 tuner + HON interface), that the sound is OK (comparing it to what I've had over the years, overall it's just OK).


I recently rented a Dodge M200 and it had Sirius built-in and it actually sounded pretty good, better than the SCC1 in my Civic, by comparison. So there are some differences between the stereos/tuners.


----------



## shahram72




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Bishop*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24202463
> 
> 
> I've had Sirius/XM over 10 years now. The sound quality has changed over the years as noted.
> 
> 
> One thing I recently noticed is that, in my Honda Civic, it sounds OK (SCC1 tuner + HON interface), that the sound is OK (comparing it to what I've had over the years, overall it's just OK).
> 
> 
> I recently rented a Dodge M200 and it had Sirius built-in and it actually sounded pretty good, better than the SCC1 in my Civic, by comparison. So there are some differences between the stereos/tuners.



I've heard this from others. My car, being an older 2005 model, has older electronics, but I know low bit rate audio when I hear it, and that's what it sounds like. It's not like in 2005 they didn't have the tech to do proper D/A conversion. And this is a top of the line model, not the XM tuner in a Chevy Cobalt or similar low cost unit. I expect it to sound better. Pandora (free version) sounds way better off my cheap $80 Android phone, so something is up. Other owners of the same year and model Acura also say the sound quality stinks. It's just not worth paying for as it sounds so bad I cannot stand to even listen to it. Has me longing for my days in high school listening to cassette tapes that sounded WAY better. The FM radio sounds WAY better. I'm just really disappointed. I think it's time to bail unless they give it to me so cheap I can't refuse. I DO enjoy the news and comedy stations, but that's it.


----------



## sebberry

I don't have a name brand audio system in my car, but it's significantly better than many factory car radios. So much so that I just haven't bothered to install my MB Quart speakers and amplifier.


CD sounds great, aux-in from my phone sounds great and local FM stations are strong, clear and have good highs and low.


I have a Sirius radio on a car dock connected to the aux-input and it's somewhere between AM and FM in quality, probably closer to AM.


It's purely a problem with the bitrate. High end stereos may offer some form of compressed music enhancer, but if you're unhappy with the quality of the Sirius audio, it's not your car and you shouldn't be complaining to the dealer about it. It's purely the signal delivered by Sirius.


----------



## Brad Bishop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sebberry*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24207446
> 
> 
> It's purely a problem with the bitrate. High end stereos may offer some form of compressed music enhancer, but if you're unhappy with the quality of the Sirius audio, it's not your car and you shouldn't be complaining to the dealer about it. It's purely the signal delivered by Sirius.



I don't think it's purely bitrate. Yes, a higher bitrate would be better, but different stereos perform differently and it could be different tuners, amps, speakers, or even the environment (noisy vs quiet). There was a noticeable difference in sound on a recent trip for me. The rental car sounded better (for comparison, I'd equate it to good FM - in my Civic it sounds more like regular FM to maybe sub FM, if that helps). While I don't have proof, the bitrate should have been the same.


----------



## shahram72




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Bishop*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24207861
> 
> 
> I don't think it's purely nitrate. Yes, a higher bitrate would be better, but different stereos perform differently and it could be different tuners, amps, speakers, or even the environment (noisy vs quiet). There was a noticeable difference in sound on a recent trip for me. The rental car sounded better (for comparison, I'd equate it to good FM - in my Civic it sounds more like regular FM to maybe sub FM, if that helps). While I don't have proof, the bitrate should have been the same.



Those are all factors, but when you can hear the difference in stations, how some actually sound nice and others sound like 64k audio, based on how popular they are, you can see that bitrate is the main cause. The top 20 stations sound good, but then the more obscure stations, which are the reason to have sat radio in the first place sound like garbage.


----------



## Brad Bishop




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shahram72*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24207866
> 
> 
> Those are all factors, but when you can hear the difference in stations, how some actually sound nice and others sound like 64k audio, based on how popular they are, you can see that bitrate is the main cause. The top 20 stations sound good, but then the more obscure stations, which are the reason to have sat radio in the first place sound like garbage.



Yep - I'm with you there. I really wish they'd have less stations and a higher bit rate. That's not going to happen, though. They seem to be content advertising 100s of channels and the quality isn't a factor.


----------



## Mamchur

Guys, it is not all about the signal/bitrate. Just isn't. Read my above posts. XM signal and decoding are physically different from Sirius. So is the sound quality. At home - I had Sirius Sportster. Over years started sound like total crap. Got SiriusXM Edge - sounds great! My brand new BMW has Sirius Champ2+ - sounds worse than crap. My friend has a 2007 Acura with XM - sounds absolutely amazing. On par (if not better) than FM. The unit does make a difference. I've talked with SiriusXM corporate and they acknowledged the difference in different BMW models, which is based purely on whether you have a GPS or not (as crazy as it sounds). The dealer knows it too (at least does now, after I put up a lot of stink) and they are working with me. The fact that BMW corporate didn't educate them about the issue sucks for them but doesn't excuse them from making it right for me as a customer.


----------



## shahram72

OK, I can understand that, but then why do the popular stations sound fine while others sound worse, and they sound like cell phone audio. Actually cell phone audio is better. Still, the service is only as good as the equipment, and if a new BMW sounds bad with it, as well as my older Acura with high end system, then SiriusXM has a problem, cause I'm no longer willing to pay for it.


----------



## DrDon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shahram72*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24222915
> 
> 
> OK, I can understand that, but then why do the popular stations sound fine while others sound worse, and they sound like cell phone audio.


Because they're dealing with fixed bandwidth. So, services that are primarily talk based (CNN, play-by-play sports) are given less bandwidth so they can fit more of them in the same pipe. The local weather and traffic channels are the worst, but they can cram a dozen of those on the bird in the bandwidth it takes for one music channel. Didn't help that the merger forced all channels to be available on both services. Yeah, most of the music services they were able to combine. XM's "High Standards" was replaced by Siriusly Sinatra, for example. But Howard had to be added to XM and Oprah to Sirius, along with a number of others.


----------



## Gary J

Bandwidth is only an overall consideration. Channels are variable bit rate.


----------



## shahram72




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrDon*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24230131
> 
> 
> Because they're dealing with fixed bandwidth. So, services that are primarily talk based (CNN, play-by-play sports) are given less bandwidth so they can fit more of them in the same pipe. The local weather and traffic channels are the worst, but they can cram a dozen of those on the bird in the bandwidth it takes for one music channel. Didn't help that the merger forced all channels to be available on both services. Yeah, most of the music services they were able to combine. XM's "High Standards" was replaced by Siriusly Sinatra, for example. But Howard had to be added to XM and Oprah to Sirius, along with a number of others.



Yes, you are right and I understand this completely. Bandwidth costs money and they're not buying enough of it for the amount of channels, in my opinion. Makes perfect sense to lower bitrate for talk stations, but music should be at a minimum standard to sound like 128 mp3's. They advertise CD quality which is a complete joke.


----------



## Gary J

Yes they need a trip to the Bandwidth 'R Us store.


----------



## samsungmike

I had a 2010 Mazda6 S with the stock Nav system which came with Sirius. Sounded very tinny and just assumed that's how satellite radio sounds. Like a low quality mp3.

I traded it in for a 2013 Nissan Altima SL with the stock nav system which came with XM. Much better sound and not tinny at all. Didn't lose connection when driving under

an overpass like in the Mazda. This is at 60 mph. Mazda would lose it briefly and the Nissan doesn't. Could be an antenna thing. Don't know. Talked to a friend and he said

maybe my xm radio does some kind of buffering to help improve sound quality. Anyway that's my experience between the 2. Think the mazda unit was a denzo and the nissan

is a bosch nav unit.


----------



## jreiter

I've been doing some Googling today regarding XM bitrates, and I came across this article:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64686 

It's a bit old (2008), but it lists the bitrates for each channel on XM.


To summarize:
The majority of the music channels are about 32 kbit/s, with a couple getting as high as 64 kbit/s (such as XM Pops). XM can vary the bitrate of a channel as needed, and they seem to do so based on popularity of channels. More popular channels get more bandwidth, less popular ones get less bandwidth. Remember that XM has a very finite amount of bandwidth coming from their satellites, though, so they can't increase the bitrate of every channel. Basically, if they increase one, another has to go down. The same goes for adding additional channels. To make room for new channels, other channels have to have their bitrates decreased.
The talk-only channels typically sit around 16 kbit/s, with the automated informational channels (such as weather) get as low as 4 kbit/s. This is extremely low, which is why the voices on some of those channels sound "robotic."


Despite this information being from 2008, I think it's safe to assume it's still fairly relevant given that XM has not added a new satellite in order to add more bandwidth and increase the overall bitrates o their channels. That being the case, it's probably safe to assume they have the same total bandwidth available to them, which means they couldn't have increased the overall bitrates on their channels. They may have increased the bitrates on *some* channels while decreasing bitrates on others, but it's all give and take.


Many folks have stated that some radios tend to sound better than others, and that may be entirely true. However, no matter how good the radio is, it is still going to be limited by the very low bitrates of the channels. As an analogy, consider a record player. You can have an extremely high end, multi-thousand dollar record player, but if you put an old, scratched up record on it, it's going to sound like an old scratched up record no matter how good the record player is.


As a comparison, here are the bitrates of some popular music services:
Pandora web-based desktop player: 64 kbit/s for the free service, 192 kbit/s for the premium service.
Pandora AV equipment app (TVs, receivers, etc): 128 kbit/s (free or premium)
Pandora mobile app: 64 kbit/s (free or premium)
Spotify desktop/web player: 160 kbit/s for free, 320 kbit/s for premium.
Spotify mobile app: 96 kbit/s "normal" mode for free, 160 kbit/s "high quality" mode for free, 320 kbit/s "extreme" quality mode for premium subscribers.


I wanted to post this information because there has been a lot of dispute about the quality of XM in this thread, and I thought some technical information on the limitations of satellite radio might be helpful for some folks to make informed decisions.


Okay, now for my personal opinion: Even at a bitrate of 64 kbit/s (which is the highest bitrate XM sets on only the most popular music channels) it will never sound as a good as a CD or even a high quality mp3 if you are listening on any sort of quality audio equipment. If you have a base-model sound system in your car or the simple earbuds that came with your phone, you might not notice much of a difference due to the limitations of the audio equipment. The limitations of the low quality equipment may mask the inherent limitations of the low XM bitrates. If you have any sort of upgraded or quality equipment, though, the compression "artifacts" in low bitrates become audible. The 64 kbit/s channels may sound acceptable, but the 32 kbit/s channels can become grating to the ear. Again, this is my opinion (I'm a little bit of a snooty, semi-audiophile), so your mileage may vary.

-joe


----------



## Gary J

I don't think it shows much of anything unless you can show they have not moved to variable bit rates and more efficient encoding since your 6 year old report.


----------



## Brad Bishop

Something else: Adding a satellite would not increase their capacity.


It's not like DirecTV or DishNetwork where you can toss another satellite up into orbit and get the users to upgrade their dishes to point at multiple satellites. They're limited by the bandwidth that they've been given.


Now, since they're one company now, effectively, they have twice the bandwidth but due to legacy radios they use this double bandwidth to broadcast the same material. The closest you ever got was the Mirge radio - it only mattered when they had two separate sets of channels. Now you'd just get dups of (nearly) everything.


So, even if they did toss up a new satellite, which they do from time to time, it only increases coverage (signal strength in some areas) or it's just sitting up there as a backup.


----------



## ralniv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sfm*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/90#post_24066818
> 
> 
> Simply baffled by all of these "sounds good" comments in reference to Sirius... I have an upgraded sound system in my '13 Audi which is only ok (sorry but IMO there is no such thing as a good sound system in a car) and mp3's from an ipod/memory card or a good FM station sound significantly better than the crap from Sirius. Needless to say (though I will) I did not renew Sirius once the "free" subscription expired.


Same situation here. I have a 2013 Audi. Sirius XM is far worse sounding than my iPhone (bluetooth and hard wired), HD FM radio, and my SD memory card. It's not even in the same league as standard FM radio. It sounds muddled and lacks detail. They keep sending me promotions to reactivate my account for $25 (for 6 months of service), but it just isn't worth $5/mon to me. I get aggravated with anything other than talk radio programs on Sirius XM.


----------



## shahram72




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary J*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/120#post_24260785
> 
> 
> Yes they need a trip to the Bandwidth 'R Us store.



Sums it all up right there... I'll give 'em $5 a month for it. That's about it.


----------



## rc05

Once again, they're not able to just buy more bandwidth. There is only a certain amount of bandwidth allocated for satellite radio in the US, and Sirius and XM already have all of it. They need to better utilize the bandwidth that they have by shutting down Sirius. They were supposedly going to do this, but nothing much has happened.

http://xmfan.net/viewtopic.php?t=115557&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


----------



## DrDon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rc05*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/150#post_24418705
> 
> 
> Once again, they're not able to just buy more bandwidth. There is only a certain amount of bandwidth allocated for satellite radio in the US, and Sirius and XM already have all of it. They need to better utilize the bandwidth that they have by shutting down Sirius. They were supposedly going to do this, but nothing much has happened.
> 
> http://xmfan.net/viewtopic.php?t=115557&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0



If I read that thread correctly, they were discussing shutting down Sirius TERRESTRIAL. Not the satellite. Couldn't do that, anyway, without losing half of the subscriber base. I don't see them replacing every existing Sirius radio. Sirius radios will not tune XM. The two transmission formats are incompatible. And shutting off around half of the satellite radios would pretty much bankrupt the company.


----------



## rc05




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DrDon*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/150#post_24418740
> 
> 
> If I read that thread correctly, they were discussing shutting down Sirius TERRESTRIAL. Not the satellite. Couldn't do that, anyway, without losing half of the subscriber base. I don't see them replacing every existing Sirius radio. Sirius radios will not tune XM. The two transmission formats are incompatible. And shutting off around half of the satellite radios would pretty much bankrupt the company.



If you look at the 2015 Goal at the bottom, you'll see that the "Sirius Platform" is phased out and "Sirius 1.0 Tuners No Longer Compatible" (which refers to all Sirius radios). You're absolutely right that they would have to replace every existing Sirius radio, which is why they probably aren't going to do this anytime soon. They're still selling Sirius radios and putting them in cars today! But in the context of getting more bandwidth, this is pretty much the only feasible option outside of acquiring and getting approval for more bandwidth elsewhere and making new radios anyway.


----------



## Gary J

With a given amount of bandwidth better channel quality can be achieved with less channels. Marketing people have known for a long time (just as for TV broadcast) that people prefer more channel choices to channel quality. as unpopular as that may be on this forum.


----------



## rc05

Yeah, XM launched with only 100 channels and they sounded great! I doubt they're gonna axe channels though







. During last baseball season (I think) they had to switch some of the music channels to mono temporarily cause they were out of bandwidth.


----------



## Brad Bishop

If I remember correctly, the shutdown of the Sirius side turned out to be more rumor than fact, granted, a widely spread rumor that I believed at the time as did plenty of others.


They are letting the Sirius satellites finish up their service and not replacing them in their polar orbits. All of the new sats are going to be geosynchronous which I think is unfortunate. I'd have much preferred that they keep both because geosynchronous works well for home receivers while the polar orbit works really well for mobile receivers.


They could, theoretically, double their bandwidth by replacing all of the Sirius radios with new radios that receive from both spectrums (XM & Sirius) and then just transmit XM on the normal XM spectrum and something like "XM+" on the old Sirius spectrum (same codec as XM - just on the old Sirius Spectrum). Then they could offer new radios that could see both Spectrums, understand that some channels come from "XM" and others come from "Sirius" and use the same codec for both.


I don't see them doing that.


As it is, and I think someone mentioned this above, you're still seeing Sirius tuners in new cars. You can still buy Sirius PNP units at the stores (somewhere in the back in the clearance section next to the XM radios - it's funny how they're no longer front and center).


My guess is that they'll just keep the status quo for the foreseeable future. They have their subscribers. They'll just (mostly) simulcast across the two spectrums.


----------



## Mamchur

Hey Everyone - back to my BMW 428 XM vs Sirius thread (see previous posts) - I got the new car two weeks ago - and what do you know? The sound is day and night. Again - it is not CD quality clearly, but it's incomparably better now than it was. To remind all: originally the car was shipped without Nav/technology package and had a standalone Sirius unit installed which sounded like **** on 16 Harmon Kardon speakers. The new car has the navigation (and the technology package) and SiriusXM sounds MUCH better now. The issue: in BMWs - if you get the navigation - sat radio is just a circuit board within the head unit (vs. if you don't get the nav - it's a standalone sirius device). Apparently - that unintuitive thing makes a huge difference in sound. I know that Gary J and others wanted the follow - so here it is!


----------



## Gary J




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mamchur*  /t/1388846/sirius-or-xm-sound-quality-and-future-enhancments/150#post_24588530
> 
> 
> Hey Everyone - back to my BMW 428 XM vs Sirius thread (see previous posts) - I got the new car two weeks ago - and what do you know? The sound is day and night. Again - it is not CD quality clearly, but it's incomparably better now than it was. To remind all: originally the car was shipped without Nav/technology package and had a standalone Sirius unit installed which sounded like **** on 16 Harmon Kardon speakers. The new car has the navigation (and the technology package) and SiriusXM sounds MUCH better now. The issue: in BMWs - if you get the navigation - sat radio is just a circuit board within the head unit (vs. if you don't get the nav - it's a standalone sirius device). Apparently - that unintuitive thing makes a huge difference in sound. I know that Gary J and others wanted the follow - so here it is!



Thanks for the follow up. Hopefully you can find that Bimmerfest thread also. It all goes to show Sirius sound quality can be quite good but it can depend on a few different things. Some you would not even figure on.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

Actually READ this thread.

If I read correctly: My Sirius Stiletto 100 would be better served, SOUND QUALITY WISE, while in it's HOME DOCK, to use my ISP for "Satellite Radio", because it sends out those streams at 128Kbps, as opposed to 32-64Kbps being sent out through the Satellites?

Is this right? 

My Stiletto 100(using wireless-B. That is laughable. Wireless-G was around in 2006)) receives my Wi-Fi fine(2 bars as opposed to 3 bars on satellite). I mainly use my Stiletto 100 to record H. Stern in the morning. 

I know I cannot record the Internet Streams, but do they actually sound better? When I connect, I do get INTERNET PREMIUM on the BOTTOM LINE of my Stiletto 100. It it is then replaced with the time.

P.S. I have the SIRIUS SELECT PACKAGE ONLY


----------



## atc1989

*Update*

Hey guys. I posted more than 2 years ago about my 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee which had a Sirius radio, and how the sound quality was terrible. Since then I have done a LOT of research and have found what most are saying on this forum. To those who aren't familiar, please head my caution, *even though Sirius and XM are now one company, they still make both Sirius and XM hardware separately. The issue is that anyone using Sirius hardware gets the terrible sound quality, those with XM hardware get the good audio quality. *Sirius radios use different satellites than XM, and also use a different decompression algorithm, therefore causing the degradation in audio quality.


I couldn't stand the audio quality so much, that I ended up trading in my 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee for a 2014 model. Chrysler was smart, and decided to start putting the new "SiriusXM" tuners in their radios (which utilize the legacy "XM" satellites and decompression). Audio quality is now 100x better, not "tinny" underwater sound anymore.


I'm now in the market for a 2015 Ford Expedition (please leave your judgment at the door) and have yet to test drive one. I know that Ford has always used Sirius tuners in their radios, and they still appear to as all the 2015 Ford literature indicates that you get the "*Sirius* All Access" package with your radio.


Now, my question is this. *Has Sirius quality improved at all?* Am I going to end up with terrible sound quality in the 2015 Expedition too? I know I need to go test drive one to see for myself, but wanted everyone's opinion here as well. For example, I know the gentleman on this forum some time ago claimed that once he traded in his BMW for a more advanced model (with NAV), his Sirius audio quality increased and was actually good. After some research I know that BMW still uses Sirius hardware...so wouldn't the sound quality still be poor?


Anyway, hoping to revive this thread, as I think it's important we bring this issue to light to the consumerist public.


----------



## Gary J

Nonsense. The Sirius in my BMWs is quite good. Of course the speakers are not by Ford or Jeep so I expect a quality difference between those important components. Example - there are 12" subs under each front seat.


----------



## Brad Bishop

@atc1989:

I think you're hearing the differences but your conclusion is wrong.

I've had Sirius since 2004 and XM since around 2006. Various radios with both. I've heard Sirius sound great and XM sound muddy and then XM coming back and sounding great and Sirius sounding tinny, or whatever over the years. I remember early on, before they really started trying to cram in as many channels as possible, when sound quality for both was actually quite good.

There are a few factors involved:
- compression (digital): I don't have any numbers to back this up but, just from my observations, I'd say that both sides are roughly the same now. It certainly doesn't sound as good as it used to but it does sound OK
- tuners: I think that this is probably where the largest difference lies in that some tuners, regardless of the platform, sound better than others.

I have both Sirius (Directed SCC1) and XM (SiriusXM Onyx Plus) in my car currently, all feeding through the same amp and speakers and I'd say that they largely sound the same. Probably the biggest difference is that there appears to be more audio (not digital) compression coming out of the Onyx Plus. It does make the Onyx Plus sound better (punchier) but it's more a trick of the tuner than anything.

I think that most of the factors in good sound quality, at this point, really come from: tuner, stereo, and environment and it really isn't as easy as saying that one sounds better than the other.. It's more like saying, "This particular tuner using this particular platform sounds good/bad in this particular environment."


----------



## satradio91

Just stumbled upon this thread doing some googling. Can't believe it's still going 3 years later.

I understand there are differences in the compression algorithms used but how can the XM side be sounding better when all the new channels are on the XM network? All the Xtra channels and the "SiriusXM" channels are broadcasted from the XM satellites.

I know of last three satellites launched two (FM-5 and FM-6) were both originally designed to be on the sirius network. Maybe they operate on both frequencies? 

I wish they would invest in the tundra orbit satellite model that the original sirius birds use. Seems like it gives better signal penetration from directly above instead of geosynchronous birds that XM and the latest satellites use. The XM network has a large array of ground repeaters to provide signal in areas where you dont have a clear view of the southern horizon.

With the decommissioning of sirius's tundra orbit satellites in the near future coupled with a lack of ground repeaters us sirius listeners are about to have some pretty poor reception. 

Current SiriusXM satellites-
FM-1 - Orignal Sirius satellite, tundra orbit. Lifetime expires in 2015
FM-2 - Orignal Sirius satellite, tundra orbit. Lifetime expires in 2015
FM-3 - Orignal Sirius satellite, tundra orbit. Lifetime expires in 2015
FM-5 - Sirius satellite launched 2009, geosynchronous orbit
FM-6 - Sirius satellite launched 2013, geosynchronous orbit

XM-1 - Orignal XM satellite, geosynchronous orbit. Lifetime expires 2016
XM-2 - Orignal XM satellite, geosynchronous orbit. Lifetime expires 2016
XM-3 - XM satellite launched in 2005, geosynchronous orbit.
XM-5 -XM satellite launched in 2010, geosynchronous orbit.

Saw this in another thread about the technical reasons for the move to XM. I dont have enough posts to post links



> * XM uses an audio codec known as HE-AAC, or aacPlus v1. It's designed to deliver higher quality audio at bitrates lower than 96 kbps (192 kbps MP3). Sirius uses a less efficient codec called ePAC, which takes more data to deliver at the same quality as HE-AAC. XM also uses the AMBE codec for its voice only data channels, aka the robot voice channels, which uses a mere 4 kbps.
> 
> * XM's infrastructure has the ability to move bandwidth around at will, turning channels on and off as needed and turning bandwidth up and down. Sirius channels stay on all the time, unless they're permanently deleted. They find ways of preserving bandwidth using a system like Statmux, where a group of channels have varying bitrates based on what other channels need. Satellite TV uses this too.
> 
> * XM is able to alter the channel information on its units at the push of a keystroke. If a channel is replaced by a new one, they can simply change the channel name and logo on the units. Sirius is unable to do this without shutting down the entire system and rebooting it, which causes all units to go dark for a few minutes. For a while this was routine, but Sirius hasn't done a reboot for over two years now.
> 
> * While all XM units can receive all channels, many Sirius units have a limit of 135 channels, and this includes a LOT of OEM radios. This is why XM has been adding several Sirius channels to its platform but Sirius has hardly added any XM channels. Sirius has mainly added XM channels to its Best of XM premium package, which brings the platform total over the 135 channel barrier, so the limited Sirius units have simply been deemed Best of XM incompatible. This is also why the newest Sirius XM channel, Spice Radio, has a full time channel on XM while existing part time on Sirius, sharing channel space with Sirius XM Stars Too.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

Anyone using the new SIRIUSXM APP?

They have a setting within the ME/USER menu where you can choose the sound quality you can use for STREAMING or DOWNLOADS. 

You can either choose NORMAL, HIGH, or MAXIMUM. Anyone know what each setting is set at(bit rates/kbps rates)? 

Just wondering if anyone knew what they are playing back at, and if there really is any sound difference.

The new app is actually not nearly as good as the old one. You cannot just listen to downloaded stuff OFFLINE at all anymore, which stinks. Hope they change that.

Also download times of content even at NORMAL setting is SLOWWWWWW!! Much slower than the old app.

The new app is not good at all. They should have left well enough alone.

This is with the app available on APPLE products. The Android/Google app is an older version still(2.6.6 as opposed to 3.0 for APPLE), and works 1000 X better.

Get to work APPLE, and/or SiriusXM, and fix the new version. IT IS TERRIBLE!!!


----------



## Gary J

Spotify has the 3 settings and lets you save 3000+ songs to your device. Nice.


----------



## JA Fant

Excellent info guys. In the early days of XM Radio (only), it was a joint effort w/ AC Delco. Most of the time it will not sound good in the German automobiles?


----------



## kevin j

I'm pretty sure the bit rates on the new app are Normal 64kbps High 128kbps and Maximum 320kbps.


----------



## stockwiz

I was complaining about the sound quality 10 years ago, not to mention the repetition in the stations ... the sound quality was never really better than FM.. it would be interesting to get a live feed of the satellite service, rip it to my PC, and see what frequencies are cut off.. I've heard people say there's nothing below 300HZ and above 8000 HZ. People would tell me I was full of it and it was my speakers.. nonsense. These are probably some of the same people who say that the human eye cannot detect over 24FPS and tell me I'm mistaken, that I really can't. 

I'm spoiled by my FLAC files now... no going back. Storage is cheap and my collection is to the point where I no longer need playlists to discover music unless it's new stuff.


----------



## Gary J

Got ESPN in your playlist? CNN, weather, traffic?


----------



## Chris_Collins

stockwiz said:


> I was complaining about the sound quality 10 years ago, not to mention the repetition in the stations ... the sound quality was never really better than FM.. it would be interesting to get a live feed of the satellite service, rip it to my PC, and see what frequencies are cut off.. I've heard people say there's nothing below 300HZ and above 8000 HZ. People would tell me I was full of it and it was my speakers.. nonsense. These are probably some of the same people who say that the human eye cannot detect over 24FPS and tell me I'm mistaken, that I really can't.
> 
> I'm spoiled by my FLAC files now... no going back. Storage is cheap and my collection is to the point where I no longer need playlists to discover music unless it's new stuff.


The master library at Sirius is coded at 256MPEG2... That is how it was originally built. I don't think they have converted any of that to 44.1/WAV yet. Just doing that would greatly improve how it sounds after it hits the second CODEC. I do know that the audio files they use are full sprectrum rips. If they are rolling off lows and highs, it's prior to going into the MUX or Uplink. I don't think they roll off the low end. It's easy to hear on the Hip-Hop & R&B channels that they are going down to at least 80HZ.

While I enjoy some of the formats, I did not renew. That audio literally hurts my ears. I'm very sensitive to audio and video compression. I hear it quickly and see it too. Definitely a blessing and a curse. I also program two FM radio stations and my music library for both is 44.1/Linear audio. Going from SiriusXM to one of my stations on FM shows you just how horrible it is. My iHeart streams at 64Kbs sound way better than the medium quality of the SiriusXM feeds. When I had Dish network, that was the only time I could stand Sirius. Dish has a fiber link and it isn't compressed on the Sirius side.


----------



## Gary J

Chris_Collins said:


> I'm very sensitive to audio and video compression. I hear it quickly and see it too.


You hear and see audio and video compression? Amazing stuff right there.

And 64Kb is plain wrong.


----------



## kevin j

My advice would be to listen to the internet stream if the compression on the satellite feed bothers you[the internet feed at the 320kbps aka maximum level has little to no noticable compression......just listen to one of the live concerts off the board on the Grateful Dead channel for proof or even one of the shows on the Pearl Jam channel].


----------



## bobpaule

Most ballcap wearing football watching Joes care little about quality, "bigger" like their truck, and "more" like the number of second hand cars that litter their yards mean more than quality. You guess, AVS folk are less 0.5% of the total, and can be completely ignored by the greedy marketers.

Why would they even need it when they put their 2yo children and grandkids on their laps while mowing with a 150dB two cylinder without even ear plugs, nature nurture?


----------



## Alanlee

bobpaule said:


> Most ballcap wearing football watching Joes care little about quality, "bigger" like their truck, and "more" like the number of second hand cars that litter their yards mean more than quality. You guess, AVS folk are less 0.5% of the total, and can be completely ignored by the greedy marketers.
> 
> Why would they even need it when they put their 2yo children and grandkids on their laps while mowing with a 150dB two cylinder without even ear plugs, nature nurture?


 Uh oh - I'm a ballcap wearing, football watching, truck loving folk ( not named Joe ) with Sirius/XM in both pickups, a Mustang Convertible, a boat and a travel trailer, but we don't allow second hand cars in the yards of my neighborhood.

My grandchildren love the kids channel ( they are strapped in the backseat of the diesel pickup ), and I listen to BB King's Bluesville, Bloomberg and the BBC. The sound quality is just OK; I have heard worse. I use a mobile device for the boat, travel trailer and a boombox. I don't have a lawn.

I started worrying about the cost of subscriptions, so I bought 5000 shares of Sirius/XM stock. It went up and I'm still slightly ahead on my stock to Sirius XM billing ratio: up 3.5 - 4K.

I guess some of us AVS folk who care little about quality bigger than our truck can do OK if given a chance, but shucks we are still prey to those greedy marketers.


----------



## Gary J

Probably none of them with last century HTPC bi-amp either.


----------



## bobpaule

Point taken, I get pretty sarcastic sometimes, though I am glad we all agree on the poor SQ of most channels.

I get better results with Spotify via 4G on the Samsung 10" tablet linked via A2DP bluetooth to my Audi's stock base model Panasonic radio with B&Os. Google Maps 3D navigation and Netflix for the kids beats the 25K premium I would have had to pay for the Prestige model.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

bobpaule said:


> Point taken, I get pretty sarcastic sometimes, though I am glad we all agree on the poor SQ of most channels.
> 
> I get better results with Spotify via 4G on the Samsung 10" tablet linked via A2DP bluetooth to my Audi's stock base model Panasonic radio with B&Os. Google Maps 3D navigation and Netflix for the kids beats the 25K premium I would have had to pay for the Prestige model.


+1

Also add in Pandora, Slacker, TuneIn Radio just to a name a few that are LIGHT YEARS ahead in sound quality.

I am curious to see what happens "if" SiriusXM loses Howard Stern at the end of the year.

Still no contract extension beyond December 2014. Wonder if there will be a mass exodus if he goes.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Alanlee

STEELERSRULE said:


> +1
> 
> Also add in Pandora, Slacker, TuneIn Radio just to a name a few that are LIGHT YEARS ahead in sound quality.
> 
> I am curious to see what happens "if" SiriusXM loses Howard Stern at the end of the year.
> 
> Still no contract extension beyond December 2014. Wonder if there will be a mass exodus if he goes.
> 
> Stay tuned.


 
The thing about any of these services is that there is always something new. I can remember how excited I was when I got a transistor radio for my birthday, or when I put a Radio Shack 8 track tape in my car; dude that was audio heaven.

I have not used Slacker or Tune-in radio. I use Pandora online at home. When we go on trips, I enjoy listening to the variety of programs available on Sirius. Taking my favorite news programs with me is a hoot, and I admit that I listen to the classic radio station. The voice quality, at least to my ear, is good enough. The comedy channels, although they are very repetitive, are also fun to listen.

I like quality audio, so even though the system in my pickup is a good one, there is a noticeable difference between what I hear in my car and what I hear at home; however a guy who was wowed by an 8 track tape probably does not have high expectations or standards.

I am now looking forward to the next big thing.


----------



## sebberry

I do like good audio quality and Sirius does really suffer here. 

But Where Sirius does have an edge is in their ability to live stream events - they had fantastic coverage of the massive Coachella music festival this year. And of course you can get it where you don't have cell reception for online services and you don't have to download your playlists in advance. 

They also cover live sports but I couldn't care less about that.


----------



## Gary J

The whiners are going to whine. It's what they do.


----------



## bliptrip

Can anyone verify if the Sirus internet stream are really at a higher bitrate than the satellite streams?


----------



## kevin j

Yes they are.....the satellite version maxes out at about 40kbps while the internet feed is at 320kbps at it's highest level.[the numbers don't lie]


----------



## andyross63

But are they the same compression algorithms?


----------



## Gary J

kevin j said:


> Yes they are.....the satellite version maxes out at about 40kbps while the internet feed is at 320kbps at it's highest level.[the numbers don't lie]


Let's see a reference.


----------



## kevin j

You can find the info at XMFan.com


----------



## Gary J

Yeah right some other poster? About what I thought.


----------



## kevin j

Let's just say the internet stream/app uses much less compression than the satellite stream[i'm not really sure if they both use the same compression algorithm that kind've technical stuff is beyond me].


----------



## Gary J

kevin j said:


> Let's just say the internet stream/app uses much less compression than the satellite stream[i'm not really sure if they both use the same compression algorithm that kind've technical stuff is beyond me].


Yeah well better than just making stuff up. Besides sat streaming rates are variable not fixed like on a CD.


----------



## Biggbrother

I'll add my two cents. I've had a 2014 Mazda6 with Sirius Radio on a Bose system in it for 2 years. I let the 3 month free demo period lapse because I really didn't like the sound quality.

This past January we purchased a 2015 Nissan Altima SV with the regular (non-Bose) speaker system that had XM Radio in it. The quality was actually pretty good and it was acceptable to me. Still not as good as what I get at higher quality through my Google Play Music subscription, but good enough.

So recently Sirius/XM sent me a letter telling me they wanted to give me 2 free months of Sirius in the Mazda. Since the quality in the Altima was so good, I decided to take them up on the offer, figuring they'd improved the sound quality. However, upon spending some time listening to it in the Mazda, i can tell it sounds just as bad as the day I bought the car. It simply sounds like a low bitrate MP3, muddled, whisky, and sloppy.

In the Altima, which has no subwoofer and basic speakers, the XM radio sounds much better. I can tell the bitrate is much higher. I cannot believe Sirius/XM is still putting Sirus receivers in new vehicles. They should have started phasing these out a long time ago!

I am going to let the Sirius subscription expire and may keep the XM one in the car if the price is right. Granted, satellite radio is more convenient than streaming from your phone, and they offer a good variety of conetent for news, kids and sports fans. But with Apple Car Play and Android Auto hitting more and more new models, it is going to be easier and easier to stream right from the headunit. I stream from Google Play Music at 256kbps. It sounds glorious on the Bose system in my Mazda, unlike Sirius.


----------



## TweezerMan

Yes, I enjoyed 10 years of XM in several vehicles, but have never regretted cancelling Sirius for my BMW, it was awful. But since then I've gotten hooked on various podcasts for news, and Google Play music (or even my old iPod) for music. So I don't think I'd go back.


----------



## earndog

In the past I heard Broadcast stations pressured the FCC to require Sirius/XM to broadcast at a limited bandwidth.


----------



## Brad Bishop

earndog said:


> In the past I heard Broadcast stations pressured the FCC to require Sirius/XM to broadcast at a limited bandwidth.


I never heard that one. It always seemed to me that they were going for max quantity over max quality or even a balance.

250 channels, even if very few people watch the newer channels, sell better than 100 channels. DirecTV did the same thing with their bandwidth. I don't know if they still do but they used to go through the same growing pains with adding new channels and the customer seeing lots of pixelation.


----------



## Leeboy

Here's what I noticed . The Sirius internet stream through my home stereo is crystal clear perfect . ( I have a high end system ) . On my iPhone and headphones , it sounds awesome . My sportster 5 in my boombox sounds pretty good . When I use my sportster 5 in my truck ( high end system) it sounds terrible . Like mono sound . I use to have a sportster 6 before I upgraded my truck stereo , I don't remember it sounding so bad . What I don't get , is how can my current sportster 5 sound so much better in the boombox than my truck when my truck has a superior set up in speakers and amps ? I think I will start asking to borrow other people's head units quickly and give em a try to make sure it isn't my head unit .


----------



## Gary J

Problem with your truck. You just proved it.


----------



## Leeboy

Gary J said:


> Problem with your truck. You just proved it.


What do you mean problem with my truck ? A cd / usb stick rock the cab of my truck. Sirius sounds flat , and fm radio isn't much better . 
Maybe I just think the boombox sounds good cause it's at work


----------



## msujdog

Well, I for one am thankful every day for the App. I never noticed how thin and tinny my Sirius Stiletto sounded when I got it, but over the years it's painfully obvious that they've had to cram in tons of music on a limited amount of bandwidth. The new app is horribly annoying at times, but at least the sound is terrific.


----------



## tveli

siriusxm changed their audio streaming encoding/support a couple weeks ago, obsoleting a bunch of old non-sirius/non-xm internet radios, and requiring updates to many others including the TTR100 table radio. 
Interesting that it affected the stiletto too, with no software update possible.
btw, there's a TTR200 now too, with some nice bonus features including rewind/record.

fwiw, i've got sirius traffic/fuel/info service via 'mylink' in new car too; the traffic info seems rather stale compared to google maps or apple maps . but the instant gasbuddy fuel price info is nice and can easily save the driver more $ than the cost of subscription.


----------



## bwturner1951

Very heady posts and reading. Thanks to all you Sirius/XM nerds for adding to the body of knowledge that us nerd wannabes can read but not completely understand. However, I think I understand the audio quality issue as it applies to my current situation: I've noticed a substantial loss of audio quality on all music channels. Don't know if it's occurred recently or I've just ignored it until recently.

At any rate, based on what I've gleaned from this thread it sounds like it's time for me to give up the old SiriusConnect Home Tuner (SC-H1) and move on to streaming SiriusXM through my internet enabled AV receiver. Since my AV receiver isn't Wifi capable, I'll need to run CAT 5 to it from my router upstairs. I always did enjoy spending time with the spiders and silverfish in the crawl space under the house.


----------



## PretzelFisch

bwturner1951 said:


> Very heady posts and reading. Thanks to all you Sirius/XM nerds for adding to the body of knowledge that us nerd wannabes can read but not completely understand. However, I think I understand the audio quality issue as it applies to my current situation: I've noticed a substantial loss of audio quality on all music channels. Don't know if it's occurred recently or I've just ignored it until recently.
> 
> At any rate, based on what I've gleaned from this thread it sounds like it's time for me to give up the old SiriusConnect Home Tuner (SC-H1) and move on to streaming SiriusXM through my internet enabled AV receiver. Since my AV receiver isn't Wifi capable, I'll need to run CAT 5 to it from my router upstairs. I always did enjoy spending time with the spiders and silverfish in the crawl space under the house.


They do sale wireless bridges. device that plugs in and connects to your wifi giving you a local network port


----------



## Gary J

MOCA and Powerline devices both work for me.


----------



## JA Fant

Sirius/XM sounds the best in all GM vehicles.


----------



## satradio91

I think a lot of the quality differences between cars could be due to line output of the sat radio tuner. In past VW's i've owned with factory sirius the tuner was connected to the radio digitally and sounded pretty decent.

In my older bmw I have an aftermarket sirius radio hardwired with RCA cables. The sound quality was horrible until I added a line level amp between the sirius tuner and the car's radio. The SQ has greatly improved. This leads me to believe the amp in some of the tuners is extremely underpowered.

I use this hidden under the center council
http://www.amazon.com/iBoost-800-Stereo-Amplifier-Booster/dp/B00CVDN2O0


----------



## AVfile

satradio91 said:


> I think a lot of the quality differences between cars could be due to line output of the sat radio tuner. In past VW's i've owned with factory sirius the tuner was connected to the radio digitally and sounded pretty decent.



2010 Passat here and sound quality problems are with the source. Sounds like a low bit rate (like 32-64kbps) MP3.


----------



## tegelad

The sound that comes out (from an XM perspective) has been really relevant to the type and kind of radio and how you connected it to your listening devices. E.g. I have had several XM head units (both alpine) that sounded fantastic. The Alpine guys optimized the audio pretty well (these are old 1.0 based radios 2002-2005). The latest head unit I dropped into a beater car I have (CDE-SXM145BT) I was able to compare the XMp3i and SG Note4 via FM transmitter versus the alpine and the sound was excellent even down into the CT-ACC+ (er eACC+ v1) ranges when compared against the XMp3i/SG Note 4 on internet.

Now I have "heard head units" in cars that made me want to scream, and I have been able to detect that the Onyx Plus out guns the audio on the XMp3i, but your mileage may vary based on your channel, audio preference, how you are listening.

Now if someone has the answer to this (it wasn't searchable on Xmfan or here) ... I was trying to figure out the default bit rate of the SiriusXM Lynx and it appears to default to the highest 320bit version. I put the device behind one of my Cisco VPN heads and watched the bandwidth graphs, where I saw the Lynx grab up to 1.5 Mbps on initial song launch and then it would oscillate between 200 and 600 Kbps based on a 5 second snapshot. Does anyone know this answer? I called listener care and believe it or not the tech's literally hung up on me three times.

My current radio kit (of which 3 out of 4 are my preferred ones) ... Onyx Plus and Onyx Lynx for mobile, and Alpine CDE-SXM145BT and the XM 1.0 CDA-9855.


----------



## Leeboy

I was sitting in my truck outside a fiends house where my iPhone could pick up wifi . So I did a test. I started up,the Sirius app on my phone and plugged it into my car stereo. Turned the head unit to aux ( my sirius setting) and switched back and fourth . It took one time and I noticed the app on my iPhone was like night and day to using my sportster 5 through the head unit. The app had my system pumpin , while the Sirius head unit was flat and dull .


----------



## STEELERSRULE

Leeboy said:


> I was sitting in my truck outside a fiends house where my iPhone could pick up wifi . So I did a test. I started up,the Sirius app on my phone and plugged it into my car stereo. Turned the head unit to aux ( my sirius setting) and switched back and fourth . It took one time and I noticed the app on my iPhone was like night and day to using my sportster 5 through the head unit. The app had my system pumpin , while the Sirius head unit was flat and dull .


The SIRIUS XM APP can be "SET" in the settings menu as to what level of the stream you want to use.

I "think" the levels are these:

LOW= 64kbps
NORMAL= 128kbps
HIGH=256kbps


----------



## andyross63

Internet streaming is almost certainly higher bandwidth than the satellite feed.


----------



## mc045

*Wifi = good, Satellite = poor*

If you check Wikipedia they state the following:

Above this quote is the section of the frequency band, blah blah...

"These streams were combined using a patented process to form a variable number of channels using a variety of bitrates. Bandwidth is separated into segments of 4-kilobit-per-second virtual "streams" which are combined to form audio and data "channels" of varying bitrates from *4 to 64 kilobits-per-second*.[37]

XM preprocessed audio content using Neural Audio processors that are optimized for the aacPlus codec, including spectral band replication (SBR). Audio was stored digitally in Dalet audio library systems using an industry-standard MPEG-1 Layer II at 384 kbit/s, sometimes known as MUSICAM. The audio is further processed by the Neural Audio processors on the way to broadcast."

I absolutely cannot stand to listen to satellite radio for more than half a song... SMH.




STEELERSRULE said:


> Actually READ this thread.
> 
> If I read correctly: My Sirius Stiletto 100 would be better served, SOUND QUALITY WISE, while in it's HOME DOCK, to use my ISP for "Satellite Radio", because it sends out those streams at 128Kbps, as opposed to 32-64Kbps being sent out through the Satellites?
> 
> Is this right?
> 
> My Stiletto 100(using wireless-B. That is laughable. Wireless-G was around in 2006)) receives my Wi-Fi fine(2 bars as opposed to 3 bars on satellite). I mainly use my Stiletto 100 to record H. Stern in the morning.
> 
> I know I cannot record the Internet Streams, but do they actually sound better? When I connect, I do get INTERNET PREMIUM on the BOTTOM LINE of my Stiletto 100. It it is then replaced with the time.
> 
> P.S. I have the SIRIUS SELECT PACKAGE ONLY


----------



## Gary J

so why are you telling us?


----------



## bwturner1951

As a status update to my earlier post about Sirius/XM audio quality, I cancelled my subscription and have now become a disciple of Spotify. Although I will miss some of the curated shows, especially Dave Koz, it's a minor loss for much better audio quality with Spotify Premium. Plus, I save $10/month, enough for a couple of lattes from Starbucks.


----------



## PretzelFisch

bwturner1951 said:


> As a status update to my earlier post about Sirius/XM audio quality, I cancelled my subscription and have now become a disciple of Spotify. Although I will miss some of the curated shows, especially Dave Koz, it's a minor loss for much better audio quality with Spotify Premium. Plus, I save $10/month, enough for a couple of lattes from Starbucks.


Right but now you use your internet bandwidth for playing background music.


----------



## bwturner1951

PretzelFisch said:


> Right but now you use your internet bandwidth for playing background music.


There's no such thing as 'background' music in my house.


----------



## Gary J

bwturner1951 said:


> As a status update to my earlier post about Sirius/XM audio quality, I cancelled my subscription and have now become a disciple of Spotify. Although I will miss some of the curated shows, especially Dave Koz, it's a minor loss for much better audio quality with Spotify Premium. Plus, I save $10/month, enough for a couple of lattes from Starbucks.


Spotify has plenty of curated playlists. I have all 4 - Spotify, Sirius, Starbucks and bandwidth. Not worried about the pocket change.


----------



## bwturner1951

Gary J said:


> Spotify has plenty of curated playlists. I have all 4 - Spotify, Sirius, Starbucks and bandwidth. Not worried about the pocket change.


I did say curated *shows*, with a live host, like Dave Koz. Maybe hosted would have been a better word? Does Spotify have those? Please enlighten me on where to find if so.

I'm happy for you that you have everything, including petty cash.


----------



## Overrid3

Listened a bit while it was free again, but it seems like sound quality is still pretty bad.


----------



## Gary J

Overrid3 said:


> Listened a bit while it was free again, but it seems like sound quality is still pretty bad.


Yes all the temp free listeners say that. The others know the SQ keeps getting better because of better variable bit rate packing and compression algorithms.


----------



## andyross63

Read in a recent a/v magazine that one editor ended up choosing a car because of the type of satellite tuner. Even though Sirius and XM are one company, some cars have tuners that can only tune Sirius, and some can only tune XM. Generally, XM seems to have better audio. And it's not always brand, as apparently even the same brand may use Sirius or XM tuners in different vehicles. Not sure if there are any cars that can tune both?


----------



## replayrob

^ I have a 2017 Chevy Bolt (Electric Vehicle) and it has a "SXM radio" that tunes both "providers".
I've had XM in previous vehicles... the sound quality of the satellite receiver in the Bolt seems much better than any I've had before.
I'd rate it as "acceptable" now vs "poor" in previous vehicles. 
To put my money where my mouth is.... I have paid for a full year SXM subscription after my 3-month trial expires.


----------



## Striper Mark

replayrob said:


> ^ I have a 2017 Chevy Bolt (Electric Vehicle) and it has a "SXM radio" that tunes both "providers".
> I've had XM in previous vehicles... the sound quality of the satellite receiver in the Bolt seems much better than any I've had before.
> I'd rate it as "acceptable" now vs "poor" in previous vehicles.
> To put my money where my mouth is.... I have paid for a full year SXM subscription after my 3-month trial expires.


FYI - It's technically XM, not both providers.


----------



## andyross63

Even though it may be labeled SiriusXM, that just means it's a newer radio or even just an updated interface or buttons since the merger. It doesn't mean that it has dual tuners.


----------



## replayrob

^ Thanks guys.... I think 

When I registered the Bolt SXM radio.. the website gave me three choices...
1) Sirius Radio
2) XM Radio
3) SXM Radio

So, going forward... my "SXM" radio only receives XM programming?


----------



## Striper Mark

replayrob said:


> ^ Thanks guys.... I think
> 
> When I registered the Bolt SXM radio.. the website gave me three choices...
> 1) Sirius Radio
> 2) XM Radio
> 3) SXM Radio
> 
> So, going forward... my "SXM" radio only receives XM programming?


It gave you three choices, but the reality is that programming comes in two flavors, Sirius and XM. Newer SiriusXM branded radios are based off the XM satellites.


----------



## replayrob

^ is the programming identical between the two sets of sats?


----------



## Striper Mark

replayrob said:


> ^ is the programming identical between the two sets of sats?


Yes, just different channel numbers. Although, MLB/NFL may be the outliers as I don't think they are on legacy Sirius if I remember correctly...


----------



## replayrob

^ Thanks!

I guess that's why I had to indicate which of the three branded (Sirius, XM, SXM) radios I had when creating my account.
My online/streaming channel numbers do line up with my Bolt SXM radio channel numbers.


----------



## AVfile

replayrob said:


> I'd rate it as "acceptable" now vs "poor" in previous vehicles.



Same here. Rented a 2017 Range Rover Sport and it was better than my 2010 Passat but still not "CD quality" or even FM radio quality.


----------



## jreiter

AVfile said:


> Same here. Rented a 2017 Range Rover Sport and it was better than my 2010 Passat but still not "CD quality" or even FM radio quality.


I don't believe SiriusXM has increased their bitrates, so the quality of their transmissions surely isn't getting better. According to wikipedia, XM's standard bitrate is still 39 kbit/s for stereo channels, an 16 kbit/s for mono talk channels. That's an incredibly low bitrate, and no matter how good their compression algorithm is, it's going to lose a ton of audio information in the process. The only way SiriusXM can get around that is to have fewer channels, allowing each remaining channel to get more bandwidth. But they insist on have more channels of lower quality than fewer channels of higher quality.

I wonder how much of the perceived increase in quality from older to newer cars is due to modern sat radio players doing a lot of post-processing, vs older models simply playing the original signal. (Maybe?) I can say that the sat radios in my 2010 Toyota and my 2016 Mazda both sound awful. Sat radio is significantly worse than just playing audio from my phone via Bluetooth. And that's even despite Bluetooth's lossy compression artifacts... it's still better than sat radio. (A lot of people aren't aware that Bluetooth recompresses the audio stream, so you lose even more audio information when using Bluetooth vs a usb connection or analog cable.)


----------



## Gary J

jreiter said:


> I don't believe SiriusXM has increased their bitrates, so the quality of their transmissions surely isn't getting better. According to wikipedia, XM's standard bitrate is still 39 kbit/s for stereo channels, an 16 kbit/s for mono talk channels.


That article starts with -

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2014)
This article needs to be updated. (November 2010)"

Do not post false/misleading info.


----------



## jreiter

Gary J said:


> That article starts with -
> 
> "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
> This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2014)
> This article needs to be updated. (November 2010)"
> 
> Do not post false/misleading info.


It's entirely possible the wiki is out of date or incorrect, and I meant to add that disclaimer in my last post. But okay, let's pretend the Wikipedia article is completely incorrect and go at this from another angle. Regardless of the exact bitrate numbers, XM would have to do one or more of the following to increase the quality of their audio streams:


Launch new, higher bandwidth satellites into orbit.
Launch additional satellites into orbit.
Reduce the total number of channels.

Can anyone here confirm if SiriusXM has done any of those above 3 items over the years? If so, any details?

Each satellite only has a certain amount of bandwidth available to it. Each channel they provide takes a certain amount of bandwidth. More channels squeezed into their finite bandwidth means less bandwidth per channel (on average). They can reduce bandwidth on some channels that don't depend on audio quality (such as the talk channels) allowing them to increase bandwidth on other channels that do depend on audio quality (such as some of the more popular music channels), and they do indeed do exactly that. That only gets you so far, though, when you have such a large number of channels.


----------



## Gary J

jreiter said:


> It's entirely possible the wiki is out of date or incorrect, and I meant to add that disclaimer in my last post. But okay, let's pretend the Wikipedia article is completely incorrect and go at this from another angle. Regardless of the exact bitrate numbers, XM would have to do one or more of the following to increase the quality of their audio streams:
> 
> 
> Launch new, higher bandwidth satellites into orbit.
> Launch additional satellites into orbit.
> Reduce the total number of channels.
> 
> Can anyone here confirm if SiriusXM has done any of those above 3 items over the years? If so, any details?
> 
> Each satellite only has a certain amount of bandwidth available to it. Each channel they provide takes a certain amount of bandwidth. More channels squeezed into their finite bandwidth means less bandwidth per channel (on average). They can reduce bandwidth on some channels that don't depend on audio quality (such as the talk channels) allowing them to increase bandwidth on other channels that do depend on audio quality (such as some of the more popular music channels), and they do indeed do exactly that. That only gets you so far, though, when you have such a large number of channels.


They now use variable bit rate (learn what that is) and compression algorithms (learn what that is) that get better almost every day. 

repeat - Do not post false/misleading info.


----------



## jreiter

Gary J said:


> They now use variable bit rate (learn what that is) and compression algorithms (learn what that is) that get better almost every day.
> 
> repeat - Do not post false/misleading info.


For what it's worth (and I know that's probably not much to you) I do know what variable bit rates are and what compression algorithms are. I'm a big proponent of variable bit rates, and they are definitely a more efficient use of bandwidth. That only does so much, though, and it's not a magic bullet. Compression algorithms face a similar issue. They can get better and better, but they still have to know what audio information to toss out to make the stream fit within the limited bandwidth. And given the low bandwidth, they have to toss out an awful lot of audio information. I was unaware they were using VBR now, so that's good news. Improved codecs? Also good to know. So does sat radio sound better than it did years ago? Maybe. To my ears, it still sounds pretty bad. Maybe I just haven't tried the right radio yet.

But alright Gary, you win. I give up. Your insulting, derogatory, generally unpleasant replies have defeated my will to engage in conversation. In the future, instead of insulting someone how about adding to the conversation? For example, rather than simply claiming my post is false and misleading, maybe provide some improved or more accurate information. It's how conversations work. I know the internet makes it really easy to be a jerk, but you can rise above that. You can do it!


----------



## Gary J

Sorry have not the time or inclination in conversation just correction.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

I don't understand why people are "arguing" over an outdated product. 

I was a SiriusXM(XM before they merged) for close to 9 years, and enjoyed it up until about 2-3 years ago when I realized that I could get EVERYTHING on the service, INCLUDING Howard Stern:

1. MUCH MUCH BETTER SOUND QUALITY. 128Kbps and higher 
2. All the sports on MUCH BETTER services. Meaning their own(MLB/NFL/NHL). And some for free(Verizon customers get NFL Mobile. Even tracfone/prepaid customers using CDMA/Verizon Unlocked phones)
3. RADIO apps, even set at the HIGHEST SETTINGS, don't use a lot of DATA. So listening to them in the car, even on a 6-8 hour trip does not use a heck of a lot. Rememember, it is radio.

I think most would find they are better served just using apps on their Iphones/Androids, and connecting to their radios via Bluetooth/direct connect via usb/aux.

You won't be losing anything, and the sound quality alone is SO SUPERIOR to SIRIUSXM that it is not even worth the debate/arguing at all.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Gary J

Ok your 2 cents vs. 31.3M - "NEW YORK, Jan. 5, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- SiriusXM today announced that it ended 2016 with over 31.3 million subscribers, adding more than 1.7 million net subscriber additions in the year, exceeding the company's increased guidance of 1.7 million net subscriber additions. Self-pay net subscriber additions in 2016 were 1.66 million, exceeding the company's increased guidance of 1.6 million and resulting in self-pay subscriptions of approximately 26 million at year end."


----------



## TweezerMan

STEELERSRULE said:


> I don't understand why people are "arguing" over an outdated product.
> 
> I was a SiriusXM(XM before they merged) for close to 9 years, and enjoyed it up until about 2-3 years ago when I realized that I could get EVERYTHING on the service, INCLUDING Howard Stern:
> 
> 1. MUCH MUCH BETTER SOUND QUALITY. 128Kbps and higher
> 2. All the sports on MUCH BETTER services. Meaning their own(MLB/NFL/NHL). And some for free(Verizon customers get NFL Mobile. Even tracfone/prepaid customers using CDMA/Verizon Unlocked phones)
> 3. RADIO apps, even set at the HIGHEST SETTINGS, don't use a lot of DATA. So listening to them in the car, even on a 6-8 hour trip does not use a heck of a lot. Rememember, it is radio.
> 
> I think most would find they are better served just using apps on their Iphones/Androids, and connecting to their radios via Bluetooth/direct connect via usb/aux.
> 
> You won't be losing anything, and the sound quality alone is SO SUPERIOR to SIRIUSXM that it is not even worth the debate/arguing at all.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


Yeah I agree with STEELERSRULE. I loved my various pre-merger XM receivers, starting in 2002. But when I bought a car with built-in Sirius in 2012 I had real problems with the sound quality, which is why I'm on this thread. Fortunately that was also my first car with Bluetooth -- I eventually learned how to use it with podcasts and music, and haven't missed SiriusXM since. There's nothing there I want, though I can see how it would still be good for sports. And for fanboy Gary J.


----------



## Gary J

TweezerMan said:


> Yeah I agree with STEELERSRULE. I loved my various pre-merger XM receivers, starting in 2002. But when I bought a car with built-in Sirius in 2012 I had real problems with the sound quality, which is why I'm on this thread. Fortunately that was also my first car with Bluetooth -- I eventually learned how to use it with podcasts and music, and haven't missed SiriusXM since. *There's nothing there I want*, though I can see how it would still be good for sports. And for fanboy Gary J.


That's a YOU problem. Personal preference is always a losing argument.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

Gary J said:


> That's a YOU problem. Personal preference is always a losing argument.


Gary J,

You can put all the shekels you earn towards anything you want. You earned them.

But this thread is about SOUND QUALITY, and the current service of SIRIUSXM just does not compare to other products out there.

Not even close.

If people ask me, I will be honest with them. And tell them to SKIP this service for now. You can simply do better elsewhere.

Can't argue with the numbers you put up. Although some here would. Not sure if this is true or not: But SIRIUSXM counts UNSOLD cars with 3-months of prepaid service as SUBSCRIBERS. Cars with NO OWNERS, sitting on lots.

Or, at least, it was SAID they did. Again, I have nothing to back that up. But when it is brought up, fanboys get ANGRY, so there must be some truth somewhere too it.

They would not be the first company to "cook the books" to make them look more profitable than they actually are.

Whatever. There is just better stuff out there in 2017. If this was 2007, I would be in agreement with you. just not anymore.


----------



## Gary J

STEELERSRULE said:


> But this thread is about SOUND QUALITY, and the current service of SIRIUSXM just does not compare to *other products out there.
> *
> Not even close.


What a ridiculous thing to say. Yeah my HT does sound better. I think we're done here.


----------



## STEELERSRULE

Gary J said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say. Yeah my HT does sound better. I think we're done here.


Yeah. Gary J, were done.


----------



## timjohnson1717

I know they are hunting for subs. They called me everyday for months trying to get me to sign up when the freebie sub ran out in my car. I never even used the free sub, why pay?

I was a loyal XM customer back in their golden era, signed up in the end of 2003. I remember the transition to commercial free, and the sound quality. I had it in the car, fed to a Pioneer deck, couple 10" subs, and JBL 6x9's. Better than most car stereos were.

Anyway back then the audio was touted as CD quality, and it was close, there were better dynamic on the CD, but their content sounded great. It sounded great until they started cramming garbage onto their whopping 12.5mhz of bandwidth. I didn't want MLB, traffic, weather, or any other bloated crap. If anyone remembers the selling point was that they were not your local station, they were about the music. I remember no DJ's, just a ton of diverse content. That lasted for a few years and it was all downhill from there. The audio quality nowadays is nothing compared to their heyday.

Now the quality has decreased, and many stations are top 40 crap, DJ noise, and a useless bunch of channels I don't want. 

No Thanks!


----------



## Gary J

timjohnson1717 said:


> I didn't want MLB, traffic, weather, or any other bloated crap.




Personal preference is ALWAYS a losing argument. Always. Marketing surveys always show people want more channels over anything else. Marketing execs know that. Same with TV.




timjohnson1717 said:


> Now the quality has decreased


Nothing but opinion you can't back up.


----------



## TweezerMan

timjohnson1717 said:


> ...
> I was a loyal XM customer back in their golden era, signed up in the end of 2003. I remember the transition to commercial free, and the sound quality. I had it in the car, fed to a Pioneer deck, couple 10" subs, and JBL 6x9's. Better than most car stereos were.
> 
> Anyway back then the audio was touted as CD quality, and it was close, there were better dynamic on the CD, but their content sounded great. It sounded great until they started cramming garbage onto their whopping 12.5mhz of bandwidth. I didn't want MLB, traffic, weather, or any other bloated crap. If anyone remembers the selling point was that they were not your local station, they were about the music. I remember no DJ's, just a ton of diverse content. That lasted for a few years and it was all downhill from there. The audio quality nowadays is nothing compared to their heyday.
> 
> Now the quality has decreased, and many stations are top 40 crap, DJ noise, and a useless bunch of channels I don't want.
> 
> No Thanks!


Yeah I definitely agree, timjohnson1717. I might still be listening but the audio quality was way worse on my Sirius receiver (2012) than it was on my much older XM receivers -- even BBC World Service was barely tolerable with all the compression artifacts. IIRC the discussion at the time was that Sirius was allocating less bandwidth per channel in order to cram more channels into their signal. Haven't followed their tech since I left. Much better mobile listening alternatives nowadays.


----------



## Brad Bishop

timjohnson1717 said:


> I know they are hunting for subs. They called me everyday for months trying to get me to sign up when the freebie sub ran out in my car. I never even used the free sub, why pay?
> 
> I was a loyal XM customer back in their golden era, signed up in the end of 2003. I remember the transition to commercial free, and the sound quality. I had it in the car, fed to a Pioneer deck, couple 10" subs, and JBL 6x9's. Better than most car stereos were.
> 
> Anyway back then the audio was touted as CD quality, and it was close, there were better dynamic on the CD, but their content sounded great. It sounded great until they started cramming garbage onto their whopping 12.5mhz of bandwidth. I didn't want MLB, traffic, weather, or any other bloated crap. If anyone remembers the selling point was that they were not your local station, they were about the music. I remember no DJ's, just a ton of diverse content. That lasted for a few years and it was all downhill from there. The audio quality nowadays is nothing compared to their heyday.
> 
> Now the quality has decreased, and many stations are top 40 crap, DJ noise, and a useless bunch of channels I don't want.
> 
> No Thanks!


I remember those days.

I remember when they (I think it was Sirius, at the time - I've had both since 2006 or so) started in with the DJs and I looked at the stereo in the car and thought, "What the F- is this?"

Then there was that period, around 2008 or 2009 where they started advertising on their ad-free music channels... but it wasn't advertising because it was for Sirius/XM (to get you to buy another tuner or something - it was advertising).

I have a few lifetime subs that I still listen to in my car but, you're right, the sound quality isn't what it was back in the day. It feels more like having a transistor radio lying around that still works and you use it in the garage.

They went from something I used to highly tout to something I rarely talk about. I certainly don't recommend it to friends. No one I knows talks about them.

If you deal with customer service it's always some kind of game.

They should have never been allowed to join (Sirius & XM) and they've ruined something that really started out as pretty great. Even with them joining they're just making that worse:
- They're letting Sirius satellite (polar orbit - great for vehicles) die out
- We're nearly 10 years out from the merger and the extra bandwidth is still duplicated signals.

The way that they treat the satellite side makes me think that they see the writing on the wall and in 10 years no one will use satellite and everyone will just stream everything (and then they're going to be the AM/FM like stations they were meant to replace in the public's eye - kind of already there, now).


----------



## timjohnson1717

Gary J said:


> Personal preference is ALWAYS a losing argument. Always. Marketing surveys always show people want more channels over anything else. Marketing execs know that. Same with TV.


Are you familiar with the paradox of choice? Recent studies have shown that a product with many options will attract more customers, however a product with fewer options will actually make customer commit and purchase. In addition those who purchase when given many choices are usually less satisfied with their purchase.

More ≠ Better



Gary J said:


> Nothing but opinion you can't back up.


XM satellite radio is allocated 12.5 MHz from 2332.5-2345 MHz. That is all they have ever had to work with. Simple math dictates that the more channels I offer in that same frequency range, the less available bandwidth I have to drive those channels. My ears noticed a difference, that is subjective, I understand. However the bandwidth limits are fact. Could they have changed the codec for broadcasting, sure. However the old radios from ten years ago still work, so if they change codecs for broadcast I do not believe that would be possible, hence I doubt the compression algorithms have changed much if at all. Working under that premise, adding stations must cause reduction in quality if utilizing all bandwidth available. 

In addition do a search for satellite radio quality, I found lots more negative than positive.


----------



## Gary J

timjohnson1717 said:


> Are you familiar with the paradox of choice? Recent studies have shown that a product with many options will attract more customers, however a product with fewer options will actually make customer commit and purchase. In addition those who purchase when given many choices are usually less satisfied with their purchase.
> 
> More ≠ Better
> 
> 
> 
> *XM satellite radio is allocated 12.5 MHz from 2332.5-2345 MHz. That is all they have ever had to work with. *Simple math dictates that the more channels I offer in that same frequency range, the less available bandwidth I have to drive those channels. My ears noticed a difference, that is subjective, I understand. However the bandwidth limits are fact. Could they have changed the codec for broadcasting, sure. However the old radios from ten years ago still work, so if they change codecs for broadcast I do not believe that would be possible, hence I doubt the compression algorithms have changed much if at all. Working under that premise, adding stations must cause reduction in quality if utilizing all bandwidth available.
> 
> In addition do a search for satellite radio quality, I found lots more negative than positive.


learn about about VBR and compression algorithms that improve constantly. Skipped th rest - you don't get to waste my time.


----------



## markrubin

I don't buy the argument about bandwidth because Sirius streamed also has the same terrible sounding compression

I really like the addition of the Beatles channel: in the car it sounds good: in my HT Sirius sounds really bad: it has that metallic sound quality that I can instantly recognize: compare it to a service like Tidal...no comparison


----------



## dave2002ti

I listen to Radio Margaritaville in my various vehicles via either XM or Sirius.

I also listen to it via Jimmy's website at home over my computer audio set up to my two channel system.

XM and Sirius suck just when compared to my external speakers and set up on my Imac


----------



## timmo

Bad link


----------



## timmo

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/why-i-didn’t-buy-benz

Sorry ... can't figure out how to link. Here is google search result for what I'm trying to post:

Why I Didn't Buy the Benz | Sound & Vision
Sound & Vision › content
5 days ago - The companies merged in 2008 to become SiriusXM. Here's the rub: Both satellite systems are still in use, and depending on which decoder your car radio uses, you might get the good-sounding XM bitstream, or the ...


----------



## JA Fant

timjohnson1717 said:


> Are you familiar with the paradox of choice? Recent studies have shown that a product with many options will attract more customers, however a product with fewer options will actually make customer commit and purchase. In addition those who purchase when given many choices are usually less satisfied with their purchase.
> 
> More ≠ Better
> 
> 
> 
> XM satellite radio is allocated 12.5 MHz from 2332.5-2345 MHz. That is all they have ever had to work with. Simple math dictates that the more channels I offer in that same frequency range, the less available bandwidth I have to drive those channels. My ears noticed a difference, that is subjective, I understand. However the bandwidth limits are fact. Could they have changed the codec for broadcasting, sure. However the old radios from ten years ago still work, so if they change codecs for broadcast I do not believe that would be possible, hence I doubt the compression algorithms have changed much if at all. Working under that premise, adding stations must cause reduction in quality if utilizing all bandwidth available.
> 
> In addition do a search for satellite radio quality, I found lots more negative than positive.


something has changed for sure. We all know that there are more sat(s) in orbit than ever before. Drones as well. Maybe this has an adverse effect?
I noticed that the current programming has way more drop-outs than previously? My first subscription occurred in 2005, I bought the "lifetime " membership. No problem.

Then, as XM radio/Sirius merged due to both camps capitalizing on the Howard Stern crap, I paid a second "lifetime " membership in 2008. Problem -as customer service could not see any pre-merger data?

From 2008 to the present, SXM , as it now referred still cannot see my old accounts? I do enjoy this sat radio thing for sure. I will not pay any more money as above. I simply catch the programming upon buying a newer vehicle (every 2-3 years).


----------



## channelserf

I had XM in a long ago sold car. I really loved the service but then I started getting more and more drop outs in the same places with nothing to block the signal. I was given the blow off by their tech dept. so I dumped the service. 
I bought a Dodge Challenger last year that is at the end of the 1 year free service. The drop outs and now large holes in service are even worse than when it was just XM. I drive 75 miles round trip through L.A. -All freeway driving where you would think there would be a good consistent signal. The biggest holes in service are in areas where there are no tall buildings or overpasses. I have noticed I lose signal where there are clusters of cell antennas and think it's interference from cell transmission that is at least part of the problem.
My service is ending soon so I will not be renewing it. Too bad as they do have some great programming (except for the commercials on more stations) and I do really like the real time traffic map on my nav.


----------



## JA Fant

Yes! many dropouts in service and coverage in 2017.


----------



## C*Tedesco

Soo, maybe covered earlier, but I just got the All Access where I can listen on my computer streaming SiriusXM. Went to settings where the options for Low/Normal/Max. What is the Kbps for each one? The quality does not hang with Spotify premium. Just curious.


----------



## kevin j

The highest bitrate is 320kbps btw.


----------



## JA Fant

As above-
IMO, Sat Radio was much better when it was a music -only platform. Adding sports, weather and other garbage degrades its value.


----------



## DrDon

JA Fant said:


> Yes! many dropouts in service and coverage in 2017.


Especially near T-Mobile cell towers. 



> SiriusXM Radio and T-Mobile USA acknowledged in late 2015 that T-Mobile cell towers were causing signal interference on SiriusXM’s satellite radios. Both companies said fixing the problem was the other firm’s responsibility (see *******.com/gq36e2k). So far, neither company has announced a solution. When I sought comment last week, neither responded.
> 
> Previously, both companies said that the interference problem is caused by a radio signal phenomenon called “intermodulation.” Two different T-Mobile tower frequencies are colliding, thereby creating a third frequency. It is this third radio frequency signal that produces interference on SiriusXM radios.
> 
> While there’s no way to prove that your loss of a SiriusXM signal is caused by cell tower interference, the locations you mention are near T-Mobile cell towers, according to the website cellreception.com. In Burnsville, the intersection is about 3.5 miles from a tower, in Shakopee about 2 miles away and in Bloomington about 1.5 miles away. Cell tower transmissions can reach up to 10 miles, and directional antennas can be “aimed” toward high-demand areas such as busy highways.
> 
> Potential solutions mentioned in 2015 included altering the way the cell towers operate, improving the way satellite radios filter out unrelated signals, or strengthening satellite signals (to overcome interference) by rebroadcasting them from ground stations.



http://www.startribune.com/alexander-how-cell-towers-can-block-satellite-radio-signals/411689036/


----------



## Gary J

Love the news and sports channels. It's my only convenient source in the cars.


----------



## DrDon

Gary J said:


> Love the news and sports channels. It's my only convenient source in the cars.


Pretty much the only reason I keep it. There just isn't another easy way to get cable news audio. And out-of-market college sports isn't the easiest thing to stream, either.


----------



## I WANT MORE

I see they added CBS Sports Radio.
Any idea what channel it is on for streaming?


----------



## Maccur

Look at 961.


----------



## Drewdawg

I've found the best way to listen to SiriusXM is via the phone app. I have it set to maximum quality and think it's worth the extra set-up time compared to just listening to the satellite signal. I think it sounds better than Pandora and the playlist on First Wave sounds more diverse than my Smiths Channel. And the songs are true stereo so I should enjoy the Beatles channel even more. 

And don't get me started on the news/talk stations that sound near FM quality. 

P.S.: I have Sprint with unlimited data so I don't pay to listen and my reception has stayed consistently good with only a few dropouts per trip. If the wife is going to keep it for her sat listening I'll keep tuning in via my iPhone.


----------



## Gary J

Most people use Sirius in their vehicles where convenience matters, news/talk SQ does not, smartphone is freed up (like for Spotify). Don't know what true stereo means. Otherwise it's fake?


----------



## tustinfarm

Drewdawg said:


> I've found the best way to listen to SiriusXM is via the phone app. I have it set to maximum quality and think it's worth the extra set-up time compared to just listening to the satellite signal. I think it sounds better than Pandora...


Thanks Drewdawg for that info...the other day I received a "please come back" offer for SiriusXM ($25 for 5 months service), that also includes streaming access. Given how miserable the audio quality is on the satellite music channels, I have never paid for a "true" subscription, just activating it now and then when the offer is cheap enough. The downside is that I have to put a calendar reminder in to make sure I cancel before the promotion runs out, and also they only let you cancel via phone.

I just activated the 5 month offer, and a quick check of the streaming quality confirms what you said....it is WAY better than the satellite feed, and even though the bluetooth connection is a clunkier way to listen in my vehicle, definitely worth the effort. I also have an unlimited data plan so usage not an issue.


----------



## markrubin

thanks to this thread, and the article 'why I did not buy a Benz'

I bought a used Polk XM reference XRt12 tuner (for home audio): I found the audio quality much better than the Sirius SRH2000 which had metallic like compression: the Polk sounds much cleaner


----------



## Gary J

Same goes for the SQ complaint in cars - it is often because of inferior equipment. Sirius on my $5k B&W option in a BMW and the $6k Burmester in a 911 both sound great.


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> Same goes for the SQ complaint in cars - it is often because of inferior equipment. Sirius on my $5k B&W option in a BMW and the $6k Burmester in a 911 both sound great.




Why would they use a system that requires an expensive hardware setup to sound good? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary J

Drewdawg said:


> Why would they use a system that requires an expensive hardware setup to sound good?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There is sounds good and sounds better. duh


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> There is sounds good and sounds better. duh




I’m asking because the radio in my 2013 Chevy Equinox sounds like low bitrate internet. IOW it sounds like  without the warmth. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary J

Yes equipment sounds like your weak link.


----------



## PretzelFisch

Gary J said:


> Same goes for the SQ complaint in cars - it is often because of inferior equipment. Sirius on my $5k B&W option in a BMW and the $6k Burmester in a 911 both sound great.


Sirius in our lincoln and Acura sounded better then our VW how much of that is the chips vs speakers I am not sure but cd/radio sounded pretty good in the VW while Sirius would sound like we were in a tin can


----------



## ilikeme

PretzelFisch said:


> Sirius in our lincoln and Acura sounded better then our VW how much of that is the chips vs speakers I am not sure but cd/radio sounded pretty good in the VW while Sirius would sound like we were in a tin can


XM sounds like utter crap in my 2012 Honda CR-V, especially the higher pitch sound frequencies. CD and bluetooth/USB phone streaming sound just fine though. Same results also in my parents 2017 Sienna XLE.


----------



## kevin j

There's a new XM app/online player as of today.The only thing missing as of now is the MySxm control.


----------



## mhaythor

Gary J said:


> learn about about VBR and compression algorithms that improve constantly. Skipped th rest - you don't get to waste my time.



Are you really trying to defend the sound quality of SiriusXM radio?


----------



## mhaythor

Drewdawg said:


> Why would they use a system that requires an expensive hardware setup to sound good?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It would appear that you need to buy a $5,000 car stereo in order to make the pay service of SiriusXM sound as good as free FM radio...


----------



## Gary J

mhaythor said:


> It would appear that you need to buy a $5,000 car stereo in order to make the pay service of SiriusXM sound as good as free FM radio...


You are catching on. Most of the whiners are using inferior equipment and blaming their sound source. Others just can not afford Sirius therefore it is bad. I get it.


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> You are catching on. Most of the whiners are using inferior equipment and blaming their sound source. Others just can not afford Sirius therefore it is bad. I get it.




I can listen to XM on my phone and it sounds good. I’m not going to lay out $5000 for a system. I don’t know who would. If that were the case Laserdisc would have succeeded. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Drewdawg

mhaythor said:


> It would appear that you need to buy a $5,000 car stereo in order to make the pay service of SiriusXM sound as good as free FM radio...




Really? Didn’t Laserdisc fail because of its high hardware costs? What about open reel tape machines? If I have to spend five grand to hear satellite radio it’s not worth the price. I’ll Pandora it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary J

Drewdawg said:


> I can listen to XM on my phone and it sounds good. I’m not going to lay out $5000 for a system. I don’t know who would. If that were the case Laserdisc would have succeeded.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have once for a BMW and once for a Porsche. YOU problems don't count.



Drewdawg said:


> Really? Didn’t Laserdisc fail because of its high hardware costs? What about open reel tape machines? *If I have to spend five grand to hear satellite radio* it’s not worth the price. I’ll Pandora it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Gross exaggeration does not mean much.


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> I have once for a BMW and once for a Porsche. YOU problems don't count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gross exaggeration does not mean much.




Sorry mr money bags, didn’t mean to offend. Not all of us are flush with cash and we are empathetic. 

Did you mean "Your problems don't count?" You do know everyone can read this thread. Seriously, is that your final answer? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## djmel138

zoetmb said:


> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shelbygt500* /forum/post/21553838
> 
> 
> I had an XMp3 portable unit up until two years ago when XM added their "artist fee" to the bill and decided to give it up as I only had it for one talk show and the music channels sounded like crap. Last year my wife bought a new car with sirius and I couldn't believe how crappy it sounded. The HD radio in her car sounded much better. XM and Sirius compress their channels so much, I don't know who would pay for it. It sounds like your listening through a thin wall. I use Pandora through my Iphone and it sounds much better in the car than satellite. JMO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally agree. Pandora sounds phenomenally better than Sirius. One of the problems with Sirius (don't know if this is also a problem with XM) is that there are tremendous phase distortion problems. I don't know if this is an artifact of the compression or an artifact of the satellite transmission.
> 
> 
> If you listen to the different signal (Left minus Right) on Sirius, you hear sound artifacts that sound exactly like the sound effects that are usually used in movies when they show a satellite in orbit. It's uncanny.
Click to expand...

SIRIUSXM sounds better online.


----------



## Gary J

djmel138 said:


> SIRIUSXM sounds better online.


If play on a nice hi-fi yes, if played on a cheap player compared to a nice car system, no. Playback equipment matters.


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> If play on a nice hi-fi yes, if played on a cheap player compared to a nice car system, no. Playback equipment matters.




XM has so much distortion and crosstalk that any audio system will reveal a superior online experience. That and the satellite doesn’t do stereo or what anyone would consider stereo. The Beatles channel should just play monaural versions. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary J

Only the most revealing systems show flaws as with any recording reproduction. Can be difficult concept, I know.


----------



## JA Fant

Gary J said:


> Only the most revealing systems show flaws as with any recording reproduction. Can be difficult concept, I know.


 AgreedGary J


both services, XM Radio and Sirius, were better sound quality as separate companies. Once the (2) merged the SQ took a major hit.


----------



## Gary J

JA Fant said:


> Gary J said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the most revealing systems show flaws as with any recording reproduction. Can be difficult concept, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> AgreedGary J
> 
> 
> both services, XM Radio and Sirius, were better sound quality as separate companies. Once the (2) merged the SQ took a major hit. /forum/images/smilies/mad.gif
Click to expand...

Sound quality is about as good or better than ever despite marketing people knowing forever people in general much prefer greater number of channels over quality.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I just recently signed up for SXM a few weeks when they had the free preview over Thanksgiving. I got the $8.25 a month for a year deal with all of the channels plus streaming. Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I think the channels sound fine. I do have an Infinity sound system in my car, so I’m not sure if that’s the reason or not.

BTW, does anyone know if there’s a way to live stream the video portion of the Howard Stern show?


----------



## Striper Mark

TheRatPatrol said:


> BTW, does anyone know if there’s a way to live stream the video portion of the Howard Stern show?


No, there is not a live feed


----------



## Drewdawg

*SiriusXM not Sirius and/or XM*

How many channels are still duplicated for the radios that can only tune Sirius or XM? 
How difficult would it be to convert a single service radio to get both Sirius and XM channels with both codecs in tact? 
Is it possible to update the radios to increase sound quality?


----------



## Gary J

Drewdawg said:


> How many channels are still duplicated for the radios that can only tune Sirius or XM?
> How difficult would it be to convert a single service radio to get both Sirius and XM channels with both codecs in tact?
> Is it possible to update the radios to increase sound quality?


Speaking as a retired programmer I would say a lot of time, expense, and effort on hardware and software on obsolete equipment making this the worst idea in the history of the Universe.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Got an update to the streaming app and it said they added 100 new channels. Wow.


----------



## Drewdawg

*Satellite radio upgrade?*



TheRatPatrol said:


> Got an update to the streaming app and it said they added 100 new channels. Wow.


If SiriusXM sees the future in the app can they remove channels from the satellite to increase SQ for those of us with old school radios?


----------



## JGM

TheRatPatrol said:


> Got an update to the streaming app and it said they added 100 new channels. Wow.


Since this has not been explicitly stated, note that this is for the App/online version only (not the sats). 

Remember they bought Pandora; they have literally unlimited channels available to them from the fixed Pandora stations; the number isn't constrained by bandwidth but by how many they can put in before user overload occurs. 

To that end, these 100 are mostly minor variants on and combinations of existing channels. They are moving towards letting you pick a set of channels and creating your own custom (and presumably customizable via Pandora methods) stream.


----------



## Gary J

JGM said:


> Since this has not been explicitly stated, note that this is for the App/online version only (not the sats).
> 
> Remember they bought Pandora; they have literally unlimited channels available to them from the fixed Pandora stations; the number isn't constrained by bandwidth but by how many they can put in *before user overload occurs*.
> 
> To that end, these 100 are mostly minor variants on and combinations of existing channels. They are moving towards letting you pick a set of channels and creating your own custom (and presumably customizable via Pandora methods) stream.


No such thing. Media marketing people have long known consumers in general prefer channel quantity over channel quality.


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> Speaking as a retired programmer I would say a lot of time, expense, and effort on hardware and software on obsolete equipment making this the worst idea in the history of the Universe.




There are a few people who subscribe to SiriusXM who care about quality. The service has not retired and still works.


----------



## markrubin

posts deleted


sometimes it is better to just move on


----------



## Drewdawg

markrubin said:


> posts deleted
> 
> 
> sometimes it is better to just move on




Could not agree more. Thank you for your sense of fairness and integrity. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dude111

djmel138 said:


> SIRIUSXM sounds better online.


 
Indeed it does my friend,much better!!!!!!


----------



## Gary J

Dude111 said:


> Indeed it does my friend,much better!!!!!!


All forms have gotten better over the years as compression algorithms have gotten better even while adding more channels. Subscriber base is now a record 34 million.


----------



## Dude111

Yes its quite high isnt it??


----------



## Drewdawg

*Satellite radio decoding*



Gary J said:


> All forms have gotten better over the years as compression algorithms have gotten better even while adding more channels. Subscriber base is now a record 34 million.


How much better can satellite SQ get while maintaining compatibility with existing receivers?


----------



## JGM

Gary J said:


> You are catching on. Most of the whiners are using inferior equipment and blaming their sound source. Others just can not afford Sirius therefore it is bad. I get it.


Not sure I'm not stepping into the middle of a deleted flame war here but this is a rather silly way to look at it. 

As you point out SXM (via sats) is a sound _source_. It's also true that there is very limited opportunity to fix the signal from a bad sound source using downstream equipment, particularly when the source material is bad in the ways that sound decoded from SXM sats is bad. 

I've no doubt that SXM via sats can sound "better" on a high-end car stereo than a base model; at the same time I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source (including CD, streaming at reasonable quality levels, or even a decent cassette) _played on the same equipment. _ Changing out one factor (in this case the source material) while keeping the others the same is how experiments are done, and how conclusions can be drawn. And once you draw that conclusion (which anybody with ears will), stating it is far from "whining". 

This argument is particularly silly now that the same material is readily available in a streaming version and given that more and more people have a data plan that can handle it, as well as the aux/bluetooth/CarPlay/Android Auto setup to make it easy.


----------



## markrubin

JGM said:


> This argument is particularly silly now that the same material is readily available in a streaming version and given that more and more people have a data plan that can handle it, as well as the aux/bluetooth/CarPlay/Android Auto setup to make it easy.



I have not compared the sound quality of streamed SXM as compared to radio in some time: when I did there was little difference, and I always thought the same compression was applied to streaming as well: has this changed?


----------



## Gary J

JGM said:


> Not sure I'm not stepping into the middle of a deleted flame war here but this is a rather silly way to look at it.
> 
> As you point out SXM (via sats) is a sound _source_. It's also true that there is very limited opportunity to fix the signal from a bad sound source using downstream equipment, particularly when the source material is bad in the ways that sound decoded from SXM sats is bad.
> 
> I've no doubt that SXM via sats can sound "better" on a high-end car stereo than a base model; at the same time I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source (including CD, streaming at reasonable quality levels, or even a decent cassette) _played on the same equipment. _ Changing out one factor (in this case the source material) while keeping the others the same is how experiments are done, and how conclusions can be drawn. And once you draw that conclusion (which anybody with ears will), stating it is far from "whining".
> 
> This argument is particularly silly now that the same material is readily available in a streaming version and given that more and more people have a data plan that can handle it, as well as the aux/bluetooth/CarPlay/Android Auto setup to make it easy.


Once again -

1. "compression algorithms have gotten better even while adding more channels." SXM sounds better than ever by most accounts,
2. "I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source" I completely disagree. That is subjective opinion anyway so I have no interest in arguing the point.


----------



## Gary J

markrubin said:


> I have not compared the sound quality of streamed SXM as compared to radio in some time: when I did there was little difference, and I always thought the same compression was applied to streaming as well: has this changed?


And good luck getting your favorite Big Ten (or whatever) team's game in a remote location like in the mountains where I am driving half the time.


----------



## JGM

markrubin said:


> I have not compared the sound quality of streamed SXM as compared to radio in some time: when I did there was little difference, and I always thought the same compression was applied to streaming as well: has this changed?


Like most streaming apps, the current version of the SXM app offers selectable quality levels (Normal, High, Maximum). They don't publish bitrates that I know of, but subjectively even the Normal setting sounds significantly better than the satellite, and the Maximum version seems equal to other streaming services at 256-320kb/s (which is effectively CD quality in most environments). 

I also have SXM set up on the ROKU which doesn't have any quality settings that I can see but again sounds subjectively excellent and far better than the sats. 

It's possible to train your brain to hear the satellite version as "sounding OK" -- but if you switch from that to the same station on the app the difference is immediate and dramatic. Honestly the app (and the fact that I got an unlimited data plan a while back) is what's keeping me onboard right now.


----------



## JGM

Gary J said:


> Once again -
> 
> 1. "compression algorithms have gotten better even while adding more channels." SXM sounds better than ever by most accounts,


I didn't say that so I'm not sure why you put it in quotes. 

It's completely possible that it both sounds "better" and still sounds bad. The overall bandwidth of the satellite has not changed, and codecs can only do so much with the tiny sliver of bandwidth allotted to each channel (it was somewhere around 48-64kb/sec/channel last time I did the math, which was before they added "even more channels").



> 2. "I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source" I completely disagree. That is subjective opinion anyway so I have no interest in arguing the point.


Fair enough to disagree on subjective opinions. Again, given the bandwidths in play it would seem to be physically impossible for satellite sources to be equal or better than other typical sources such as CD or decent-quality MP3/AAC; if SXM had some magic codec that allowed this they would be marketing/licensing that to the hilt.


----------



## Gary J

Learn about variable bit rates. 
And some channels are given more bandwidth (music) than others (talk).
XSM terrestrial repeaters.

It's not so easy as "tiny sliver of bandwidth allotted to each channel".


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> And good luck getting your favorite Big Ten (or whatever) team's game in a remote location like in the mountains where I am driving half the time.




For those of us living in civilization we have a choice though SiriusXM on sat is better than nothing, in regard to live events though AM does come close. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary J

Drewdawg said:


> For those of us living in civilization ....


Will stick with country club vacay home in the Appalachians thanksanyway.


----------



## Drewdawg

Gary J said:


> Will stick with country club vacay home in the Appalachians thanksanyway.




Do use satellite or the SiriusXM app online? You obviously have internet access. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JGM

Gary J said:


> Learn about variable bit rates.


Included in my statement about "magic codecs" -- of course VBR techniques are already fully in play for all the app-based streaming technologies I was using as comparisons, as well as many MP3s. 



> And some channels are given more bandwidth (music) than others (talk).


The SXM sats transmit about 4.4Mb/sec TOTAL. I count around 80 music channels on the current satellite lineup card. That's about 55kb/sec average per channel BEFORE you add in the non-music channels (which each get about half bandwidth IIRC). I believe that at least one of the classical stations still gets 64kb/sec, and that that's as good as it gets these days. (In the old days of XM classical got more, and there was at least one eclectic/"audiophile" station that also got more; but there were many fewer channels overall at the time). No amount of improvement to codecs will make those bitrates sound good. 



> XSM terrestrial repeaters.


Come on man, I specified "via sats" about six times. And while I don't have any technical details, the term "repeaters" implies the same data rate as what's being repeated (i.e. the satellites) to deal with shadows and dropouts. Repeaters are also used and useful in exactly the same places where the alternative streaming path is most readily available. 



> It's not so easy as "tiny sliver of bandwidth allotted to each channel".


But it's not much more complicated than that, either; there's only so many ways to slice up a pie. 

Again, I'm not trying to convince anybody who thinks SXM sounds good that it doesn't. But claiming that those who think it sounds bad compared to other sources just need better equipment is simply wrong.


----------



## Gary J

"Fair enough to disagree on subjective opinions"

And there is probably a whole lot of proprietary compression and transmission tech going on that you (or I) don't know about anyway so good luck with your Mb/sec numbers proving SXM is inferior to this and that for something that is, in your words, subjective anyway. 

I have better things to do.


----------



## LHenton

Streaming Siriusxm on Roku sounds surprisingly good on surround sound home speakers. Roku is much better than sat on sirius home tuner with roof antenna or xm home tuner with antenna in home window. I'm happy with only the Roku. June 2019.


----------



## JGM

LHenton said:


> Streaming Siriusxm on Roku sounds surprisingly good on surround sound home speakers. Roku is much better than sat on sirius home tuner with roof antenna or xm home tuner with antenna in home window. I'm happy with only the Roku. June 2019.


Me too. 

Also note that there is a dynamic range limitation setting buried in the menus for the Roku app. It defaults to a "standard" amount which seems mostly unobjectionable to my ear, but turning it off altogether improves the sound further.


----------



## Drewdawg

LHenton said:


> Streaming Siriusxm on Roku sounds surprisingly good on surround sound home speakers. Roku is much better than sat on sirius home tuner with roof antenna or xm home tuner with antenna in home window. I'm happy with only the Roku. June 2019.




Agreed, via the stream SiriusXM is quite good. With an unlimited data plan it will definitely entertain me on the road and on the go.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## $.02

*XM input question.*

Other than a mini XM tuner, what other types of signals can the XM input of a Panasonic SA-XR700 receiver be used, if any? Can someone explain the XM signal path in that receiver? It is in any way the same as the digital audio path of HDMI?
Update: I found a service guide and it appears that the XM signal goes through A/D chips,(C1BB00000672) rather than the DIR chip(C1BB00000692) which makes it appear that the XM is an analog chain rather than pure digital.


----------



## Drewdawg

Drewdawg said:


> Agreed, via the stream SiriusXM is quite good. With an unlimited data plan it will definitely entertain me on the road and on the go.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Listening to 1st Wave on SiriusXM online and it is full stereo and sounds great. Definitely better than FMHD and the reception is outstanding bearing in mind you have good LTE coverage. 

I used to listen on the satellite receiver. I also used to listen to KFI and KROQ using the radio. In most locations the reception is better and KFI-AM sounds much better. Actually, so does KCBS-AM 740 and KYW-AM 1060 (reception of a MW signal from Philadelphia to Los Angeles can be problematic. And, hey, what's the frequency (kenneth) for KYW-FM?

OK, rant over about satellite sound quality, listen online and love it. Peace out :grin::devil:
?


----------



## tveli

Anyone got a TTR2? 

My new TTR2 seems nice so far, an improvement over TTR100 while retaining MOST of the coolness of TTR100. 
Only issue so far is no linear channel guide, it is by category or alphabetical only. I haven't tried the on-demand yet. 

I was thinking of starting a TTR2 thread but it might be like most of the clubs I start for which the membership count remains stuck at one. I see there is an iradioforum which seems appropriate for TTR2 discussion but they have obfuscated/blocked registration due to spammers.


----------



## Gary J

I am thinking about the TTR2 for the garage.

Also check out the Amazon Echo Auto. I let Sirius lapse on a 3rd car but got it back free with the Echo Auto.


----------



## Drewdawg

Did my radio just update or is anyone else hearing better stereo separation from the satellite? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tveli

Sirius TTR200 GUI indicates hardwire ethernet is supported even though there is no hardwire ethernet plughole on the device. 

Today's gratuitous test result indicates that attaching a USB<->ethernet hardwire dongle is all that is needed to make TTR200 work over hardwire ethernet. I'm using an old Linksys 10/100 USB adapter. 

Playing SiriusXM music nonstop is a nice way to ensure network connectivity. 

TTFN!


----------

