I know there have been a number of threads about this but I'm really looking for recommendations here.

I had an M and thought Sirius sounded pretty crappy but I got some advice from a message board re: settings (turning off centerpoint, upping the base, etc.) and it made things noticeably better.

But man - XM sounds like a big bag of sauce!!

All of the channels are so damned compressed it sounds like I'm listening to something streaming on the web - only not as good!

I understand compressing the talk channels as sound isn't as important but man, the people all sound like they have big block of cheese in their mouths - they all have a horrible lisp and you can't even recognize voices that you normally would (like on sports talk or financials). Sometimes the humans actually sound like the computer generated messages on traffic channels - it really is that bad!

The music is not much better. I have tried cranking up the bass and it seems to help but does anyone have any other recommendations that I might not have thought about with the G?

It's very disappointing but I can barely stand listening to the satellite and may just give it up and beef up my iPod so I don't have to pay XM for this junk.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

Jay

 

I agree, XM sound quality sucks. I had XM with my stock head unit, now I have a Pioneer AVIC700BT head unit and the XM sounds a lot better, but still not nearly as good as my iPod or CDs. The highs are just flat.

I am about to give up myself and give HDradio a shot.

 

Oh yeah - one more I forgot to mention about our friends at XM-

I keep getting these long pauses and the radio says 'update' or 'loading' and it lasts for quite a while. Sometimes it doesn't go away until I change the station. Major pain in the a**!!!

I did have cutouts on Sirius but they would reset themselves in a matter of a second or two once the signal was reestablished. XM doesn't seem to want to do this.

And while I'm on a roll - what about all of those stupid commercials and DJ talk. Do we really care what they have to say or sell? If I want to buy an herbal supplement that will make women want to flock to me I'll just purchase it through the myriad of spam emails I get. What a bunch of junk there is on XM.

Ok, I'd like to say rant off, and I'm sure there are many people out there who do like XM but getting this off my chest really makes me think about it even more and it looks likely I won't be paying for it.

I guess time will tell.

Jay

 

It's the digital difference. Once you convert audio into those little 1s and 0s, you lose a lot of the sound quality.

Analog rocks!

 

I think it's also market and time dependent, here in Houston there are days when the signal is great, and other times and spots where it goes down noticeably.

But overall, it sounds much better than standard radio signals.

 

Yeah the sound quality is a bit weaksauce. Not enough for me to go back to FM though....besides my Infiniti has that known issue where my FM presets are screwed up and my radio won't even select them.

I'd get it fixed but I don't want to get a brand new unit and lose everything and I never listen to FM radio.

 

Well the sirus in my Altima (06 SE-R) w/Bose sucks too. Its way way "compressed"....Sat radio is just not good. I LOVE the programing and lack for commercials, but the quality is LESS than regualar old FM.

SAT to me is like cable TV. Its better than the free stations. But unlike cable, you have to put up with a worse signal than the conventional method.

 

I believe XM's signal is 64kb/s, which is less than what my ears can tolerate. Even during my 3-month trial, I rarely listened to XM cuz I couldn't stand the sound. Main reason why I didn't continue my XM subscription and XM/Sirius will go down sooner than later.

"It's the digital difference. Once you convert audio into those little 1s and 0s, you lose a lot of the sound quality."

CDs are digital. All recordings have been in digital for at least the last 10-20 yrs. The difference is the sampling rate and bit depth for those samples. 64kb/s isn't gonna get you anything tolerable in either of those, compressed or not.

 

XM's encoding rate is, as far as chatter is concerned, at 48. They never really released the official numbers.

HOWEVER, do take note that they do use CT-aacPlus with neural audio optimization. This is quite different than MP3 encoding, so you can't compare bitrates directly between the two formats. A CT-aacPlus/NA recording at 50 is very close to a 128 bit mp3 file in terms of quality (a.k.a CD-Quality).

That said, the transmission rate is the culprit in most cases. Depending on the bandwidth provided on a particular channel and the amount of traffic it's pushing, that determines the quality of the music coming out on the other end. It goes back to my earlier comment about when you're listening to something, and where.

 

cd's are RECORDED digitally using an analog to digital converter, which I'm sure is what you meant...it does have a lot to do with sampling rate and depth...however, there are other factors to consider...what about the circuits?

what about the band-pass circuits? what is the quality factor of the band-pass circuit used for our mid-range components? is it decreased to allow more frequencies or is it increased to increase selectivity of the frequency range? you have the mid-range going from 300 Hz to 5000 Hz, and then the high-range is from 2000 Hz to 20000 Hz...there is a crossover of the two...so how did bose take care of this problem? or did they?

also, there is a common misconception among people who think it's just strictly digital or strictly analog...in applications, A to D converters are needed as much as D to A converters...everything is analog AND digital in a way. think about it...when recording a CD, an analog input is used and coverted to digital for the recording...when you put that CD into your car, it reads the digital information and outputs the information in analog using a D to A converter...i mean, how can songs be strictly square waves? that doesn't make much sense does it? it has to be an analog output (sinusoidal waves)...

 

While all of this is very interesting, I still stand by my original feeling:

XM Sounds like a big bag of sauce!!!

I don't care how, what or why it sounds bad. They just need to fix it if they want people to subscribe or continue to subscribe.

The more I listen to my last few days of trial I just can't get over how bad it sounds. If I do end up signing up, it will be for the absolute cheapest plan I can get, and without a long term commitment.

They keep calling me to sign up and not staying on hold long enough for me to pick up the call. It's very annoying.

Anyway - thanks for the insight as to the 'why' it sounds like crap. I think the points are very valid but it's really not acceptable for what is advertised or charged. It doesn't even sound remotely as good as FM around here. I would even say AM sounds better than XM for the talk stations.

Cheers!

Jay

 

for $15cd a month, they can keep their shhitty signal.