Incidentally, channel 74, the Met Opera Channel, seems to exhibit the
least amount of artifacting of all those I have listened to. I wonder if
the Met pays for more bandwidth so as to represent their product in
On 5/17/2014 8:41 PM, Roger Kulp wrote:
> Sirius is no doubt intended for people who have never heard a decent signal through a fine receiver,especially a tubed one.If all you have heard is YouTube on your computer speakers or lossy,compressed downloads on your iPod,or smart phone,SiriusXM sounds wonderful.
> This is the future of radio.
> The radios they sell on their site look like cheap crap too.
>> Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 05:57:55 -0400
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] [MLA-L] Future of CDs
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> It depends on which radio you have. Remember that Sirius and XM used to be
>> two different companies with their own sets of satellites.
>> I have a Hyundai with an XM radio that sounds really good and a Ford with a
>> Sirius radio that sounds like crap.
>> The Sirius radio is really compressed. That system allowed them to adjust
>> bandwidth on each channel. On weekends, it can sound really dreadful when
>> they add more channels to accommodate sports programming.
>> On the XM radio, the basic music channels sound decent, much like your FM
>> radio, while the news and talk radio channels are compressed a little more,
>> but not quite as badly as the Sirius radio.
>> Since the merger, I'm not sure how they're making the radios - if they're
>> based on one system or another or some hybrid of both.
>> I've noticed when driving that the Sirius radio is more prone to drop out
>> if you go under a big overpass or go through some really mountainous areas.
>> Both, in normal driving, don't cut out.
>> Randy A. Riddle
>> [log in to unmask]
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:38 PM, [log in to unmask] <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Yes, it's true. I have SiriusXM. I've been listening to mainly 75 & 76,
>>> the classical channels, and the OTR channel. The 40s is not currently
>>> available, having been hijacked for Billy Joel for a period of some months.
>>> The sound is very artifacted. There is a lack of hi freq content, a great
>>> deal of dynamic compression, and - get this, and this is a big one -
>>> signal is lost going under a bridge or pulling into the gas station, or
>>> into the garage. That is looking back to AM radio.
>>> I can also listen to 75 & 76 in the house as I get those 2 channels on
>>> Dish Network. There must be more bandwidth on satellite, as the
>>> artifacting, it's there, is not nearly as bad. Compression is.
>>> joe salerno
>>> On 5/16/2014 10:03 PM, Lou Judson wrote:
>>>> I have never heard it myself, but I've been told that XM satellite
>>>> "radio" is the worst sounding medium around. Izzit true?
>>>> ALL pubic radio is distributed via 128 (mono) and 256k MP2, and I hear
>>>> some good stuff on NPR occasionally, in the car and clock radio mainly...
>>>> Lou Judson
>>>> Intuitive Audio
>>>> On May 16, 2014, at 6:22 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>>> The only thing worse-sounding than 128kbps MP3 is streaming Spotify and
>>> Joe Salerno