Print

Print


sorry but here in the hinder lands of appalachia ... sirius supplies diversity that is lacking on traditional broadcast radio ... your synopsis may have been true in metropolitan areas but is so off base for rural users.

Dale Francis

> On May 17, 2014, at 21:41, Roger Kulp <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> 
> Roger
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _________________
>> Randy A. Riddle
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.coolcatdaddy.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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...
>>>> 
>>>> <L>
>>>> Lou Judson
>>>> Intuitive Audio
>>>> 415-883-2689
>>>> 
>>>> On May 16, 2014, at 6:22 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The only thing worse-sounding than 128kbps MP3 is streaming Spotify and
>>>> Pandora.
>>> --
>>> Joe Salerno
>