Is it just me, or does it seem like quality is down lately. Have all the new channels caused a lowering of bitrates?

Is it just me, or does it seem like quality is down lately. Have all the new channels caused a lowering of bitrates?

reminds me of 96kb mp3's.

depends on the channel for me. I think the Loft sounds pretty good, but others can be really thin sounding.

60s on 6 sounds particularly bad. Was it this way on XM??

I'm using a factory radio that came with a built in XM tuner in my Honda Element. XM sounds worse than FM and in a harsh compressed digital sort of way, worse than AM.

XM has been unresponsive to my sound quality complaints.

I may cancel on that alone. The only good station left between both XM and Sirius is Underground Garage anyway. XM killed Fungus and Fred. 1st wave is a crappy replacement with only superficial tracks in the genre.

40s on 4 is just terrible. I dont know what is worse, the popping or the stream dropouts. I guess because it's older stuff maybe they think it doesnt matter. Actually it is a shame, because that channel really brings some "new" to Sirius.

40s on 4 is just terrible. I dont know what is worse, the popping or the stream dropouts. I guess because it's older stuff maybe they think it doesnt matter. Actually it is a shame, because that channel really brings some "new" to Sirius.

It's that way when listening online, too. Quite annoying! :mad:

reminds me of 96kb mp3's.


96k? That's being generous :rolleyes:

You can thank all the damn sports, talk and news channels for killing the sound quality of the music channels.

Channels that aren't mostly music deserve AT MOST 56kbps of bandwidth, music should be given no less than 256kbps.

C'mon, a hundred HDTV channels can be streamed from satellites, why is it so hard to make 2 channel audio sound better than AM radio or a casette tape that has been played 50 times?! :mad:

I noticed a large bitrate drop on XM after the recent channel merge. It sounds awful.

I noticed a large bitrate drop on XM after the recent channel merge. It sounds awful.

How did you determine the bit rate?

How did you determine the bit rate?

You can't, however lower bitrates produce loss of clarity in the audio and typically an increase in compression artifacts that make the music and some instruments sound harsh, tinny, fuzzy; the dynamic range goes to crap and you lose stereo seperation, etc... and that's what you notice an increase of.


Satellite radio music has been butchered because of the demand for sports, talk and other crap that should be restricted to AM radio.


How to solve the problem?

I'd like to see a trade-up program for receivers. Send in your existing receiver and get a new one for half price or something with a 2 year subscription contract. New receivers would receive both XM and Sirius streams. Move all of the talk/sports/news to Sirius (that has an inferior compression codec in the first place) and combine all the music channels that are currently duplicated across both services (ie, instead of one 80's channel on both XM and Sirius, make it 1 in total.) and stick it on the XM satellites.

You now have 40 channels of music that you can give much more bandwidth to and customers can pick and choose packages from either service.

Now, the only problem is the awful XM coverage in rural areas on the outskirts of the coverage area. I know for a FACT that Sirius is MUCH better received than XM is here.

Are you folks complaining about Sirius audio quality or XM audio quality? On the few XM originated music channels that I regularly listen to (on XM), I haven't noticed any decrease in quality. XM has been running most of their music channels at 32 kb/s and I doubt that has changed. For programming originated at Sirius and being rebroadcast on XM (and v.v.), there may be a quality hit due to multiple stages of coding and recoding as the signal travels from site-to-site.

Are you folks complaining about Sirius audio quality or XM audio quality? On the few XM originated music channels that I regularly listen to (on XM), I haven't noticed any decrease in quality. XM has been running most of their music channels at 32 kb/s and I doubt that has changed. For programming originated at Sirius and being rebroadcast on XM (and v.v.), there may be a quality hit due to multiple stages of coding and recoding as the signal travels from site-to-site.


32kb/s seems a bit low, I'd say 64 for many channels.

I have always complained about Sirius SQ, even before the merger.

I have not been happy with satellite radio SQ since I first started listening over 4 years ago. It sounds way too thin and tinny to my ears. Other people say it sounds just as good as CD?!?!?!

Anyway, can anybody commnent on SQ based on the different hardware. Of course, I understand that FM mod sounds the worst. But what about the branded converters/tuners (i.e.: Alpine & Kenwood) as compared to the portable Sportsters, etc.

My old Sportster looks like it just bit the dust, so I am contemplating purchaing a new unit (Sirius) and I'm not sure if I should just get the new Sportster (Sportser 5) or try to get the Sirius Alpine tuner for my Alpine deck (which is a good but older deck...about 8 years old).

On XM, the majority of the music channels have been coded at 32 kb/s for the last couple of years. The "Clear Channel" channels were coded at 48 kb/s and the old channel 76 was running at 64 kb/s. With the new channel lineup, I suspect that all of the XM music channels are running at 32 with exception of maybe the classical channels. Sirius uses statistical multiplexing so the effective coding rate changes dynamically, unlike XM with its fixed coding rate.

As far as differences in hardware, the front-ends of all these receivers are basically the same unit. Some of the more expensive receivers were reported to have better D/A converters. Other than that, they are all basically the same.

If I recall XM *was* 96kb/s AAC+ on the many (most?) of the music channels. Marginal quality at best though an automobile environment can had hide a lot of it. Try listening on headphone and find out what "digiatal quality" really means.

The quality is worse than FM for sure. I can always tell when my presets are on XM or FM.

I have a very high end system installed in my Tahoe and XM is really bad compared to a CD.

The sound is very thin now and the lows are much lower on a CD or mp3.

I am very dissapointed.

I even noticed it when I had the factory system installed, before I upgraded.

reminds me of 96kb mp3's. Aren't they using HE-AAC + SBR codec?

If so then they only need 64 kbit/s to achieve perceived CD quality. Therefore if they are sounding worse than CD, then the music channels are probably only getting 32 or 24 kbit/s.

There is definitely a decrease in quality. I listen to XM at home on a fairly high-end dedicated audio setup, and the change is driving me nuts. Whether it is bit-rates, or Sirius link-up issues???; well, I'll let those more knowlegeable decide...

Seems to me that a couple of things are going on:

- They just switched up the channels so it'll take some time to sort all of it out. This has happened before with XM/Sirius and they end up tweaking it and it ends up getting a boost in quality (not CD-quality, just better than it was).

- They could, in my opinion, dump quite a few channels and free up the bandwith. They could probably cut some from the 'Rock' category. IMO they could dump the local traffic/weather channels. I thought they were a great idea until they were implemented and I found better information on my local AM radio stations. I'm sure someone listens to them but I can't imagine that they have a great mass of listeners. They Howards could be integrated into the regular talk-radio lineup. Playboy could go away. There are others..

Of course, if you were to take any one of these channels away someone, somewhere would be screaming bloody murder. There just seems to be quite a bit of waste in their bandwidth.

They could, in my opinion, dump quite a few channels and free up the bandwith. They could probably cut some from the 'Rock' category.......

Couldn't agree with you more. Been advocating that they weed-out the redundant programming for years. Yes that would free up bandwidth and they could increase the coding bitrate to 48 kb/s on all of the music channels across the board. When Sirius and XM were competing, there probably was some justification for the "more is better" in terms of attracting new subscribers. Kind of a moot point nowadays.

The sound quality is terrible. I have XM and it sounds worse than a 64 kbps MP3. When you hear anyone sing they sound like a snake hissing. They all have a szzzzz sound. I listen to Di.fm on 128 kbps AAC and 64 kbps AAC+, that sound way better. XM sound quality is so bad now that it does not sound much better than AM stereo. I end up listing to XM and night on Dish Network which has the Sirius channels. They are the same anyway and they sound much better with no snake hiss.

I agree with sebberry 100%. It is all of the useless talk and sports channels that they added. I have always hated sports. If I was into it I would rather watch it on TV then listen to it on the radio. Also the boring talk should be reserved for AM radio. I got XM for the music channels and music channels only.

Sadly, the satellite company sold their souls on old technology and it will be the end for them.
Tell me how the cable companies can improve video (HD) and there is no light at the end of the tunnel for Sirius/XM.
They would have to completely redo their technology, launch new satellites, etc and we know that ain't happening.
I love commercial free music but I will turn to my ipod instead of resubscribing in a few months.
It simply sounds horrible, I would liken it to AM quality but in stereo.
That isn't worth $13 a month to me.

They would have to completely redo their technology, launch new satellites, etc and we know that ain't happening Not really. They could just upload a new codec that offers the quality of 128 kbit/s MP3 at only 64. As for HD Cable I hear lots of complaints about quality, because cable is doing exactly the same thing - trying to squeeze more and more channels.

I just got Sirius in the spring, and the music channels don't even match up to over the air FM in terms of audio quality. It's really sad to waste all these great channels with bad sound quality.

It's pointless to pay for Sirius and XM. I listen to iTunes radio all the time and I am VERY happy with it. I can find at least 128K to 196K bit rates fairly easily and actually like what I'm listening to. And it is free too!;)

It's pointless to pay for Sirius and XM. I listen to iTunes radio all the time and I am VERY happy with it. I can find at least 128K to 196K bit rates fairly easily and actually like what I'm listening to. And it is free too!;)

I wouldn't say pointless. I bought Sirius exclusively for the car and there is nothing else that offers a continuous uninterrupted stream of music wherever I go.

It's pointless to pay for Sirius and XM. I listen to iTunes radio all the time and I am VERY happy with it. Isn't the wireless connection to your Iphone (or whatever) rather expensive?

I don't usually come to this forum, but i sought out a thread on this topic because I thought I had perceived improved SQ on several stations. A few sounded worse.

I find a wide range of SQ. I usually listen to The Loft and it sounds, in my opinion a little better, but I equalize my signal and have a powered sub in my car and have a pretty good receiver.

I think this threads is misleading in that everyone has different setups and listens to different stations. Since people all have different hearing, different noise levels in their cars, and different preferences there can be no defininitive conclusion.

I think bitrate data is also confusing when comparing one codec at one bitrate to another codec at a different bitrate since different technologies are used to get that particular bitrate.

Could someone with better knowledge on codecs expand on comparing bitrates in different codecs?

Yes. Codec quality is determined through listener tests, where it is determined what is the "minimum" bitrate in order to achieve transparency - the point where people can not tell the difference between the compressed sample and the original CD sample. In general those points are:

256 kbit/s - MP2
192 kbit/s - MP3
128 kbit/s - AAC
64 kbit/s - AACplus (SBR)
----------
24 kbit/s - FM quality (AACplus)
16 kbit/s - AM quality (ACCplus)
10 kbit/s - Talk quality (AACplus)

If you're curious what 10 kbit/s AACplus sounds like, click here: http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=103509 ----- Here's a 16kbit/s sample: http://80.67.116.2:7970/listen.pls ----- And finally a 24 kbit/s AACplus stream: http://207.200.96.231:8002/listen.pls

Yes. Codec quality is determined through listener tests, where it is determined what is the "minimum" bitrate in order to achieve transparency - the point where people can not tell the difference between the compressed sample and the original CD sample. In general those points are:

256 kbit/s - MP2
128 kbit/s - MP3 (Sirius), AAC
64 kbit/s - MP3pro, AACplus (XM)
----------
24 kbit/s - FM quality (AACplus)
16 kbit/s - AM quality (ACCplus)
10 kbit/s - Talk quality (AACplus)...

First, I don't think it's possible to declare a magic number, even generally speaking, that represents what you define as "transparency". It will be different for different people, for different content, and even for the same people on different days. IOW, it is a large grey area, not a finite point in space. Perception is too complex for that.

Not only that, if that even were the case, these would not be those numbers. Any listener can tell the difference between CD quality (705 Kbps) and MP3 quality at 128. Play the MP3, and folks will say it sounds pretty good, but play the CD immediately afterward, and they will definitely say that the CD is significantly better (assuming an uncompromising sound system for playback).

Also, MP3 quality is not equivalent to AAC quality. An MP3 generally has to be 160 Kb or 192 Kb to match AAC at 128 Kb. AAC is an improvement made directly to the tools already existent in MP3 rather than a wholly different encoding algorithm.

And it is not as simple as just bit rates. Sirius does a lot more to the sound, including reducing both separation and dynamic range, which contributes greatly to why they don't sound so pretty good and why MP3s or AACs from a good source sound markedly better. Of course if they did not precondition to reduce separation and dynamic range, the resultant artifacts would probably make it totally unlistenable.

...For programming originated at Sirius and being rebroadcast on XM (and v.v.), there may be a quality hit due to multiple stages of coding and recoding as the signal travels from site-to-site.Boy, I sure hope not. One of the tenets of compression is that if you severely compress once, secondary compression becomes exponentially more difficult to do cleanly depending on the level of original compression. It makes more technical sense to encode at a mild compression rate for the media servers, and then re-encode at uplink to the final compression level. This would (assuming a big enough pipe between Virginia and NYC) make that original mild compression available to both final encoding schemes without the double hit of severely compressing it twice.

This is how video is handled. It is generally compressed to a mezzanine level for handling and transport, and then compressed further just before the exciter/transmitter/HPA. Since the mezzanine compression is mild, it does not significantly impact the final compression or final artifact level.

For example, take a 128 MP3 and re-encode it as a 128 AAC. The result? Horrible, because of the double hit of severe compression. I would doubt that SR is doing a double hit on their most popular channels that they simulcast.

...lower bitrates produce loss of clarity in the audio and typically an increase in compression artifacts that make the music and some instruments sound harsh, tinny, fuzzy; the dynamic range goes to crap and you lose stereo seperation, etc...Compression algorithms themselves don't reduce separation and dynamic range. Separation and dynamic range are aspects that compressionists alter before compression, on purpose, ironically enough.

When compression is severe (and all SR falls in that category) the idea is to precondition the signal to prevent significant artifacting. Unfortunately, separation and DR are aspects that if removed can harm the signal nearly as much as the compression itself. Regardless, they are steps that are imperative, because if not done in preconditioning, compression that severe would be unacceptable, and would contribute even more egregious compromises to the final product.

Severe compression means severe tradeoffs to prevent the detection of artifacts, and these are the chief methods used to do that. It's a giant compromise. They hope you won't notice what's missing (DR and separation) instead of what would be added had they not done that (obvious encoding artifacts).

If it were my SR technology, I would build every receiver with both steering logic, such as that used in Dolby Pro, and dynamic range expansion. This would partially offset the reduction in DR and separation. I'm not sure that would be effective, but I'm also not sure they ever even considered it, or if it got shot down by the suits as costing too much, even though if done en masse, it would probably add less than a buck to the cost of a radio.

I fixed my original post, since I listed the wrong minimum bitrate for MP3. CD Quality (705 Kbps) CD = over 1400 kbit/s; I don't recall the exact number but it's 1400-something

Bitrate=/= Quality. You can have a sample recorded at 320 kbps MP3 that has a quality equal to a 1400 uncompressed sample. This is due to the limitations of human hearing which can not detect the differences.

Minimum bitrate == Determined through listener tests. For example the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that AACplus at 48 kbit/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the MUSHRA scale. Data from this testing indicated that some individuals confused 48 kbit/s encoded material with an uncompressed original. Therefore it was concluded that at 64 kbit/s AACplus is "transparent" and indistinguishable from a CD for the listeners.

AAC =/= MP3 with better tools. AAC is a fundamentally different file format. Quoting wikipedia:

"Advanced Audio Coding is designed to be the successor of the MP3 format and demonstrates greater sound quality and transparency than MP3 files coded at the same bit rate. Improvements include:

* More sample frequencies (from 8 kHz to 96 kHz) than MP3 (16 kHz to 48 kHz)
* Up to 48 channels (MP3 supports up to two channels in MPEG-1 mode and up to 5.1 channels in MPEG-2 mode)
* Arbitrary bit-rates and variable frame length. Standardized constant bit rate with bit reservoir.
* Higher efficiency and simpler filterbank (rather than MP3's hybrid coding, AAC uses a pure MDCT)
* Higher coding efficiency for stationary signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 1024 samples, allowing more efficient coding than MP3's 576 sample blocks)
* Higher coding accuracy for transient signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 128 samples, allowing more accurate coding than MP3's 192 sample blocks)
* Can use Kaiser-Bessel derived window function to eliminate spectral leakage at the expense of widening the main lobe
* Much better handling of audio frequencies above 16 kHz
* More flexible joint stereo (different methods can be used in different frequency ranges)"

... there may be a quality hit due to multiple stages of coding and recoding as the signal travels from site-to-site.....Boy, I sure hope not. One of the tenets of compression is that if you severely compress once...For example, take a 128 MP3 and re-encode it as a 128 AAC. The result? Horrible...

Transcoding errors and side effects are a well known problem in broadcast transmission systems. That's why the news feeds on XM channels 121-131 sound so bad. You're hearing transcoding related sound effects. I didn't state (or suggest) that Sirius and XM were trying to do multiple code-decode at 128 kb/s - you did. You're jumping to conclusions. There are many coding rates and algorithms available for program interchange. For example, 320 kb/s MPEG-2 is a good one that provides transmission efficiency and almost indistinguishable from straight PCM.

I haven't tried Sirius at home as it is wired into my car, but my Yamaha receiver has a "compressed audio restorer" function. Is there anything like that that can be used in the car?

Sirius XM on Directv sounds phenominal.

How to solve the problem?

I'd like to see a trade-up program for receivers. Send in your existing receiver and get a new one for half price or something with a 2 year subscription contract. New receivers would receive both XM and Sirius streams. Move all of the talk/sports/news to Sirius (that has an inferior compression codec in the first place) and combine all the music channels that are currently duplicated across both services (ie, instead of one 80's channel on both XM and Sirius, make it 1 in total.) and stick it on the XM satellites.

Right on IMO. Do you think this could be accomplished in 3 years-ish? What would happen to the people that don't go for the upgrade?

...CD = over 1400 kbit/s; I don't recall the exact number but it's 1400-something...Yes. It is 705 Kbps per channel, so a stereo "CD-quality" signal would be 1410 Kbps.

Bit rate CAN be figured out on XM! People use an old MYFI and se how much it can record and do the calculations. Before the switch over, stations were 32kps, I don't remember he exact number.
The sound is pretty bad. I have xm for five years and called to cancel last week. They offered me three free months on one reciever so I said fine. That is my wife's reciever and after three months, we will cancel for good.
I got an Iphone and the steaming internet on Pandora and Slacker sounds so, so much better! There is actual dynamic range and I can hear more detail everywhere, especially in voices. It sounds better than XM ever did, it is almost CD quality.Yeah, I pay $30 a month for data on the iphone, but I'd rather spend $30 and get internet, GPS and great sounding music than $13 on crap sat.
Also, I still can't believe that xm STILL doesn't have an app on Iphone! You still can't get xm on an iphone, but you can get the free stuff! Don't even tell me about getting some voodoo program if i jail break my phone and do a magic hokey pokey; it isn't worth the effort.

The audio quality on my Sirius service has degraded in the past few months. Back in November or December I noticed that some stations sounded better at different times of the day - on some nights, at 7 minutes til the next hour, the bitrate dropped on most music channels to a point where I find it unacceptable.
Last week, every channel except 001 was poor. And now, even that sounds unacceptable to me.

When I first got the service in 2007, the new wave and one of the electronic stations sounded fine to me. In mid-2008, the bitrate was lowered on these channels as well.

I've been using my iPod in the past few days. I wouldn't mind streaming music over my phone, but taking my phone out of my pocket and plugging it in is a significant deterrent.

How long will it take for Sirius/XM to go Bankrupt?
Will it happen this year?

I noticed the exact same thing as you... even down to channel 1. I listened to it yesterday in my car and it was abysmal. My favorite station, Liquid Metal (uesd to be Hard Attack), is completely unlistenable. There is zero stereo imaging and the sound has no punch and is lifeless. This is a real joke.

I complained to customer support and they just sent me links on how to connect my receiver directly to my car instead of using FM.... I'm already doing that and I stated it in the email.

I'm really getting fed up. Stern is the only thing I listen to now and I'm contemplating dumping the subscription if nothing is done. I can find Stern other ways.


The audio quality on my Sirius service has degraded in the past few months. Back in November or December I noticed that some stations sounded better at different times of the day - on some nights, at 7 minutes til the next hour, the bitrate dropped on most music channels to a point where I find it unacceptable.
Last week, every channel except 001 was poor. And now, even that sounds unacceptable to me.

When I first got the service in 2007, the new wave and one of the electronic stations sounded fine to me. In mid-2008, the bitrate was lowered on these channels as well.

I've been using my iPod in the past few days. I wouldn't mind streaming music over my phone, but taking my phone out of my pocket and plugging it in is a significant deterrent.

I was listening to 54 the other day and Radiohead's Paranoid Android came on. It sounded like crap. "There is zero stereo imaging and the sound has no punch and is lifeless." Yep. I remember that I had it in my CD changer and quickly switched to the same song. Talk about a night and day difference! I'm not saying that I expect XM to sound like CD, but damn it is bad.

I was listening to VanHalen's "Jump" from Pandora on my Iphone on my jog today. Wow! The synthesizer had the same sizzle as it did on my cd. On XM, this would sound like a buzz.
Both use aac+ encoding.
XM= 32kbps
Pandora= 64kbps

if you ever dreamed of what xm would sound like if they doubled the bit rate, give pandora a listen.
Oh, and Slacker also sounds great too!

Audio quality is much better today. I wonder how long it will stay this way.

Audio quality is much better today. I wonder how long it will stay this way.

I noticed this too on Friday. Liquid Metal sounded noticeably better. I actually listened to the channel on the way home from work! First time in about 6 months. This morning? Back to total crap sound. What the hell is going on??

Sirius XM on Directv sounds phenominal.

It sounds ok, not phenominal. Not CD quality by any means

It is all of the useless talk and sports channels that they added. I have always hated sports. If I was into it I would rather watch it on TV then listen to it on the radio. Also the boring talk should be reserved for AM radio. I got XM for the music channels and music channels only.

Well, I subscribe almost exclusively for the sports and talk and I am quite sure that I am not the only one. Why don't you email SiriusXM and give them your favorites list. We will all just conform and listen to whatever you like from now on. Please..................:mad:

Well, I subscribe almost exclusively for the sports and talk and I am quite sure that I am not the only one. Why don't you email SiriusXM and give them your favorites list. We will all just conform and listen to whatever you like from now on. Please..................:mad:

A lot less people than you think follow sports. For example, you moght think that most people like to watch football, but the most don't, many consider it a form of organized grab ass.
ESPN costs providers a lot to provide, the most expensive channel. The cost is spread among all subscribers, so even those who never watch it pay. Proposals to require providers to let subscribers pay for just channels they want have been resisted because this could result in espn costing over $30 for those who want it.
The same could also apply to channels like nascar= how much does it cost and who really listens to it?

I've written Sirius XM customer support twice now. They gave me a number to call about bad sound quality.

Dear Tim,

Thank you for contacting SIRIUS regarding your unhappiness with the
sound quality you are hearing while in your home and car. We certainly
understand your concern and are here to assist you!

Tim, we apologize for the frustration that this may have caused. As you
know sound quality is one of our biggest features and what you are
describing does not sound like you are receiving near CD quality in your
home or car. We have team of trained professionals who can assist you
and walk you through troubleshooting your sound issues. The team is
available from 6 am to 1 am seven days a week ET. The toll-free number
is listed for you below:

-1-800-869-5364

I'm going to try to call them at lunch.

If I don't get any indication that the current audio quality decreases are temporary, I'll probably cancel my service.

If I don't get any indication that the current audio quality decreases are temporary, I'll probably cancel my service.

What an interesting and frustrating lunch I just had.

My first call to the tech support number was a complete waste of time. They tried a bunch of ways to make the audio quality better. Including resetting factory defaults, unplugging and replugging it in and "resetting" the signal (whatever that is). Basically after 25 minutes on the phone with this lady I was basically told I'm S.O.L. and because I have a Starmate Replay (which is a Gen 2 radio) that the audio quality wasn't going to be as good and that I am free to buy a new radio. You have to be f#cking kidding me. They offered no discount or anything and basically told me if I wanted to cancel they could transfer me to billing right away. Wow.

Outraged, I called Customer Support and spoke to a guy, Tony, who seemed much more helpful and said they have been getting a lot of reports of the Starmates not doing so well with audio quality. He said there was a good chance my radio was still under warranty and, if so, they would send me a new one. He said they would not send a Starmate since this is the problem of why I don't get good music audio quality. He transferred me to the Warranty department and I waited on hold for another 20 minutes.

Talking to the warranty guy, I was told that they would only send me a Starmate Replay as a replacement. I told him this was unacceptable since I was just told the Starmate was the reason why I was getting poor quality. He would not offer me any discount on a different radio.

Wow, this is mind boggling.

Here's an update for anyone who is fed up with SiriusXM's low quality music stations:

Do not call customer or tech support and do not pass go! Go directly to the cancellation department. This is where things really get done.

After calmly explaining my troubles with the low quality audio coming from my radio and explaining that I'm considering just quitting the service altogether, the lady on the other line is sending me a new Stratus 5 radio free of charge. I was told by multiple techs that the older generation radios have "worse" sound compared to the newer ones. I really highly doubt this is the case. I will try the new radio once I receive it and if the problem isn't solved they told me to call back and see where we can go from there.

Can anyone verify that music sounds much improved this morning?

During my commute into work I noticed an improved quality. Possibly the best I've ever heard it so far. Here's hoping it will last.

possibly unrelated but i read someone was getting several updates through their radio. Fingers crossed.

possibly unrelated but i read someone was getting several updates through their radio. Fingers crossed.

Hm. I haven't gotten any updates in the last day.
Audio quality was back to terrible this morning. I am absolutely perplexed by this problem.

The problem is not the brand or revision of the radios, although some may be worse than others.

The bottom line on both of these systems is that the bitrates for music are simply too low. I have a new car with Sirius on free trial and I will NOT be continuing the subscription.

Too bad, because I do like some of the channels, programming wise, but they are completely unlistenable to me.

Sounds like the music is coming from under water.

FYI...the only real difference between AAC and AAC+ SBR is that the high frequencies (cymbals and the like) are actually masked by shaped noise and harmonic distortion in the + SBR codec! This helps to cover up some of the wateryness but the end result is just as bad or worse to some folks ears.

The absolute minimum bitrate for broadcast quality audio using AAC should be 128 kBPS. Period. And it sould be made LAW.

There is only so much bathwater you can throw out without throwing the baby out with the bathwater! There are no "babies" left on any of these satellite channels.:(

--M--

possibly unrelated but i read someone was getting several updates through their radio. Fingers crossed.

Actually you may be onto something here. I just read this at Sirius' website. Let's hope it includes an upgraded audio quality.

http://www.siriusretail.com/Support/Auto_update.html

Firmware update notice

SIRIUS is currently making some changes to enhance our broadcast network and support new services. The majority of these improvements are being made through modifications to our Satellite broadcasting systems. To assure uninterrupted service once these changes are in place, most Dock & Play, In-vehicle and home radios will receive updated device software. See below for a complete list of affected devices.

Receiving this update requires no action on your part; software is downloaded to the device automatically via our satellites while the radio is tuned to any SIRIUS channel. Subscribers may see a "SIRIUS Updating" or "Updating" message displayed briefly once the download is complete. Otherwise, the update should not affect any of your personal settings – channel locks, sports settings, or FM transmitter frequencies. In a few cases, channel presets may be lost.

These changes are unrelated to a recent letter or e-mail you may have received regarding FCC power output. This has no impact on that function, and you should follow the instructions contained in the communication.

If you would like to assure your radio receives the update as quickly as possible, we suggest leaving your radio turned on and receiving signal for a period of at least 3 continuous hours. If you are unable to do that, don't worry, the update will occur eventually as long as you continue to use your radio and enjoy Sirius programming.

For more information or questions about this update, contact Sirius customer support at 800-869-5364.
Models included:

...Sounds like the music is coming from under water....

That's Sirius for you! Now you know why I'm on the XM system. Sirius is not AAC+. They use PAC, a completely different and older technology codec that was developed at Lucent. As to 128 kpbs, XM has never run any channel at that coding rate. The highest ever was 64 (the deceased channel 76). Just about all XM music channels are running at 32, and have been that way for the last couple of years (before the merger). Sirius runs their channels thru a statistical multiplexer, so the coding rate varies with channel demand and loading.

Just think, almost every station used to sound like old deceased XM 76... I think they were all 48-64kbps before March 1, 2006... then they got dropped to 40kbps, and the most recent drop a few months back was to 32kbps. (which they've only been at for a year max, I believe)

I mean, seriously, I understand "codecs can make all the difference" but there is a point no codec can salvage a 32kbps bitrate to make it listenable to me.

I have heard the "newer units sound better" story too but have never heard any real proof -- and I'm not spending money on a new radio just to find out it's not really better!

I don't get the daily/weekly SQ variations although I've heard the way they allocate bitrate for the sports/etc stations can affect things.

I just can't believe they can't go back to the 100 channel model. XM, at least, used to sound amazing at that setup. Does every subscriber need their own unique station?? :/ It seems like a programming problem that they can't get a good variety with strong appeal in 100 stations.

Just think, almost every station used to sound like old deceased XM 76... I think they were all 48-64kbps before March 1, 2006... then they got dropped to 40kbps, and the most recent drop a few months back was to 32kbps. (which they've only been at for a year max, I believe)

I mean, seriously, I understand "codecs can make all the difference" but there is a point no codec can salvage a 32kbps bitrate to make it listenable to me.

I have heard the "newer units sound better" story too but have never heard any real proof -- and I'm not spending money on a new radio just to find out it's not really better!

I don't get the daily/weekly SQ variations although I've heard the way they allocate bitrate for the sports/etc stations can affect things.

I just can't believe they can't go back to the 100 channel model. XM, at least, used to sound amazing at that setup. Does every subscriber need their own unique station?? :/ It seems like a programming problem that they can't get a good variety with strong appeal in 100 stations.

Absolutely.

Why do we need such narrow programming?

If there was one classic rock channel, one oldies channel, one triple-a channel, one modern rock channel, one soft rock channel etc, not to mention the waste of all those single-decade channels, they could all have 4x the bitrate (128 kbps) and sound great!!!

I for one, wouldn't mind an all-in-one channel with a little bit of everything!

They will, of course, completely ignore anything we say here in the "lunatic-fringe audiophile AV-science" boards but I have asked plenty of "regular" non-audiophile, non-AV-science folks to listen, and none of them would buy it either because of the terrible sound quality.

Thus far, I am voting with my wallet and will NEVER spend a dime on these services until the quality is improved.

--M--

Using a myfi, coding rates can be determined on xm. They have been coming down over the years. I don't remember the exact numbers but I think they used to range from 38-42kbps. That actually made for decent sound. When they dropped that down to 36, it started getting bad, now 32. They played around with it, some said to turn up the trebl, all bandaids. Bottom line is that anything below 36 is just plain bad.
The XM encoding is better than sirius. One interesting thing is that matrixe's the sound like fm. They take two channels, combine them into one and that is encoded. Then it is seperated in your reciever. This saves space (clever, eh?).
I read a large article about sat radio right before it came out and they also said that both services could have easily and inexpensively included the ability for the listener to adjust the dynamics of the sound (difference between louds and softs). They compress everything now like fm, so louds and softs are the same volume. They could have made it so you could listen with no dynamics in your pick up truck, or listen at home with full dynamics.
I think that they have reached a point where they won't compress the bit rate anymore. I say this because now the sound quality is at the point where even non audiophiles say "This sounds terrible!". Even my sound apathetic wife says it doesn't sound good. This is a point where they lose subscribers.
Xm/siri should do a survey of what people listen to and get rid of some channels. They could even double the bit rate of a few channels and offer them as "premium" channels for $2 month.

I agree with you on how bad the SQ has become, BUT:

Xm/siri should do a survey of what people listen to and get rid of some channels.

with the amount of grief they are still getting because of the channels they just got rid of, I can't see SXM cutting back any more channels in the near future.

with the amount of grief they are still getting because of the channels they just got rid of, I can't see SXM cutting back any more channels in the near future.

I can see some channels go with little fuss. For example, what about some of the mexican cha cha whateve stations? Who listens to them, how many? If there are only ten people, ditch the channel, or at take away some of its bit rate and give it to another station.
If they did a survey, they would have a idea of what people want and don't want. Fact is that some stations need to go, to get bit rate up. I'll offer up to get rid of "best of" junk. How many people want to pay extra to hear nascar? Zzzzz!
Some of the junk stations could be cut from sat, but still live on the internet. Take a handful of the most popular music stations and up their bit rate to 65kbps and promote it as high quality and you will see a reversal in cancellations.
Today, just for grins and giggles, I plugged wife's Inno into my home system and listened to Deep Tracks. It still sounded like dull crap. After an hour, I plugged in my Iphone in its place when Pandora was playing Pink Floyds "Brain Damage " from Dark Side of the Moon- it sounded great, made the xm sound like am.

I can see some channels go with little fuss. For example, what about some of the mexican cha cha whateve stations? Who listens to them, how many? If there are only ten people, ditch the channel, or at take away some of its bit rate and give it to another station.
If they did a survey, they would have a idea of what people want and don't want. Fact is that some stations need to go, to get bit rate up. I'll offer up to get rid of "best of" junk. How many people want to pay extra to hear nascar? Zzzzz!
Some of the junk stations could be cut from sat, but still live on the internet. Take a handful of the most popular music stations and up their bit rate to 65kbps and promote it as high quality and you will see a reversal in cancellations.
Today, just for grins and giggles, I plugged wife's Inno into my home system and listened to Deep Tracks. It still sounded like dull crap. After an hour, I plugged in my Iphone in its place when Pandora was playing Pink Floyds "Brain Damage " from Dark Side of the Moon- it sounded great, made the xm sound like am.

Believe it or not I think one of the conditions of this merger was they had to have so many minority channels/programming.

And though I agree that listening to race cars makes NO sense I know there are many, especially the truckers who would be quite PO'ed if they dropped NASCAR.

I agree with you. I'd love it if they would just have 50 music channels and a few news and weather channels. Simplify things again, but I can't see that happening.

duplicate

Believe it or not I think one of the conditions of this merger was they had to have so many minority channels/programming.

A

What was the langauge like in the contract for minority crap? Geez, this is the U.S.A, why can't things be in english?
At the very least, why can't they drop the bit rate for the minority crap to 16kbps?

Problem with the programming dept is that they haven't made any serious attempt at reducing programming redundancy. They do drop what appear to be unpopular channels, from time-to-time. But look at all the trash talk they've got on there! And how many football channels do you need to turn on simultaneoulsy, anyway?

Problem with the programming dept is that they haven't made any serious attempt at reducing programming redundancy. They do drop what appear to be unpopular channels, from time-to-time. But look at all the trash talk they've got on there! And how many football channels do you need to turn on simultaneoulsy, anyway?

32. Home and away announcers for every team with the exception of the Tennessee Titans and one national channel, and people listen to every damn one of them.

32. Home and away announcers for every team with the exception of the Tennessee Titans and one national channel, and people listen to every damn one of them.

Much as I like this (and I listen everyweek), they could do what XM has done for baseball: just carry the feed from the home team. That way all of the games would still be covered, but half of the bandwidth would be made available for better quality on other channels. If it works for baseball, why not for football?

I guess I look at it this way. In most parts of the country you can get several different music stations. Yea they may not be commercial free but they are available. There is only one place where you can get your favorite college or pro team's broadcast and that is SXM. It is the only reason why I initially purchased my first radio. I now have 5 subscriptions.

Now you can see what the problem is. IWANTMORE wants all of his football channels (at the same time), the rock music fans want their glut of channels (at the same time), and the trash talkers theirs (at the same time).... And when you add them all up, you get what we've got right now. Taking into consideration the transmission bandwidth available and the total number of program slots, you wind up with 32k for music and 16k for talk.

Yah, but how can there be some days here and there when the music actually sounds good but most days all music channels sound horrible?

Now you can see what the problem is. IWANTMORE wants all of his football channels (at the same time), the rock music fans want their glut of channels (at the same time), and the trash talkers theirs (at the same time).... And when you add them all up, you get what we've got right now. Taking into consideration the transmission bandwidth available and the total number of program slots, you wind up with 32k for music and 16k for talk.

Yeah, I'm really close to probably canceling Sirus.
1) The low SQ
2) They are going to make you pay extra for internet radio unless you resubscribe by March. (I like to listen to Stern at work...)
3) I have directv, which sounds MUCH better. Sadly, directv does not carry Stern, UndergroundGarage, Punk, GratefulDead or many of the other nice stations.

Speaking of directv XM radio SQ, I have yet to listen to it with discriminatory ears. Are they compressing that too? How bad?

I so wish I could get real CD sound from the service i pay $13 / mo for. :mad: I might just cancel and use the money to buy new CD's every month.

Be prepared for some extreme frustration if you try to cancel. They won't give you a direct number to Customer Care (cancellation) department if you call. You have to go through Billing or Tech Support to get there. I waited on hold for an hour last night and finally got through to someone in Customer Care. I told her I was thinking about canceling and I swear that she disconnected the line. Calls just don't drop out on a land line. I wasn't using a mobile. I was SOOO pissed. I called back raising hell and they couldn't even get me back through to them.

The funny thing is every time I mention that I am thinking of canceling they tell me that I'm the only one complaining about the poor audio quality and there is no problem.

It really is sad what has become of this company.


Yeah, I'm really close to probably canceling Sirus.
1) The low SQ
2) They are going to make you pay extra for internet radio unless you resubscribe by March. (I like to listen to Stern at work...)
3) I have directv, which sounds MUCH better. Sadly, directv does not carry Stern, UndergroundGarage, Punk, GratefulDead or many of the other nice stations.

Speaking of directv XM radio SQ, I have yet to listen to it with discriminatory ears. Are they compressing that too? How bad?

I so wish I could get real CD sound from the service i pay $13 / mo for. :mad: I might just cancel and use the money to buy new CD's every month.

...how can there be some days here and there when the music actually sounds good but most days all music channels sound horrible...

The football channels don't affect music channel SQ only news and talk, based on the way they have the channels aggregated. I'm assuming that you are on XM and not Sirius. Audio processing that drives the XM channel coders seems to get tweaked now and then, and sometimes it sounds good and sometimes bad. Probably is what you are hearing. One way to deal with the cancellation problem would be to call your credit card company and inform them that you are trying to cancel and are being refused.

Music quality noticeably improved today. Hopefully not just another fluke but I'm expecting it. I refuse to pay for the service until quality is consistently better.

Music quality noticeably improved today. Hopefully not just another fluke but I'm expecting it. I refuse to pay for the service until quality is consistently better.

Which channel?

I haven't noticed any improvement on Area 38, Caliente 83, or BPM 36 (the channels I usually listen to)

Which channel?

I haven't noticed any improvement on Area 38, Caliente 83, or BPM 36 (the channels I usually listen to)

Well, music quality is back down to absolute sh!t this morning (except for Hits 1). For two days straight my favorite station Liquid Metal had a fairly good sound. I checked other stations (Hair Nation for example) and they were good also. They sound probably the WORST I've ever heard this morning.

Mine has not sounded as good as it used to, however i can say that it is not as horrible as you guys seem to be describing it, however this is on both a polk xm component tuner, and a pioneer gex-p910xm tuner in my car. I have noticed the add on radios usually sound fairly bad, even worse if installed through fm transmitter or cassette.

Side note when listening to online stations i show an incoming bandwidth usage of anywhere from 50-70kb/s so maybe the online stations were not affected by the bitrate reductions.

Forgive me for this retarded question but what sounds better--satellite radio or HD terrestrial broadcast radio?

One more retarded question: which sounds better--either of those or the best possible streams you can get on the internet?

And lastly--can you get multichannel on any of these formats?

XM sounds worse than even analog broadcast radio now. HD terrestial radio blows the XM sound away. It's not even close.

How does HD terrestial radio compare to streams you can get on the internet?

HD terrestrial radio is using the same basic AAC+ codec that XM is using. The difference is probably that they are coding at 48 kb/s and up. If you were able to A-B compare -properly- processed analog FM stereo with its digital coding counterpart, you might be surprised at how much -better- the analog signal sounded.

Forgive me for this retarded question but what sounds better--satellite radio or HD terrestrial broadcast radio?

One more retarded question: which sounds better--either of those or the best possible streams you can get on the internet?

And lastly--can you get multichannel on any of these formats?

Online is so much better sounding that xm. Xm music is 32kbps, online Pandora or Slacker is 128kbps. You will hear all kinds of nuances that are absent with xm's low bit rate. In addition, the music also has dynamic range, unlike sat radio where louds and softs are compressed.

What was the langauge like in the contract for minority crap? Geez, this is the U.S.A, why can't things be in english?
At the very least, why can't they drop the bit rate for the minority crap to 16kbps?


I can see some channels go with little fuss. For example, what about some of the mexican cha cha whateve stations? Who listens to them, how many? If there are only ten people, ditch the channel, or at take away some of its bit rate and give it to another station.
If they did a survey, they would have a idea of what people want and don't want. Fact is that some stations need to go, to get bit rate up. I'll offer up to get rid of "best of" junk. How many people want to pay extra to hear nascar? Zzzzz!
Some of the junk stations could be cut from sat, but still live on the internet. Take a handful of the most popular music stations and up their bit rate to 65kbps and promote it as high quality and you will see a reversal in cancellations.
Today, just for grins and giggles, I plugged wife's Inno into my home system and listened to Deep Tracks. It still sounded like dull crap. After an hour, I plugged in my Iphone in its place when Pandora was playing Pink Floyds "Brain Damage " from Dark Side of the Moon- it sounded great, made the xm sound like am.

These comments are pretty closed minded and I can see many people, especially in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso listening to Mexican programming. Also, as a Puerto Rican (by the way a spanish speaking territory of the US) I listen to Caliente 83 which caters to US citizens such as me. Diversity is what makes this country great and it should be reflected in our sole satellite radio service.

Finally, I agree that bitrates should be raised, though I would target the decade stations and consolidate them in to maybe two stations, oldies and golden oldies perhaps. Anyways, while I'm an video/audiophile, I understand that they are trying to cater to the diversity of this nation and I'm sure they will try to get the best balance they can between programming and audio quality.

I can see some channels go with little fuss. For example, what about some of the mexican cha cha whateve stations? Who listens to them, how many? If there are only ten people, ditch the channel, or at take away some of its bit rate and give it to another station.QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Soulstice X;15899660]These comments are pretty closed minded and I can see many people, especially in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso listening to Mexican programming. Also, as a Puerto Rican (by the way a spanish speaking territory of the US) I listen to Caliente 83 which caters to US citizens such as me. Diversity is what makes this country great and it should be reflected in our sole satellite radio service.

I completely agree with Soulstice X.

dclark - let's turn the tables, big guy. How would you feel if someone bashed your tastes in music?

Who listens to Pink Floyd these days? Certainly, Deep Tracks is limited only to older, middle-aged psychedelic druggies still stuck in the late 60's. Zzzz! Who listens to them, how many? Since we're well beyond the hippie era, ditch the channel, or at least take away some of its bit rate and give it to another station. Heck, when you're burning up shrooms, does bit rate quality even matter?

(P.S. I actually like Pink Floyd.)

Diversity is what makes this country great...
Well, that's a matter of opinion - that should be up to the LEGAL citizens to decide. But I tend to agree myself, as long as it's:

1.) Done legally - if not, all existing laws of this country can and should be applied accordingly - no "special" treatment allowed, and

2.) The people who follow the rules are not forced into subsidizing or supporting the ones who don't. It should at least be an option.

It's all about fairness.

The people who follow the rules are not forced into subsidizing or supporting the ones who don't.

Why are we talking about the Bankers and Wall Street in this thread? ;) ;)

Yeah, those, too. It really is out of control, isn't it?

We need a major revolution for sure.

All I know is that when we don't have anything left to give (or aren't here anymore, which is what it seems like the forces that be would really like to see happen as soon as possible), and there's no one else left except the rule and law-skirters, and the only ones with money are the corporations running our government, then who are they gonna get it from?

Yeah, those, too. It really is out of control, isn't it?

We need a major revolution for sure.

All I know is that when we don't have anything left to give, then who are they gonna get it from?


AIG is asking for more billions. It sounds like that company is a bottomless pit.

You know as bad as the daily news about the economy is I have this sinking feeling it's even worse than we're being told.

It will get much worse in the next year, that's all I know right now.

I suppose we (or at least I) should quit. I'm sure these posts will get wiped out soon enough as it is.

Yeah, those, too. It really is out of control, isn't it?

We need a major revolution for sure.

All I know is that when we don't have anything left to give (or aren't here anymore, and there's no one else left except the rule and law-skirters, and the only ones with money are the corporations running our government), then who are they gonna get it from?

Do I smell "Third World"?

These people may have a better life here from whence they came, but it won't last long if they don't keep their own people and countries in check. A little birth control might help, too.

Maybe you should brush up on your history. First of all take a look at where Texas land originally came from, so you have millions of mexican descent Tejanos that were born US citizens just from Texas being a part of the US. Also 8 million Puerto Ricans were born US citizens. Puerto Rico = US soil, thus we are US Citizens.

Anyways, back to the subject at hand. This is about maintaining diversity while also getting the quality done right. There has to be a balance. Why would I stovepipe a satellite radio company(if I was its CEO) if there are potential customers out there that have different language tastes.

I'm not talking about the Puerto Ricans - they don't have a "takeover mentality", and tend to integrate better here (besides, many PR's I know agree with me on the subject, at least here in the Chicago area).

And history ultimately has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. So don't start with me with that La Raza conquistador cr*p. That's only going to inflame a lot of people more. It's stuff and attitudes like that which hurt their "cause" and make people resent them even more.

I actually like this country and don't want to see it go downhill.

Not that you were doing it, but I don't like someone coming on this forum and promoting something where there's a lot of criminality involved (and being in this country illegally is a criminal offense). It's not allowed here. And neither is what I'm saying, so like I said, we should stop.

Back towards the subject, I don't have any problem with diversity of programming - just so you know. I actually like to listen to music from other cultures myself occasionally.

And history ultimately has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. So don't start with me with that La Raza conquistador cr*p. That's only going to inflame a lot of people more. It's stuff and attitudes like that which hurt their "cause" and make people resent them even more.

You are absolutely right, which is why I don't believe in that philosophy. I just get bothered when some, not you though, decide that no one else listens to channels such as "Caliente." It gives me a little flavor of home or one of the big cities like Chicago out here in the middle of nowhere (serve on a USAF base in the middle of the plains).

Lastly I don't agree with illegal immigration or criminality or even terrorism which is why I do what I do.

dclark - let's turn the tables, big guy. How would you feel if someone bashed your tastes in music?

Who listens to Pink Floyd these days? Certainly, Deep Tracks is limited only to older, middle-aged psychedelic druggies still stuck in the late 60's. Zzzz! Who listens to them, how many? Since we're well beyond the hippie era, ditch the channel, or at least take away some of its bit rate and give it to another station. Heck, when you're burning up shrooms, does bit rate quality even matter?

(P.S. I actually like Pink Floyd.)

I am sick of the sheep bleating "diversity". Last I checked, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written in English, not Spanish. What has all this "tolerance" for spanish gotten us? You have to dial 1 to talk to someone who speaks english, all the stores have signage in spanish and in Los Angeles County (as reported by LA Times last saturday), one of every five residents is on welfare.

I am sick of the sheep bleating "diversity". Last I checked, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written in English, not Spanish. What has all this "tolerance" for spanish gotten us? You have to dial 1 to talk to someone who speaks english, all the stores have signage in spanish and in Los Angeles County (as reported by LA Times last saturday), one of every five residents is on welfare.

I really don't care about the welfare issue you may have as it's irrelevant to radio bitrates. But since we're on the subject; what I do care about is that our education is falling behind. When Asia and the rest of Europe's children learn to speak more than one language, it's absurd how isolationist and arrogant we've become. So much so that 9/11 was a surprise to us. Let's open our eyes to the rest of the world and be the leaders we should be instead of pretending there's nothing else except the US.

Oh, and though our constitution and declaration of independence were written in English there is no provision that makes it the sole language of the US. We are a melting pot, accept it.

I We are a melting pot, accept it.

Got some evidence to back that up? We are no longer a melting pot- the existence of all those spanish channels on xm, am and FM is proof that you wrong. All those signs at walmart, lowes, etc in spanish also show that what you are saying is false.

Got some evidence to back that up? We are no longer a melting pot- the existence of all those spanish channels on xm, am and FM is proof that you wrong. All those signs at walmart, lowes, etc in spanish also show that what you are saying is false.

Main Entry: melting pot
Function: noun
Date: 1887
1 a: a place where a variety of races, cultures, or individuals assimilate into a cohesive whole b: the population of such a place
2: a process of blending that often results in invigoration or novelty
— melting–pot adjective

Take another look at American Culture. The latin influence as well as Italian, German, Japanese, Chinese, etc. are all blended in some way. We have Spanish Rock as well as English language Reggaeton and Bachata. I can name a couple of hip-hop artists that have integrated reggaeton into their music such as R. Kelly. What about Tito Nieves that sometimes sings his Salsa (latin jazz) in English. Heck, even if we take a look at country, we see a mix of hip-hop as well as rock integrated in to the music.

So, yes there is proof that we are a melting pot. Maybe not to the point of assimilation like the Borg, but the variety in "American" music (which by the way spanish sung Salsa is a part of due to PR being a territory of the US) is just the beginning of a fusion of new musical styles which meets the definition of blending. Don't close yourself in a box. America is much more than rock, rap, or country. Lastly, if English is so important to you why not speak the Oxford English versus what we speak in America which has a lot of Native American words. Many like to talk about American Culture as it is what it is today, but I challenge you to take another look and see how it has evolved and why the world tends to look at us first.