My new car recently came with Sirius Satellite radio. I thought it would be a nice addition, and to an extend it is.

However, I don't understand why they want to put out such poor sound quality. I know they are evidently putting efforts primarily towards quantity of content, but is there any hope for improved quality in the future? Would future satellites improve things or anything?

I sure would like to have at least 128 MP3 level quality. Again, I would normally not like MP3 quality, but it would be an improvement over what I hear on Sirius.

Of course, the improved quality would only be necessary, for me at least, on the music channels.

Have they ever said they'll work on this in the future?

My sound quality is great. I hear people say it's not up to par but I've never heard this.

The sound quality might improve after the merger. Any improvements will probably require a new receiver.

Satellite radio right now is not for audiophiles. Maybe after the merger, it will be.

Sound quality can be improved but they would have to drop some stations because theres not enough bandwidth for higher encoded channels.

My sound quality is great. I hear people say it's not up to par but I've never heard this.
Are you serious? There's virtually no output above 10khz.

SQ will improve someday.....

... but first, it actually it is going to get worse. Don't forget, post merger, our current radios will recieve everything we get now, PLUS they are going to add 11 channels from the other platform.

So, whether you currently have Sirius or XM, they are going to make room for 11 more channels.

Are you serious? There's virtually no output above 10khz.

On the positive side, the older you get, the better it will sound! :o

Are you serious? There's virtually no output above 10khz.

Sounds great in my Jeep and on my Stiletto. That's what I'm going by.

Ill gotta say.

sounds good im my wifes 2003 camry and also my 2003 ford van

both hooked up through FM transmitter.
neither system however is high tech.

Yup, I like the service A LOT but the sound quality is definately much less than I was expecting.

some channels sound better then others.

I am curious if anyone has tried the online upgrade of $2.99 per month to 128k "CD quality" service. I agree in general the Sirius sound leaves much to be desired but in my car, I appreciate the added content even if the sound is not as good as FM. Now at my house I would love better sound quality using my HTPC. Anyone used the upgraded service for online access? Seems promising for those with PCs hooked to their main systems like me.

OK, I decided to just go ahead and upgrade and see for myself. WOW! What a difference. The quality of the 128k feed is excellent! I suggest anyone with a nice system and Internet hooked up do the upgrade. Sounds very good.

My main complaint is I get terrible "motorboating" on some of the low freq stuff. For instance just now on Sirius 7, Gary Wright's "Dreamweaver" sounded awful with all the undulating bumbums that were not part of the original score and really throw off the rhythm during some of the slower movements.

I get the same problem in the car with my Visor unit and on my Dish Network service.

Bah, I get great sounding Sirius music right now, from DishNetwork. :D:D

A hardwired or built-in Sirius receiver should provide decent sound quality on most channels. It's not CD quality, for sure, but I'd say it's roughly on par with 96kbps MP3.

Sirius uses an older PAC encoder developed by AT&T Bell Labs and I do not know if that encoder is ever going to be improved. XM on the other hand uses aacPlus which probably has a better chance of being improved. However, any improvements on the encoding side would probably be modest.

The real solution is to use higher bitrates, which may happen if the merger goes through and they come out with dual-band receivers. Or, they may save those bits for future applications like video.

I think the main goal of satellite was to go into cars, and given the noisy environment, they didn't place a lot of emphasis on fidelity.

Sirius uses PAC, but they have improved it a little. Officially I believe its known as PAC v4. (they hired on a few of the engineers from lucent.) Its also is used in HD Radio, so its probably is going to be improved over the years, of course within the constraints of the hardware.

XM is using AAC Plus. Arguably its better than PAC in lower bitrates, but on the other hand XM added more channels with the extra space and audio is just as bad there if not worse. (Audio only channel use a different codec, but I forget the name) I know a few months ago they improved the processing with work from Neural Audio, but from what I've heard, most people still tend to prefer Sirius' sound in the end, but just slightly.

They may can shuffle some channels and eliminate redundancy to help out, but overall they need a new codec, which they really can't do, as they have already pledged to support existing receivers for at least the next 10-15 years.

A hardwired or built-in Sirius receiver should provide decent sound quality on most channels. It's not CD quality, for sure, but I'd say it's roughly on par with 96kbps MP3.

Sirius uses an older PAC encoder developed by AT&T Bell Labs and I do not know if that encoder is ever going to be improved. XM on the other hand uses aacPlus which probably has a better chance of being improved. However, any improvements on the encoding side would probably be modest.

The real solution is to use higher bitrates, which may happen if the merger goes through and they come out with dual-band receivers. Or, they may save those bits for future applications like video.

I think the main goal of satellite was to go into cars, and given the noisy environment, they didn't place a lot of emphasis on fidelity.


I agree it is fine in the car. I do not think it is on par with a 96kb MP3 though. I can clearly hear the compressed sound in my car with a hard wired system. A strong FM channel has more dynamic range. I love the extra content so it is worth it to me.

Now on my home system the "CD quality" online upgrade is a must. At $2.99 extra a month it is well worth it and I am getting wonderful sound quality (I don't think XM offers this kind of service upgrade). I can actually listen to the classical station on this setup. The classical station sounds so compressed in my car and on the standard online service, I could not even listen to it. In my car Rock, Country, Electronic and such sounds fine on Sirius but if I want some classical, I go FM or CD.

The bitrate varies for every channel, I assume based on the content and listenership of each channel.

WOW! What a difference. The quality of the 128k feed is excellent!

In your opinion does the 128k feed sound better than typical FM (pop, r&b, and rock) thru your home audio rig ?

I would say yes. I do not have a high end component FM tuner (internal tuner on Rotel RSX-1057) but I am running off a roof mounted antenna and getting a very strong signal. I feel the 128k Sirius feed has much more detail and clarity closer to CD sound. I do enjoy that FM sound as well and plan on getting a nice component tuner at some point when the right deal pops up. For now I am very content with the way things are. Quality AND content.

It is very cool Sirius offers this service.

I think the main goal of satellite was to go into cars

That's a safe bet. But Sirius and XM choosing different encoding schemes managed to create a bifurcated market for satellite subscription radio -- and, because the signals are not compatible while the installed base grows exponentially, Sirius and XM dropped a big problem into the laps of the auto manufacturers.

It's as if Philco (Ford) and Delco (GM) had manufactured car radios that could only tune in certain AM stations, not all of them. Thankfully, regulators had developed a *single* transmission standard for AM (and later FM) radio broadcasting, so when radios became standard equipment, the car manufacturers didn't have to choose between one or the other.

But when approving satellite radio services, the FCC allowed two different transmission standards to occupy the frequency band. This lead to incompatible satellite systems and consumer receivers. Just like how the FCC rules lead to incompatible cellphone systems (TDMA, CDMA & GSM) which have allowed cell companies great latitude in 'locking in' their subscribers. We thus have redundant cellular systems - and higher monthly bills to support this redundancy (with their resulting huge marketing costs, to boot.)

Now, Sirius and XM want to merge, to trim the overhead, financing and operating cost of two separate satellite services & boost their prospects for market, economic & financial success. But working out the bumps they created by developing incompatible satellite and consumer hardware will prove difficult even should the regulatory bodies grant approval for what promises to be just another monopoly.

Personally, I'd combine the bandwidth but not the companies. Despite ClearChannel's omnipresence, AM and FM bandwidths are not the exclusive property of a single company; neither should the satellite frequency band.

Personally, I'd combine the bandwidth but not the companies. Despite ClearChannel's omnipresence, AM and FM bandwidths are not the exclusive property of a single company; neither should the satellite frequency band.

That's a bogus argument in today's world. Way back when AM and FM were the only way to receive programming it was the FCC's responsibility to ensure fair ownership of the band (which they failed to do by granting certain companies like ClearChannel access to a vast majority of the spectrum).

The delivery mechanism is not the property. Entertainment is the property. FM is dying because people are finding alternate entertainment choices. Sirius and XM with a combined 15 million subscribers represents a tiny fraction of the market for commercial entertainment.

...any improvements on the encoding side would probably be modest.

The real solution is to use higher bitrates, which may happen if the merger goes through and they come out with dual-band receivers. Or, they may save those bits for future applications like video.

I think the main goal of satellite was to go into cars, and given the noisy environment, they didn't place a lot of emphasis on fidelity.

I think this is the real answer. Since digital encoding is a mature technology there really isn't much room left for anything but incremental improvement on that front unless they statmux, which they probably already do.

It's simply an arbitrary trade-off between how much content will fit into how much bandwidth with how much quality. Bandwidth is fixed, for now, meaning you can massage the numbers to get less content at better quality, or the opposite. If you follow the money, it's not hard to guess which way the business was motivated to go regarding that trade-off, which is why we are having this discussion.

Bottom line, the fact that SR was designed primarily to fill drive-time is the big argument they used for dumbing-down the quality in order to have more channels.

Of course if the government had been faithful to their original promise of giving all bandwidth to the company that eventually went by the name of Sirius rather than splitting it in two and creating unnecessary competition, again we probably would not need to be even discussing quality, or at least how poor it is.

The government really shot SR (or at least SR with actual quality) in the foot. I bought a lifetime script in 2005 specifically for Howard Stern, hoping I would see side benefit in music, weather, traffic, etc. But the quality AND THE CHOICE sucks so bad that I use my $450 receiver, which was supposed to automatically record/play back and never really did, as if it were a $20 receiver--locked permanently on channel 100 and hard-wired directly to my computer which records that show and only that show, daily.

I haven't listened to a minute of terrestrial radio since 2001 when I bought an iPod, because that gave choice of what I wanted to hear back to me. I haven't listened to a minute of Sirius (other than Howard) since early 2006 because the music quality BLOWS and the choices also BLOW. This after making a $1000+ investment in subscription and hardware in 2005.

I love having Howard, even with the dropouts, but everything else is worthless to me, and I'm not really very happy with SR as a product other than that, specifically because the government split the bandwidth and skunked the quality going in.

Now the geosat designed for launch this year is delayed until Howard's contract expires, so I guess the dropouts will continue throughout. What a bonus.

Sound quality on XM stinks too. In my wifes car it is OK, on a factory system. In my truck, I use infinitys and a sub all run off a separate amp. I bought a head unit with XM, the required tuner and adapter boxes, and the sound sucks. I am ready to ditch my subscription it is so bad. SR has been such a dissapointment, it could have been so much better

That's a bogus argument in today's world. Way back when AM and FM were the only way to receive programming it was the FCC's responsibility to ensure fair ownership of the band (which they failed to do by granting certain companies like ClearChannel access to a vast majority of the spectrum).

You're wrong on both your assertions. 1. FCC's duty was *not* to "ensure fair competition" (see if you can find that as the agency's charge; you won't). It was to allocate frequencies such that one user would not interfere with another. Read some history. 2. In light of that role (allocating frequency), my 'argument' is not bogus, it's just one you don't understand. You yourself said in another post that you believed satellite radio was "intended to get into cars."

Well, satellite radio was authorized in the early 1990's, yet the licensees deployed different delivery 'formats'. If they were aiming at the same market, their decision to deploy different formats was rather stupid, oblivious to the lessons of the VHS v. Beta format war. And it placed auto makers in a no-win situation: which format should their factory-installed sound systems support, XM or Sirius? That's not a decision auto makers have enjoyed having dropped in their lap. So, the sat radio guys -and the FCC (& I believe Congress) who granted the license- walked right into the situation XM and Sirius is now trying to remedy (by creating a monopoly in the satellite frequency band).


The delivery mechanism is not the property. Entertainment is the property. FM is dying because people are finding alternate entertainment choices. Sirius and XM with a combined 15 million subscribers represents a tiny fraction of the market for commercial entertainment.

You once again display a limited grasp of telecommunications (which is what satellite radio and terrestrial radio are). The *license* (or authority) to utilize a frequency -an unimpaired frequency- IS the "property". That's what enables the delivery of content of value to users, on which the purveyors can sell adverising (or for which they can sell subscriptions instead of relying on advertising revenue) to make for a profitable endeavor.

And, btw, it's not only entertainment that can or is being delivered. Perhaps you're showing your youth or simply your naivete, but INFORMATION is valuable content, too. For instance, I find C-SPAN, especially these days, to be the most valuable channel on XM. (And the most valuable channel on FM is National Public Radio.) So, I would simply observe that your frame of reference is much too narrow.

Finally, you shouldn't blithely embrace the creation of a monopoly on the satellite radio band. Would you support a monopoly cellphone company?

Bottom line, the fact that SR was designed primarily to fill drive-time is the big argument they used for dumbing-down the quality in order to have more channels.

Unsupported supposition.


Of course if the government had been faithful to their original promise of giving all bandwidth to the company that eventually went by the name of Sirius rather than splitting it in two and creating unnecessary competition, again we probably would not need to be even discussing quality, or at least how poor it is.

Wrong again. The government purposely awarded *two* licenses (you can look it up), to encourage competition. If they had instead granted a monopoly, as you apparently wish, I would venture you'd be distressed by the cost, insipid programming -- and increasing encroachment of commercials. Think about it. After all, you yourself were just saying that Sirius music quality BLOWS and the choices also BLOW.

Sound quality on XM stinks too. In my wifes car it is OK, on a factory system. In my truck, I use infinitys and a sub all run off a separate amp. I bought a head unit with XM, the required tuner and adapter boxes, and the sound sucks. I am ready to ditch my subscription it is so bad. SR has been such a dissapointment, it could have been so much better

Might your set up be over-processing a signal that, because it's a compressed signal, is not especially made for processing? Try turning off all the fancy stuff.

Satellite radio right now is not for audiophiles. Maybe after the merger, it will be.

Yeah, right -- like wishing it will make it happen. WAKE UP! You're asking for a monopoly? Why not instead establish & enforce/ensure a signal quality *standard* for satellite radio service? Sort of like the ATSC standard that supports high-definition digital television.

Yeah, right -- like wishing it will make it happen. WAKE UP! You're asking for a monopoly? Why not instead establish & enforce/ensure a signal quality *standard* for satellite radio service? Sort of like the ATSC standard that supports high-definition digital television.

It is necessary that there is a standard for free over-the-air broadcasts; that's why ATSC and NTSC exist. The FCC has not felt a strong need to standardize some subscription services (cellular, DBS satellite, satellite radio).

Standardization can benefit consumers, but it can also be harmful because it leaves no room for technological innovation.

ATSC supports HDTV. License holders could use their 19 mbit carrier to transmit a 500 kbit 480i program if they wanted...

Sirius and XM have to fit in a lot of channels into a little bit of bandwidth *and* make it work with a tiny antenna *and* make it work at high speeds *and* do so without using too much power *and* cover a very wide area. There is simply no way they can provide so much content at higher bitrates without spending lots of money on more bandwidth, more satellites, more repeaters, and/or new receiver technology. And the merged entity could do that.

It is necessary that there is a standard for free over-the-air broadcasts; that's why ATSC and NTSC exist. The FCC has not felt a strong need to standardize some subscription services (cellular, DBS satellite, satellite radio).

Standardization can benefit consumers, but it can also be harmful because it leaves no room for technological innovation.

ATSC supports HDTV. License holders could use their 19 mbit carrier to transmit a 500 kbit 480i program if they wanted...

Sirius and XM have to fit in a lot of channels into a little bit of bandwidth *and* make it work with a tiny antenna *and* make it work at high speeds *and* do so without using too much power *and* cover a very wide area. There is simply no way they can provide so much content at higher bitrates without spending lots of money on more bandwidth, more satellites, more repeaters, and/or new receiver technology. And the merged entity could do that.


Standardization need *not* cast everything in concrete, particularly in the realm of electronics where firmware can be modified 'on the fly'. There's been a lot of advances in software radios, so a 'standard' can in fact be a flexible thing. (After all, observe all the web standards that have enabled a host of online services that we now are taking for granted, yet weren't even dreamed of ten years ago.)

I'm not one arguing for higher bit rates. I've subscribed to XM since 2004 and find its audio quality entirely acceptable, in my car and at home. I'm not expecting -nor am I paying for- an audiophile experience. The value I get from satellite radio is multiple: variety of musical content, talk radio and (especially these days) C-SPAN.

Since I'm not drooling over 5.1, 7.1 or other such foolishness, I am not eager to hand the satellite band over to a monopoly. (Especially to one headed by Mr. Kamarzin, if what I read in this board about the shallowness of Sirius' playlist and their run-on-at-the-mouth DJs. I'd cancel my subscription if confronted by that 'choice'.)

So, that's my perspective.

Oh yeah -- you mentioned ATSC. Were you aware that ALL the manufacturers of HD televisions currently on the market do not support a feature of the ATSC standard?

That feature is PSIP (program specific information protocol), essentially an on-screen TV guide. It's part of the ATSC standard, yet NONE of the current sets display this information to their owners/users. see http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_65cr1_with_amend_1.pdf

Next time you're in an electronics store, see if you can find a set that does display this information all by itself, that is without the intervention of a cable or satellite box. You won't even find a button on the remotes to pull up program info.

But there's something more -- something that would be comical if it didn't appear to be an underhanded way to save a few bucks per set and, in doing so, denying consumers of an advance that digital transmission enables (and indeed was adopted into the ATSC standard.) The manufacturers have also chosen to deny their customers access to the clock signal in the ATSC signal. It's called the System Time Table (STT).

Although the clock data comes every second in the ATSC signal, these 'advanced' televisions require you to MANUALLY set the time!!! That's ludicrous.

The BROADCASTERS (and cable and satellite purveyors) are REQUIRED by the FCC to transmit this PSIP information, but the manufacturers are not subject to FCC regulation. And they (the manufacturers) have decided to sell $1,000 televisions to unwitting customers that do not fully support the ATSC standard. Why? And why should they be allowed to ignore a standard?

---
So, I hope you can understand why I am not interested in allowing the clowns in telecom to run wild over consumers any longer. I'm not suggesting that XM or Sirius have been big offenders -- I think the worst are the money-grubbers in the cellular and subscription television markets. (You can tell which industries and companies have too much money by who saturates television advertising.)

But that doesn't mean that I don't have any qualms about folding *two* entire continent-wide bandwidths into one, to be run by one largely unregulated, for-profit corporation under someone like Mr. Karmazin. I don't fall for any argument for combining XM and Sirius like that you advance: i.e. only a merged entity can improve the service. There's got to be a better solution -- and competition MUST be part of it.

Sirius and XM have to fit in a lot of channels into a little bit of bandwidth *and* make it work with a tiny antenna *and* make it work at high speeds *and* do so without using too much power *and* cover a very wide area.

I'll grant that. And I appreciate your knowledge in the matter. So I'd like to ask a question about satellite radio.

Sirius and XM each have 12.5 MHz bands. The Wikipedia entry, however, states that each service uses a total of somewhat over 4 MHz for all their content, with the remainder of the band supporting two redundant signals (i.e. signal diversity for robustness).

Is this true? If it is, isn't that a serious limitation re: spectral efficiency (i.e. satellite service *must* consume three times the bandwidth of its principal programming)? Why must this be so? Couldn't the objective of robust signal strength be achieved by antenna diversity on the receiver? Or do satellite channels need diversity on *both* ends?

These satellite radio services happen to use 1/3 bandwidth for repeaters, 1/3 for one satellite, and 1/3 for the other.

Sirius's satellites are in an orbit that causes 2 out of 3 satellites to cover the US at any given time (the other third of the bandwidth is used for repeaters). The satellites are supposed to be directly overhead, meaning that Sirius needs less repeaters than XM. The broadcasts are offset by 4 seconds.

XM's satellites have fixed orbits.

Antenna diversity is already implemented in some car setups; however, the systems are designed to work without it. It's not going to help too much if you can't get a signal at all (if tall buildings are in the way or you're under a bridge).

The receivers make the most of the signals they are able to receive. Since the different signals are offset by a few seconds, a temporary interruption to all signals won't be noticed (if you drive under a bridge or such).

These satellite radio services happen to use 1/3 bandwidth for repeaters, 1/3 for one satellite, and 1/3 for the other.

Sirius's satellites are in an orbit that causes 2 out of 3 satellites to cover the US at any given time (the other third of the bandwidth is used for repeaters). The satellites are supposed to be directly overhead, meaning that Sirius needs less repeaters than XM. The broadcasts are offset by 4 seconds.

XM's satellites have fixed orbits.

Antenna diversity is already implemented in some car setups; however, the systems are designed to work without it. It's not going to help too much if you can't get a signal at all (if tall buildings are in the way or you're under a bridge).

The receivers make the most of the signals they are able to receive. Since the different signals are offset by a few seconds, a temporary interruption to all signals won't be noticed (if you drive under a bridge or such).


Aha! So it's the terrestrial repeaters that consume a good deal of the bandwidth? Couldn't translators be employed instead? With flexible receivers capable of receiving & swapping between two frequency bands?

What do you mean "the broadcasts are offset by 4 seconds"? Oh, I see your later elaboration (driving under bridges). I can see that, but giving up a third of the bandwidth sure seems a pretty steep price to pay for avoiding temporary disruptions. (I encounter disruptions at most about once a week, but I don't live in a big city.) Besides, it would seem that the memory in the units could quite easily 'span' a 4-second signal blockage. That's not a difficult trick. Why it necessitates a redundant swath of the band is puzzling, if that's correct.

Geez, the more I think about the above, the implementation of satellite-sourced content sure seems pretty clumsy -- and that they may be hiding the full capability the 25 MHz band could deliver. (Aren't they talking about mobile television? How could they even contemplate that if they're fully utilizing the bandwidth they've already got?)

Maybe the petition to merge is founded upon some fundamentally false representations. I mean, subscriber growth is still pretty robust and they're still vigorously competing in the hardware arena. (Mis-representation is a definite possibility, judging from Kamarzin's less-than-inspiring appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last summer. He came as a salesman and was not well prepared to handle the scope of public policy questions the merger raises.)

I knew XM's satellites were geo-stationary & Sirius' traces some analemma (?) in the sky.

If Sirius always has 2 of 3 visible, are they constantly 'switching' 2/3 of the frequency bandwidths between them? E.g. #1 & #2 visible sharing 2/3 of the band; then #2 and #3 sharing (presumably #3 taking over #1's frequencies); then #3 and #1 (does #1 takover the freqencies last used by #2?) => three satellites always sharing 2/3 of the bandwidth? This sure seems pretty crazy, if it's correct.

I also find it hard to believe that one orbit plan necessarily means fewer repeaters than the other. Both sets are in pretty high orbit, aren't they? Why one would need more terrestrial assistance to cover the same terrain as the other is beyond me.

Thanks for the quick reply.

In many locations (and with Sirius, the time), the signal from one satellite might be weaker; it's not like a fixed service where they can use a bigger dish in remote locations. There has to be enough usuable signal in all parts of the covered area, and that's not possible to do without two satellites and repeaters in urban environments.

With DBS television, you can use a bigger dish in fringe coverage aeras to improve signal.

A 4-second buffer does little if you're only receiving one signal. By playing one signal and buffering the other, the receiver can switch to the buffered signal from the other satellite and there will be no interruption in audio as long as you regain a signal quickly.

If you're buffering one signal, and it's playing at -4 seconds of what's being received, a 1 second interruption might "skip ahead" so that it's playing -3 seconds of what's being received. I've heard something like this a few times when I had my antenna located under my moonroof. (Since mounting it on the roof of my car, I only really lose signal when I'm under a bridge for more than a few seconds.)

If you're buffering one signal, and it's playing at -4 seconds of what's being received, a 1 second interruption might "skip ahead" so that it's playing -3 seconds of what's being received. I've heard something like this a few times when I had my antenna located under my moonroof. (Since mounting it on the roof of my car, I only really lose signal when I'm under a bridge for more than a few seconds.)

I really think *that* is what's happening, instead of relying on a very costly but totally redundant satellite AND dedicating a third (or more) of the bandwidth license for which you paid a few cool millions, just to minimize the interruption of signal received by subscribers driving under bridges. That doesn't make an economic sense.

What distinguishes these satellite radio receivers from simple, old-fangled radios is that the satellite radios have *memories*. That enables a lot of inventiveness. It is a benefit of digital technologies.