XM compression / bit rate / comme  

Hello,

What is the bit rate for XM? If it's more than
192kbps I think XM is not getting the most
out of its signal.

To me, minidisc ATRAC (384kbps) or minidisc
ATRAC LP2 (192kbps) sounds better than XM.

Having said that, I enjoy the XM *service*. The
programming is varied, with lots of surprises
thrown in. XM30 was broadcasting surf
instrumentals -- find *that* on commercial radio.
I hope they can get the sound worked out as
the technology (hopefully) gets better.

Does the Delphi Sky-Fi have the ability to
have its firmware updated remotely as
compression techniques get better?

Is there any possiblity that Delphi will produce
a "pocket Sky-Fi" for headphone listening?

Best regards,

Paul Bigelow

Hello,

"Delivers sound remarkably close to Compact Disc"

That's my problem with the sound. To me, it isn't remarkably close.

Well behaving FM stations sound better.
Well mastered records with clean pressings sound better.
Minidisc sounds better.
Minidisc LP2 sounds better.
CD's sound better.

All the above have defects but, my goodness, XM is full of them.

Granted, the technology is complex. It's amazing that anything intelligible
is received at all. I just think that with all the money and technology behind
this this thing that it's a shame that they risk torpedoing it all by having to
reduce music to such a low bit rate that the music is being severely
damaged, if not destroyed.

Who has listened to XM with headphones and compared familiar songs
with CD versions? I have. To me, the difference is immediate and
obvious -- XM is clearly inferior.

I'm hoping that as the service and technology matures that sonic quality
will improve or XM will realize that, maybe, 100 channels is not necessary
and sacrifice half to double the per channel bit rate.

Despite these grumblings I still intend to keep it. It makes for some
interesting and varied background music. It just could be so much more.

<on soapbox -- off topic>

In thinking about XM a bit could XM be a Trojan Horse? An unintentional
Trojan Horse, maybe? It has been stated that Clear Channel
Communications is a shareholder. As Clear Channel marches onward
assimilating broadcast stations in its path, consolodates DJs, and
standardizes programming in an apparent goal to become a national radio
network, it would seem logical that Clear Channel would be interested in
XM which could either be it's greatest threat or, if XM *really* takes off, its
greatest conquest in a corporate takeover -- a national radio station in one
swoop. Then, all that wonderful programming may just go out the window.

Maybe just I'm being paranoid. It is certainly off topic about the sound
quality.

<off soapbox>

Best regards,

Paul Bigelow

Hello,

A "well behaving" FM station (there are some) through a Sangean pocket
radio (try the DT-110) with sony MDR-EX71LP earplugs sounds better than
the Delphi home unit with the same earplugs used in the variable line out.
Don't need $10,000,000 monoblocs or DVD-A or SACD to get better quality
sound than XM.

Just to be certain, I've plugged the Sky-Fi into a real, yet "nothing special"
amp and have heard the same weird artifacts on the vocals.

The defects are not subjective. They're factual. Maybe some people can't
perceive it or don't care but the defects are still there.

No doubt, the service and music selection is superior. Beats most
local stations by *ten* miles. For some, that's good enough. Heck,
I listen to certain AM stations because of the music selection.
One of those stations is even Motorola C-QUAM AM stereo. Does
AM sound perfect? Nope, but it doesn't advertise as being "remarkably
close to Compact Disc", either.

I just hope that XM works on improving the quality of sound. If that
means eliminating some channels then so be it.