Sirius or XM. Sound Quality and Future Enhancments - Page 11 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 45Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #301 of 317 Old 06-15-2019, 09:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dude111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,488
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 501 Post(s)
Liked: 1207
Yes its quite high isnt it??





When you stop watching what they want you to watch you stop thinking what they want you to think.. Then you see a world that is nothing like they tell you it is.
Dude111 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #302 of 317 Old 06-16-2019, 05:28 PM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Question Satellite radio decoding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
All forms have gotten better over the years as compression algorithms have gotten better even while adding more channels. Subscriber base is now a record 34 million.
How much better can satellite SQ get while maintaining compatibility with existing receivers?
Drewdawg is offline  
post #303 of 317 Old 06-17-2019, 08:10 AM
JGM
Senior Member
 
JGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
You are catching on. Most of the whiners are using inferior equipment and blaming their sound source. Others just can not afford Sirius therefore it is bad. I get it.
Not sure I'm not stepping into the middle of a deleted flame war here but this is a rather silly way to look at it.

As you point out SXM (via sats) is a sound source. It's also true that there is very limited opportunity to fix the signal from a bad sound source using downstream equipment, particularly when the source material is bad in the ways that sound decoded from SXM sats is bad.

I've no doubt that SXM via sats can sound "better" on a high-end car stereo than a base model; at the same time I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source (including CD, streaming at reasonable quality levels, or even a decent cassette) played on the same equipment. Changing out one factor (in this case the source material) while keeping the others the same is how experiments are done, and how conclusions can be drawn. And once you draw that conclusion (which anybody with ears will), stating it is far from "whining".

This argument is particularly silly now that the same material is readily available in a streaming version and given that more and more people have a data plan that can handle it, as well as the aux/bluetooth/CarPlay/Android Auto setup to make it easy.
JGM is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #304 of 317 Old 06-17-2019, 08:27 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 21,116
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1779 Post(s)
Liked: 3556
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGM View Post
This argument is particularly silly now that the same material is readily available in a streaming version and given that more and more people have a data plan that can handle it, as well as the aux/bluetooth/CarPlay/Android Auto setup to make it easy.

I have not compared the sound quality of streamed SXM as compared to radio in some time: when I did there was little difference, and I always thought the same compression was applied to streaming as well: has this changed?

please take the high road in every post:do not respond to or quote a problematic post: report it
HDMI.org:what a mess HDCP = Hollywood's Draconian Copy Protection system
LG C9 OLED owner


markrubin is offline  
post #305 of 317 Old 06-17-2019, 09:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 8,591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 740 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGM View Post
Not sure I'm not stepping into the middle of a deleted flame war here but this is a rather silly way to look at it.

As you point out SXM (via sats) is a sound source. It's also true that there is very limited opportunity to fix the signal from a bad sound source using downstream equipment, particularly when the source material is bad in the ways that sound decoded from SXM sats is bad.

I've no doubt that SXM via sats can sound "better" on a high-end car stereo than a base model; at the same time I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source (including CD, streaming at reasonable quality levels, or even a decent cassette) played on the same equipment. Changing out one factor (in this case the source material) while keeping the others the same is how experiments are done, and how conclusions can be drawn. And once you draw that conclusion (which anybody with ears will), stating it is far from "whining".

This argument is particularly silly now that the same material is readily available in a streaming version and given that more and more people have a data plan that can handle it, as well as the aux/bluetooth/CarPlay/Android Auto setup to make it easy.
Once again -

1. "compression algorithms have gotten better even while adding more channels." SXM sounds better than ever by most accounts,
2. "I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source" I completely disagree. That is subjective opinion anyway so I have no interest in arguing the point.
Gary J is offline  
post #306 of 317 Old 06-17-2019, 09:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 8,591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 740 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post
I have not compared the sound quality of streamed SXM as compared to radio in some time: when I did there was little difference, and I always thought the same compression was applied to streaming as well: has this changed?
And good luck getting your favorite Big Ten (or whatever) team's game in a remote location like in the mountains where I am driving half the time.
Gary J is offline  
post #307 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 07:01 AM
JGM
Senior Member
 
JGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post
I have not compared the sound quality of streamed SXM as compared to radio in some time: when I did there was little difference, and I always thought the same compression was applied to streaming as well: has this changed?
Like most streaming apps, the current version of the SXM app offers selectable quality levels (Normal, High, Maximum). They don't publish bitrates that I know of, but subjectively even the Normal setting sounds significantly better than the satellite, and the Maximum version seems equal to other streaming services at 256-320kb/s (which is effectively CD quality in most environments).

I also have SXM set up on the ROKU which doesn't have any quality settings that I can see but again sounds subjectively excellent and far better than the sats.

It's possible to train your brain to hear the satellite version as "sounding OK" -- but if you switch from that to the same station on the app the difference is immediate and dramatic. Honestly the app (and the fact that I got an unlimited data plan a while back) is what's keeping me onboard right now.
JGM is offline  
post #308 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 07:19 AM
JGM
Senior Member
 
JGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
Once again -

1. "compression algorithms have gotten better even while adding more channels." SXM sounds better than ever by most accounts,
I didn't say that so I'm not sure why you put it in quotes.

It's completely possible that it both sounds "better" and still sounds bad. The overall bandwidth of the satellite has not changed, and codecs can only do so much with the tiny sliver of bandwidth allotted to each channel (it was somewhere around 48-64kb/sec/channel last time I did the math, which was before they added "even more channels").

Quote:
2. "I am completely sure that SXM via sats will always sound bad compared to almost any other source" I completely disagree. That is subjective opinion anyway so I have no interest in arguing the point.
Fair enough to disagree on subjective opinions. Again, given the bandwidths in play it would seem to be physically impossible for satellite sources to be equal or better than other typical sources such as CD or decent-quality MP3/AAC; if SXM had some magic codec that allowed this they would be marketing/licensing that to the hilt.
JGM is offline  
post #309 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 07:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 8,591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 740 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Learn about variable bit rates.
And some channels are given more bandwidth (music) than others (talk).
XSM terrestrial repeaters.

It's not so easy as "tiny sliver of bandwidth allotted to each channel".
Gary J is offline  
post #310 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 01:26 PM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
And good luck getting your favorite Big Ten (or whatever) team's game in a remote location like in the mountains where I am driving half the time.


For those of us living in civilization we have a choice though SiriusXM on sat is better than nothing, in regard to live events though AM does come close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Drewdawg is offline  
post #311 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 01:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 8,591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 740 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewdawg View Post
For those of us living in civilization ....
Will stick with country club vacay home in the Appalachians thanksanyway.
Gary J is offline  
post #312 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 01:37 PM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
Will stick with country club vacay home in the Appalachians thanksanyway.


Do use satellite or the SiriusXM app online? You obviously have internet access.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Drewdawg is offline  
post #313 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 02:42 PM
JGM
Senior Member
 
JGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
Learn about variable bit rates.
Included in my statement about "magic codecs" -- of course VBR techniques are already fully in play for all the app-based streaming technologies I was using as comparisons, as well as many MP3s.

Quote:
And some channels are given more bandwidth (music) than others (talk).
The SXM sats transmit about 4.4Mb/sec TOTAL. I count around 80 music channels on the current satellite lineup card. That's about 55kb/sec average per channel BEFORE you add in the non-music channels (which each get about half bandwidth IIRC). I believe that at least one of the classical stations still gets 64kb/sec, and that that's as good as it gets these days. (In the old days of XM classical got more, and there was at least one eclectic/"audiophile" station that also got more; but there were many fewer channels overall at the time). No amount of improvement to codecs will make those bitrates sound good.

Quote:
XSM terrestrial repeaters.
Come on man, I specified "via sats" about six times. And while I don't have any technical details, the term "repeaters" implies the same data rate as what's being repeated (i.e. the satellites) to deal with shadows and dropouts. Repeaters are also used and useful in exactly the same places where the alternative streaming path is most readily available.

Quote:
It's not so easy as "tiny sliver of bandwidth allotted to each channel".
But it's not much more complicated than that, either; there's only so many ways to slice up a pie.

Again, I'm not trying to convince anybody who thinks SXM sounds good that it doesn't. But claiming that those who think it sounds bad compared to other sources just need better equipment is simply wrong.
JGM is offline  
post #314 of 317 Old 06-18-2019, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 8,591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 740 Post(s)
Liked: 343
"Fair enough to disagree on subjective opinions"

And there is probably a whole lot of proprietary compression and transmission tech going on that you (or I) don't know about anyway so good luck with your Mb/sec numbers proving SXM is inferior to this and that for something that is, in your words, subjective anyway.

I have better things to do.
Gary J is offline  
post #315 of 317 Old 06-20-2019, 10:38 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Streaming Siriusxm on Roku sounds surprisingly good on surround sound home speakers. Roku is much better than sat on sirius home tuner with roof antenna or xm home tuner with antenna in home window. I'm happy with only the Roku. June 2019.
LHenton is offline  
post #316 of 317 Old 06-24-2019, 01:47 PM
JGM
Senior Member
 
JGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Liked: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by LHenton View Post
Streaming Siriusxm on Roku sounds surprisingly good on surround sound home speakers. Roku is much better than sat on sirius home tuner with roof antenna or xm home tuner with antenna in home window. I'm happy with only the Roku. June 2019.
Me too.

Also note that there is a dynamic range limitation setting buried in the menus for the Roku app. It defaults to a "standard" amount which seems mostly unobjectionable to my ear, but turning it off altogether improves the sound further.
JGM is offline  
post #317 of 317 Old 06-24-2019, 05:54 PM
Member
 
Drewdawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by LHenton View Post
Streaming Siriusxm on Roku sounds surprisingly good on surround sound home speakers. Roku is much better than sat on sirius home tuner with roof antenna or xm home tuner with antenna in home window. I'm happy with only the Roku. June 2019.


Agreed, via the stream SiriusXM is quite good. With an unlimited data plan it will definitely entertain me on the road and on the go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Drewdawg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply XM and Sirius Satellite Radio

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off