«

My '07 Honda Accord came equipped with XM Radio. The quality of the sound
over XM is quite noticeably worse than that of FM stations. Is this a
characteristic of XM Radio?


Thank you.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:19:26 -0400, Jack Gillis wrote:

> My '07 Honda Accord came equipped with XM Radio. The quality of the sound
> over XM is quite noticeably worse than that of FM stations. Is this a
> characteristic of XM Radio?
>
>

It's highly compressed and you're hearing the results on high frequencies.
Sirius is the same. Turn down the treble and you might not notice it.

Jack,



XM satellite radio utilizes a compression which makes the sound a bit more
dull compared to an FM station that has a strong signal. The XM signal is
currently sent in an variable rate compression equaling to a 96k MP3 stream.
For talk radio the stream from the satellites can downgrade to 48k.



I believe the average FM radio sounds like a 128k - 192k MP3 stream which is
much clearer.



I hope this answers your question!



Del


"Jack Gillis" <> wrote in message
news:...
> My '07 Honda Accord came equipped with XM Radio. The quality of the sound
> over XM is quite noticeably worse than that of FM stations. Is this a
> characteristic of XM Radio?
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>

Is the same true for the XM broadcast I receive from my satellite ISP
through my computer? I have XM radio through the Bose speaker system on my
vehicle and XM and FM sound about the same. XM broadcasts on my computer do
sound better than other computer radio broadcasts. Since XM is a three month
trial I am wondering if it is worth $12.95 a month to sign up for it!


"Delyan Raychev" <> wrote in message
news:WG6Ui.2578$...
> Jack,
>
>
>
> XM satellite radio utilizes a compression which makes the sound a bit more
> dull compared to an FM station that has a strong signal. The XM signal is
> currently sent in an variable rate compression equaling to a 96k MP3
> stream. For talk radio the stream from the satellites can downgrade to
> 48k.
>
>
>
> I believe the average FM radio sounds like a 128k - 192k MP3 stream which
> is much clearer.
>
>
>
> I hope this answers your question!
>
>
>
> Del
>
>
> "Jack Gillis" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> My '07 Honda Accord came equipped with XM Radio. The quality of the
>> sound over XM is quite noticeably worse than that of FM stations. Is
>> this a characteristic of XM Radio?
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>

Thank you, Meat Plow and others who replied. Turning down the treble did
help quite a bit. Unfortunately, I came from an old Buick which had a very
good Bose system without XM and I do miss it -- the Bose, not the Buick.

--
Jack Gillis
"Meat Plow" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:19:26 -0400, Jack Gillis wrote:
>
>> My '07 Honda Accord came equipped with XM Radio. The quality of the
>> sound
>> over XM is quite noticeably worse than that of FM stations. Is this a
>> characteristic of XM Radio?
>>
>>
>
> It's highly compressed and you're hearing the results on high frequencies.
> Sirius is the same. Turn down the treble and you might not notice it.
>

"Ryka" <Ryka@dancin'shoes.com> wrote in news:_P7Ui.176$Dr7.196683
@news.sisna.com:

> Since XM is a three month
> trial I am wondering if it is worth $12.95 a month to sign up for it!
>

You meant three day trial, right?

XM sounds pretty good over DirectTV. My advice to you would be to spend
time listening to all that XM has to offer, and decide for yourself. I
would do it for 60s on 6 alone, but we have that at work already.

--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

My 2008 Escalade came with a three month trial subscription to XM on the
Bose system. With the vehicle subscription comes a three month computer
subscription. After the three months, if I want to continue the subscription
for the vehicle and computer, it would cost $12.95 each month. 6 is good!
and 77 and 78. My DishNetwork has Sirius radio which sounds great with 5.1
speakers. I am just trying to decide if the XM is worth the money to add to
what is all ready great music in the vehicle and on the computer.


"elaich" <|@|.|> wrote in message news:...
> "Ryka" <Ryka@dancin'shoes.com> wrote in news:_P7Ui.176$Dr7.196683
> @news.sisna.com:
>
>> Since XM is a three month
>> trial I am wondering if it is worth $12.95 a month to sign up for it!
>>
>
> You meant three day trial, right?
>
> XM sounds pretty good over DirectTV. My advice to you would be to spend
> time listening to all that XM has to offer, and decide for yourself. I
> would do it for 60s on 6 alone, but we have that at work already.
>
> --
> A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:14:36 +0000, elaich wrote:

> "Ryka" <Ryka@dancin'shoes.com> wrote in news:_P7Ui.176$Dr7.196683
> @news.sisna.com:
>
>> Since XM is a three month
>> trial I am wondering if it is worth $12.95 a month to sign up for it!
>>
>
> You meant three day trial, right?
>
> XM sounds pretty good over DirectTV. My advice to you would be to spend
> time listening to all that XM has to offer, and decide for yourself. I
> would do it for 60s on 6 alone, but we have that at work already.

It sounds better over DTV because it doesn't need to go through the same
compression scheme as it does with a mobile unit.

In article <>,
"Jack Gillis" <> wrote:

> Thank you, Meat Plow and others who replied. Turning down the treble did
> help quite a bit. Unfortunately, I came from an old Buick which had a very
> good Bose system without XM and I do miss it -- the Bose, not the Buick.

There are better choices than Bose.. much cheaper ones too.

But yes, XM sound quality is very disappointing. It actually sounded
MUCH better when it started, but of course marketing kicks in and ruins
everything with talk and sports channels. The CODEC that XM uses is
designed to run efficiently at 64kbps. On most music channels, it is
currently running somewhere between 32 and 40kbps. Also, it has what we
call "fake highs". In other words, the way the codec works is that the
highs are cut off and then artificially regenerated in the receiver by a
noise generator! Add that to the horribly low bitrate, and ... well,
that's what it sounds like. You will probably hear scratchy sounding
distorted artifacts mostly in female vocals and trumpets, not to mention
an overall lack of highs altogether. Since they use the noise generator
so much, this also creates a weird s-spread sound as well. Listen to
the channel "Laugh USA". You'll hear what I mean.

If the reception is good, analog FM radio can have MUCH better sound
quality - certainly way better than a 128kbps mp3.

MUCH lower, I'm afraid. The CODEC that XM is using is made to run
efficiently at 64kbps. Like I mentioned in my last post, the receiver
also employs a noise generator, to artificially recreate the highs that
are lost due to the compression.
Now what makes this worse is that the music channels currently aren't
even running that high! Some are now ranging from around 32-40kbps!

> Jack,
>
>
>
> XM satellite radio utilizes a compression which makes the sound a bit more
> dull compared to an FM station that has a strong signal. The XM signal is
> currently sent in an variable rate compression equaling to a 96k MP3 stream.
> For talk radio the stream from the satellites can downgrade to 48k.
>
>
>
> I believe the average FM radio sounds like a 128k - 192k MP3 stream which is
> much clearer.
>
>
>
> I hope this answers your question!
>
>
>
> Del
>
>
> "Jack Gillis" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > My '07 Honda Accord came equipped with XM Radio. The quality of the sound
> > over XM is quite noticeably worse than that of FM stations. Is this a
> > characteristic of XM Radio?
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >