ChasC

I was happy to learn that XM comes free for the first three months, but have generally been disappointed by the sound quality. It seems inferior to home-grown FM and CDs sound better than both FM and XM.

Am I alone in this?

frescagod

nope you're not alone, and yes, it's inferior. that said, i still bought it after the trial for $77; don't know why, other than the fact i was drunk.

sccpu3d

Well, the TSX's sound system is by no means one of the best on the market, plus while your driving theres lotta different sounds going on (wind noise, road noise, etc). Theres just no way to achieve the sound quality as you would at home, so a bit lower quality on xm doesnt really matter. Its the programming that counts

frescagod

if CD sound is a 10 (as a benchmark), XM is like a 7, and FM is a 5 or 6. so, regardless of the ambient noises, XM just doesn't cut it. that goes for stations/programming as well. i wish i had Sirius....

kwjustin89

Also, I have noticed on quite a few songs, the tempo seems way slower than it actually is on a CD.

frescagod

which songs?

sccpu3d

Well I mean unless you sit in your car with the chair down listening to music in your TSX's mediocre sound system(it really is mediocre compared to bose, harmon karmon, mark levinson, etc), I'd say XM cuts it because when we drive, the road already procuces a zzzzZzzZzZZZzz sound added with the wind's PHhHpHHHhHHhHh sound in addition /w some cars that go Honk Honk plus some police cars going VrrrrrrrrrrRrRrRrrrrrr VrRRRRrrRRrRrrrrr. We've got too much ambient noise to totally enjoy the sound haha. If i want best quality sound (not variation) I just go home, pop in the Ipod, and listen away to the songs i always listen to =)

pizzaman555

I think XM sucks, I bought it for the winback promotion but I wont buy it again. Your better off just installing a ipod which sound even better then cds.

TSXnOPKS

I've had XM since it was launched! Haven't listened to FM in years!!! Main reason for purchasing the TSX. A+A+A+!!!

frescagod

since when does compressed music sound better than uncompressed (.wav)?

acn684

Agree

This is called consumers mind being brainwashed by apple... you wouldn't believe how much stupid adapters can mark up prices by listing Ipod compatible on them...

Bass Mechanic

ive been listeniong to XM for about 2 years now. havnt played a single cd in all that time or listened to any radio stations.
why? because i like the variety, alwaays somthing different comming on and changing stations opens up a whole new set of songs. its like having a portable juke box.
as for the sound quality, i know its not as good as a cd but for the convience of not having to fumble with CD's or change radio stations ive grown used to the sound quality and it doesnt bother me.
besides in a car unless there is no background noise who is really going to notice anyway?

iobidder

Not always true, it depends on your audio setup as well.

bradykp

wow, people are really this confused? first of all, there's an obvious quality improvement from FM to XM. unless you have a ton of background noise, i don't see hwo you cannot recognize this. digital music over XM is far superior to FM with that stupid hisssssssssssss in the background. I switch to FM occasionally, but i'm perfectly happy with XM over FM. XM vs Sirius, i can really say i don't think it makes a difference. one has Stern, the other has Opie and Anthony. I don't listen to either show since i don't drive in the morning, so i don't care.

XM has Baseball and Hockey and some college sports. Sirius has Football. I'll talk XM Baseball since i end up in the car for so many yankee games.

anyways, you will not achieve the same sound quality as a CD. and i would almost bet that FM is better quality than the mp3s on your ipod. ipod is DEFINITELY not better than CDs. hello, the music on the ipod is a compressed form of the music on the cd. i hate to jump down your throat, but if you don't know anything about sound quality, try to announce that before giving someone advice on their question about quality.

vidgamer

XM and FM have flaws, just not the same ones. Personally, I find highly-compressed digital to be really annoying. You can hear it on the high frequencies in MP3s, XM, etc. Real awful stuff. In general, I prefer FM quality to XM because even though FM stations usually boost the highs, at least they don't grate so badly. Maybe XM is better in other parts of the country. I sure hope so....

About the ipod, I dunno about its quality, but most MP3s are too compressed to call it good quality, and it's always worse than CD, by definition. Remember, they start with a CD signal, then compress it using lossy compression, which purposely loses some information.

So, as much as I'm disappointed by XM's quality, why have I signed up for it? As Bassmechanic says, variety. Nowhere else am I going to get all of the interesting alternative, or maybe 70s, or maybe news, or whatever I feel like at the moment. That is worth something. I just wish they could improve the quality. It's like two steps forward, and one step back.

pizzaman555

Im not saying any facts here im just stateing my opinion. I think the ipod with the icelink in my car sound better then all of them. But this is just my opinon maybe you have a different opinion

frescagod

FM radio is definitely not going to sound better than my iPod. i rip all of my music using Exact Audio Copy, and encode mp3s using LAME/RazorLAME -alt preset standard. a direct aux-in would make it mighty difficult to distinguish my high quality mp3s from CD.

but, i don't think your statement was aimed towards me, but rather, towards the others, who probably buy the junk 128kbps AAC files from the iTunes store for $0.99 ea.

JohnnyCNote

Compared to the pitiful selection of stations here in Jacksonville, XM is a huge improvement. I also experimented with a disk compiled from other CD's and another from MP3's, and I found no appreciable difference in quality in my car. I've been considering making some upgrades with my tax refund, but I'm already pretty satisfied. It's by far the best stock sound system I've had. I've had better systems that I've upgraded to, but this is pretty close - at least for my purposes....

bradykp

it may be your opinion that it sounds better, but i can assure you, that it is just an illusion. unless your mp3s are compressed like frescagod does his, there's no way music from an ipod is better quality than music on fm or xm. and that's just a/v fact.


that's why i said i would "almost bet"

obviously, there's some geeks out there like us, who will be very careful with compression ratios and converting to mp3s. we are a huge minority. so for most people, i'm almost positive that FM is better quality than their mp3s.

jiggaman

compressed sounds do suck, i only bought sirius for howard.

jiggaman

i think FM played at loud volumes is much easier on the ears than the compressed satellite signal. satellite radio needs to figure out a way around that in order to be truly successful i think;.

bradykp

hmm....i'll test this tomorrow....but i think the XM is so much clearer than FM. fm has interference, hiss, and poor quality IMO.

TSXnOPKS

and COMMERCIALS with playlists that are stale as can be!!! ARGH!!!!

bradykp

you mean the same 25-35 songs on repeat gets old?

sccpu3d

I dunno, but my ears really cant tell the difference between a CD, and AAC 192k ripped song. CD's only have like 12 songs, I'd rather sacrifice a little, which my ears probably can't detect, and bring out my gigs of music. Searching through my stack of CD's for a single song is ridiculous. I'd rather shuffle it outta my Ipod. Try a listen test between AAC 192 and ur CD....... Its pretty damn hard to detect the difference, even /w my friend who plays like 4 instruments, and basically can tell you every instrument playing in like every song (and actually get them right).

Anyone tried Apple Lossless or AIFF? Im kinda pissed FLAC isn't supported by Ipods though, that is DEFINATELY something Apple should put into their Ipods.

gmfreed

why dont you guys read this little article about XM's servers and music filing methods. you will learn that they did not cut any corners and any problems you have with the way their music sounds is your problem not anyone elses. It is insane for a person of reasonable mind to expect the sound quality of a song that is passed from a building in DC to a satellite in outer space to a terestrial repeater and finally to your vehicle to sound as good as a CD. Given what the information has to go through it sound pretty freaking good, alot better than any AM or FM channel, and probably maybe even a little better than most fm modulated ipods. and that is just my

oh yeah here is that link.................
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-ro...rwf_xm_1.shtml

frescagod

well, i never said i expected XM to sound better than CDs.

i see what you're saying, but what about DirecTV (satellite TV)? It's, um, high-definition, and the sound is awesome, even on music channels.

anyway, the only real reason i'm pissed at XM is because they used the following as a selling point to me: "well, if you sign up for the year, you can also listen to it from any computer!"

what they neglected to tell me was that it's a crap 32kbps feed, which sounds about as good as you feeding me an alarm clock radio through your cell phone to mine.

frescagod

wow, that article is pretty neat. interesting read, thanks.

bradykp

my uncle has direct tv HD and most of the time...the sound doesn't even match the video. that's in central PA. i think direct tv HD is atrocious.

Bass Mechanic

the fact that XM goes through all sorts of antennas and transmissions from space makes absolutly no difference in sound quality or signal degradation. the signal is digital. that means it contains 1's and 0'1 it makes no difference how strong the signal is, just as long as its being received.
at the receiving end (your xm tuner) all the digital is broken back out into analog audio once again.
am and fm are affected more because they are analog signals to begin with. especially AM which ia Amplitude Modulation meaning the the signal's amplitude changes but its frequency remains the same.
FM means the signal is Frequency modulated meaning it has a frequency that rides on the signal so its not as affected by how strong the signal is verses AM

paranode

If the signal is digital it doesn't matter how far it's travelled. As long as the signal is there the data is there.

themayor

Well, call me insane.

I find XM's quality very disappointing. As somone said sending hi-quality (hi-def) digital signals via satelite is quite common these days. XM has chosen to broadcast a lower quality signal. Obviously they are capable....they are planning on rolling out 5.1 surround sound (http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/ces/xm...und-146582.php).
Persoanlly this really annoys me. I would much rather see them up the quality on the 2 channel signal before they venture into surround since there's is so little need for music to be played in surround.

paranode

So does anyone have Sirius for comparison? I am considering whether to activate XM for my TSX but if the quality of Sirius is better I may just get a standalone receiver and hook it into the AUX.

bradykp

it's almost a brand new technology. they are building their subcriber base, and investing in infrastructure at the same time. you can't expect it all at once. it's better than FM for sure. i doubt sirius's quality is any different.

at a discounted price, i think it's worth it. at 12.95/mo i think it's too expensive. i don't care what the quality is, it's not worth 13/mo to me.

themayor

I agree with everything you just said. My response was addressing the capability of today's technology to deliver a higher quality audio stream. (and being insane to expect it )

I love XM, love the variety, love no commercials, love that is available wherever I am. I'm just disappointed in its current quality (compared to what's possible, not compared to alternative radio choices) and the fact that they are planning surround, which I think is completely unneccesary at this point.

bradykp

releasing two surround sound channels, probably as a marketing ploy.
if you should be upset about the quality of something in this country compared to what's capable it should be cellular phone service. i think for how young xm and sirius are, they are offering very good quality, very good coverage, for an ok price. they also offer a lot of programming and a lot of variety, with little to no commercials.

if there was any quality improvement, you'd only notice it on upgraded sound systems, not in our pathetic oem radios.

stewie20068

I thought I'd post a compilation of typical quality of stuff.

CD's- 1411 kbps(kilobytes per second)
Apple Lossless- about 900 kbps
Apple's AAC- 128 kbps
MP3- usually 128 kbps, but can go up to 320 kbps
XM- 96 kbps
FM- 64 kbps

I have a decent stereo in my room and I can tell a huge difference between mp3 at 320 kbps and apple lossless at 900 kbps. With lossless there is whole new level of sound that you don't hear with the more compressed files. It makes listening to the music so much more interesting. However, if you don't do a back to back comparison of the same song you will never realize what you are missing. I haven't compared in my TSX though. I have a soundgate aux setup for my tsx though and I can tell a difference between using my radioshack y cable and my monster y cable.

bradykp

which monster cable is it that you have?

bradykp

i'm very surprised at the XM bit rate....where did you get that information? do you have sirius's as well?

themayor

I have actually read that the bit rate is at best 64kbps. Supposedly they use a variable bit rate so it can actually fluctuate lower than that. XM is pretty vague on disclosing this info.