BLACK VELVET

Is it just me or does XM sound quality suck? I was really excited about getting XM in my new 04 TL, and I was very disapointed when I have been listening. It sounds about as good as cassete tape that has been copied from a copy of the original tape....that was a copy of a copy!

I mean honestly....it sucks. I love all the channels, and no commercials.......but it sound like somebody put a pillow over my speakers when I listen to XM! It is like having a girlfriend that has a 10 for a body.....but a 2 for her face!! Sheeeiiit!!!

What the hell is wrong with XM? This is 2004.....they are shooting down music from outerspace.....and they can't even make it sound as good as a CD! I just don't understand what the deal is, XM is a big let down in sound quality!

What does everybody else think?

Peeze out

Swat Dude

It sucks. Just proves my point that not all digital is the same. They must use some type of bit compression. Even regular CD sounds way better. DVD-A blows them both away!

svtmike

XM is compressed enough to have easily audible artifacts. Although their algorithm is proprietary, it's been estimated that the bit rate they use is 64 kbps.

If that's the case, then although the sound isn't great it's pretty impressive for 64kbps; an MP3 at that bitrate would sound horrendous.

Mike

mspence3

I have seen other discussions about this but never commented.

I don't think it sounds all that great either. Others have said that it's better than FM but I swear that we have a couple of stations here that sound better than XM. CD's sound much better then either in my car.

I like the stereo but have to turn it way up. Usually 25 or higher. I have seen others post that they never go that high but I can't get the sound close to my liking without doing so.

I usually spend $1,200 to $1,500 on after market stereo equipment but no more. I trade my cars way too much and this stereo will do.

Modeler

BE CAREFUL! There are people on this board, like acuradict, who will try to rip you a new one for the heresy of attacking the holy XM!

I agree, not only is the sound quality subpar, but you will soon find that the selection of songs SUCKS A-S-S!

XM does have some redeeming qualities, like availability of great variety stations (like commedy), news and soon traffic reports.

Salden

I just find it funny that XM uses a compressed digital bitstream yet they didn't allow MP3s on the system because of the poor quality. WTF? They have a tape deck for pete's sake!

Steven

I find it better than standard FM.

digital_b

if you dont like it thats fine. it does not 'suck ass'. just because you cant play it at 200db and annoy everyone around you doesnt mean its bad. youre not paying for it anyway.

svtmike

I voted with my wallet; I haven't subscribed. I'm enjoying my purchased and homemade DVD-A's way too much.

Mike

neversat

Are you burning DVD A's? What are you using?

svtmike

DiscWelder Steel. There are several threads covering it, including the DVD-A primer stickied at the top.

Mike

Woodstock

XM is worth it for Channel 150!

BLACK VELVET

Is 150 Playboy? How is that anyway.....I need to try something.

I do like XM for the talk radio and news, because it is a hair better than AM. But I am just let down, because I heard all this crap about "digital".....but now I understand that "digital" does not mean high quality. I would rather have high quality analog than low quality digital. I swear most FM stations sound better....except for the static.

I am afraid if I get the playboy XM station.....I will be trying to operate the vehicle with one hand.

¿GotJazz?

An excellent point!

It tends to prove that it's the $$$, not the so-called lack of quality that drove the "no lousy MP3 in my radio design" decision.

Kind of like the cheezy obviously-computer-generated special effects from the first Spider-Man movie. Sony/Marvel's claim: The movie was based on a comic book, and we wanted the movie to have a comic book "feel" for artistic reasons. Reality: They ran out of money.

I am listening quite a bit to the Comedy Channels, so the lack of quality doesn't bother me as much.

I'm still trying to decide if I want to subscribe. If XM carried NPR broadcasts, it would be a done deal. Since XM won't ever carry NPR, I probably won't be subscribing.

I'm personally going to try and find a way to improve the FM reception. The poor reception from the window antenna is so bad that I am losing strong local channels while I'm in town, not just driving out of town.

paddiwakk

Please us posted if you find a way to improve on the FM reception

catsailr

I have XM on my Trailblazer and it doesn't sound near as good as the FM. Of course the whole sound system on the TB sucks compared to the Acura.

njtom

As everyone has pointed out the sound is sub par for music, and I too need to turn up the volume to hear it well, however, it seems that like TV the intermissions and commercials are louder.

Don't buy XM for the sound, buy it for the content if that's what you like. Otherwise keep your money for those fantastic sounding DVD-A's.

Personally, I like the comedy, Discovery Channel and talk stations.

Swat Dude

I will not be suscribing when my 3 months is up.

jwaters943

My uncle has XM on his new F350 and I thought it sounded really good. I think you guys just like to B*tch.

Modeler

And you base your observation on what? Thirty minutes in your uncle's car listening to couple stations?

There is a significant difference in sound quality and tone across different XM channels.

DNA

I agree. I have two theories on why this might be so. Perhaps XM allocates more bandwidth to some channels than others. (DirecTV does this for video, for example. PPV gets the most bandwidth, premium next, and basic and local channels the least.) I'd guess that XM allocates more to music than talk channels. I'm not sure why they would allocate some music channels more bandwidth than others, though.

My other theory is that some type of music suffers less from XM's compression than others. I notice less artifacts in "simple" sounding music, like solo or small ensembles, for example. The most objectionable and obvious compression artifacts, to my ear, are "complex" sounds, like large orchestral and string ensembles. (The same is true for MP3 and other audio compression methods.)

However, these are just theories. Does anyone have any facts on this?

MikeRadio

I don't want to open a can of works here...

BUT... Honestly.. The XM sound on the Acura, witht he great system we have... DOES NOT sound as good as XM does in my last car or other people's cars who have aftermarket radios.

It sounds much better at home too.

In the Acura, for some reason it sounds muddy and lacks highs...

has anyone else made this observation???

I mean it is great and all and I wouldnt by a car without it anymore... but I have noticed that i just doesn't sound as good as it does elsewhere in the Acura.

THoughts?

digital_b

I dont know what the big deal is about sound quality. xm is not about sound quality. its about choice. so tell me, how many of you have even 10-15 radio stations you can get clearly and listen to without xm? I personally LOVE the variety of stations and expect xm to improve the sound quality. and even if they dont I am sold.

vtechbrain

BS, XM does not suck, DUH. At worst it is better than FM. At best its better than any MP3. So, no it's not CD quality. But its better than radio, it will work in areas of the country where no radio exists (desert south west) and it has more than 100 channels. If thats not enough for you don't renew the subcription when its up, capice?

harddrivin1le

It sounds damn nice in my Accord/Ex/V6...

Could people be listening to a stereo broadcast (XM) in "5.1 mode?" That would sound horrible...

Modeler

What are you smoking? How can one listen to XM in 5.1 mode if it's not encoded that way? It comes over all the speakers in the car, but that just makes it sound better.

DNA

Your second point is factually incorrect. XM is bandwidth limited. MP3, on the other hand, can be recorded at a wide range of bit rates including rates much higher that that XM uses. At the higher bit-rates that most people use to record MP3, it exhibits far less noticeable compression artifacts than XM. At these higher bit-rates, MP3 is very difficult to distinguish from CD. This can not be said for XM because of its severe bandwidth limitation.

Compared to FM, XM does exceed FM in many measurements (frequency response, harmonic distortion, etc.) and in a car, multipath distortion is a major problem especially in urban and hilly areas. Typically FM stations use analog compression. All these factors degrade audio quality. However, since FM is not digital, it does not suffer from digital compression artifacts. Whether FM or XM is better is subjective depending on which problems bother you most.

Modeler

Who gives a s*h*i*t? It doesn't matter how much better that FM it is (though I don't think it is). You don't talk about how good DVD format is by comparing it to VHS! XM sound quality can be MUCH MUCH better given the digital technology. But it's not, because the company is cutting corners by overcompressing the stream, not paying attention to the tonal differences and volume differences accross channels, but by playing too much second-rate music.

harddrivin1le

I don't own the car.

I'm asking if there's a "5.1" or "surround sound" button that can be activated while listening to XM radio...No XM station I know of is broadcasting in 5.1 surround sound.

And I don't understand why you have to display such a lousy attitude over that simple question.

I sat in one and the dealer played XM; I'm reasonably certain that he activated the surround sound button and it sounded like sh*t as a result.

My home stereo sounds like SH*T if I listen to a stereo recording in surround sound. Many people don't understand that, do so anyway and then complain about how bad it sounds.

DNA

There is no "simulated" 5.1 channel surround option in the TL/ELS. Stereo (2-channel) sources duplicate the front L/R channels in the rear L/R channels. The center channel is a sum of the front L/R channels for 2-channel sources.

vtechbrain

Just making a point that suck is an overstatement. Different channels sound differently, While some are almost CD quality some are indeed very compressed, most are in between. The reasoning behing varying amounts of compression is unknown to me. Personally, I think the service is outstanding given the variety of channels and the overall digital quality. DNA MP3 does indded have a less compression level that offers better sound quality but at that level you might as weel just record in CD format!

harddrivin1le

Does the stereo sound ANY different when 5.1 is activated while listening to a standard stereo source (like XM)??

DNA

I guess I didn't make my point clear. There is no switchable 5.1 mode. The TL/ELS plays 5.1 sources (DVD-A and DTS) in 5.1 and it plays everything else, including XM, in 2 channel stereo as I described above.

harddrivin1le

OK...

I thought I saw/heard the salesman switch to 5.1 while listening to XM...

Maybe I didn't.

XM in my Accord sounds pretty damn good and I've got an entry level audiophile grade audio system in my home (Largest NAD integrated amp, their best Cd player and PSB Stratus Minis...

XM in the Accord blows away any other source of broadcast compressed audio I've heard (internet radio, digital cable "radio", etc).

If it sounded lousy I'd be the first one to B&M about it...

Modeler

There is no way to "activate" or "deactivate" 5.1. When TL stereo is playing music encoded in 5.1 (DVD-A and DTS disks), it does so in 5.1. Otherwise, it plays them in 2 channels, but uses all the speakers in the car.

harddrivin1le

What's the purpose of a center channel in a stereo broadcast?

That can't sound "right."

DNA

The center channel is derived in the same way the old matrix'ed synthesized center channel did it by simply summing the L and R channels. What happens is that sounds that are in-phase and equal amplitude (which is true of sources that are in the center) have the highest amplitude when summed, while sources that are higher in amplitude in one channel than the other are less loud, and those that are 180 degrees out of phase between channels (as might be the case if the source is way off to the side or in the rear) are completely cancelled and don't show up in the center channel at all.

Is this perfect? No, but it is usually pretty good with most sources, usually much better than it would be for people not located in the center line of the car which is difficult place to drive the car. Dolby Pro-Logic II for the center or all channels would be better.

The major problem with the simple center matrix of 2-channel sources, in my opinion, is that the center channel does not have a tweeter so 2-channel sources sound less bright.

vtechbrain

It would have been nice if the had included a 6 channel stereo mode. My Yamaha surround reciever has that setting and it sounds very good indeed. But it could also have THX 6.1 surround a Carver sub and, and, and ........... I think the stereo is great considering its standard equipment. You have to pay 5k for the lexus levison which IMO an various other sources is not better on CDS and inferior when DVD audio is considered.

harddrivin1le

The Mark Levinson system does NOT cost $5K in the ES330....

And the reason is costs as much as it does ($3,120 MSRP) in that car is because it comes bundled with the NAV system...It can cost that much (and more) in the LS430, but only because it's once again bundled with other features in various packages.

What good would a "6.1" system be unless an audio (only) format existed to support it?

Personally, I think jumping into the DVD audio game at this point is premature; titles are very limited and no-one knows whether or not that audio format will take-off. (Remember the week when DAT and Mini Disc were "the next big things" in music? Where are they now?)

rynpamn21

just my 2 cents....XM doesn't sound bad at all in my TL...i'm really thinking about subscribing to it after my free trial is over...again just my 2 cents....