NorthernExposed

Well I had an antenna check message come on after some damage to the roof of my TL, and after the repair the shielding on the XM harness is damaged making the entire thing junk. I've inquired with the dealership I bought the car from and they are refusing to be held responsible for the damage to the harness. What makes it worse is that my local Acura dealer estimated $2200 to replace the unit ($400 harness, $1800 labor) and I'm just not willing to do that. So my question is this, can I tap into the factory unit to install an XM antenna in another location? I can get an aftermarket one for like $50 and it's much more appealing than repairing the stock harness.

Perhaps the question I should be asking is if it's even worth going for XM at this point?

Any thoughts?

datmrman

You might want to search or PM Ron A for a service scan on installation of the XM roof dome. You can most likely locate the part for less online. The XM module (not the antenna) is located on the right side of the trunk behind the lining. I doubt that is damaged though. Research a bit, it could be a simple DIY.

That is, of course, if XM is worth it to ya.

K-Shawn

Contact your insurance company and explain to them...... there's more damage that wasn't discovered during the first estimate and you need to get it repaired. Most likely ther will repair it or send out the adjuster to view damage part.

ZeroWiz

My answer to that would be "It Depends".

If you are a big Opie & Anthony or Ron & Fez fan, or a talk show listener in general, then XM is great. Just be prepared to listen to commercials just like regular radio.

If you want commercial-free music and don't already have a huge collection of your own on an iPod (or similar device), then I guess it would be worth it if you don't care about sound quality.

I was forced to cancel XM just out of pure annoyance at the sound quality of their music channels. Further research by myself has verified what my ears have been hearing all this time... that they use extremely high compression/low bitrates with their "100% Digital quality" audio streams. In many cases their bitrate is between 32k to 64k! Compare that with the "default" 128k MP3 or AAC bitrate of an IPod, and more likely the higher bitrates if you encode with a variable-bit-rate encoder (LAMEenc) and your ears will clearly hear the difference.

I mean, I can live with "ipod-quality" mp3 files, since I don't claim to be a golden-eared audiophlie. But even I have my limits as to how bad it gets before I can't listen anymore...

Now I hear they are broadcasting commercials on some of their music channels as well. So it begs the question, why bother paying $12.95/mo. at all?

ronbarr

I agree completely on both points - if you like their talk radio (I do) it's great. If you like music, get an iPod and a USASPEC adapter. Music on XM is horrible. It's amazing that they would deliver a music product that sounds like crap, but they did.

Cosmo Kid

This statement is untrue. The number of commercials on regular radio FAR EXCEEDS the number I have to hear on O&A.

Clearchannel owns 4 stations on XM. Clearchannel decided they wanted to play some commercials on their channels. XM said no. CC sued them. CC won.

XM decided to ADD 4 more channels to make up for the 4 CC channels with commercials.

They also pulled the stations off XM on-line. When the contract with CC expires, it isnt being renewed.


I have never heard they run bitrates as low as you have stated. I would really like to see the evidence on it. I dont think they are CD quality, but its fine for me.

And while I have over 120gigs of music, XM seems to find multiple songs every day that I want to hear and dont own.

KJSmitty

Bottom line, I would just replace with OEM parts...

- From another XM antenna thread recently, the Acura parts/price list was referenced for the antenna and harness.. Looked like both could be had for less than $100 combined via internet Acura Parts sales etc...

$1800 for labor??!! That's like 20+ hours!!! - I call BS.. You could replace all of the XM components yourself in a 4 hr period etc.. The actual XM receiver is also probaby less than $300..

Follow K-Shawns advice - If caused by the incident your insurance should handle it.

Good luck

ZeroWiz

I think you misinterpreted "just like regular radio" to mean "just as many commercials as regular radio", when in fact what I meant was that talk shows on XM are NOT commercial-free - "just like regular radio".

OK, that is fine. Adding 4 commercial-free channels to make up for the 4 that they added commercials to seems like a good customer-service move. Kudos to them. But the real reason I cancelled is because:

Granted, I cannot give you HARD EVIDENCE that they indeed run their bitrates very low, I can only go by what my ears are telling me. A simple Google search will give you plenty of blogs and hits about XM's (and Sirius') poor sound quality and low bitrates. Even if they are using different compression schemes, no matter how efficient the codec is, the bottom line is that the end result they are broadcasting sounds like crap.

Here are a few google hits for you. I grant you that it is mostly speculation on their bitrates and some people "claiming" to have worked at XM, so I would give their comments a grain-of-salt. But you cannot deny the fact that it is nowhere near CD-quality, and if I were to put a number to it, I would stick by my estimation of the sound being closer to quality to a 64k MP3 file than a 128k one.

http://www.hear2.com/2005/03/satellite_radio.html
http://www.xmfan.com/viewtopic.php?t=58631 (This one's funny because XM fans are skewering fellow XM fans for complaining about the sound quality)
http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4434

The kicker though is the Wikipedia entry. I don't know how much stock you would put into it, since it is "publicly editable", but I trust Wikipedia entries most of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio

In the section: "Technology"
Now, I still don't claim that as HARD EVIDENCE. I am just going by what my ears tell me, and even a non-audiophile like myself can tell the difference of how bad XM sounds compared to "normal 128kbps AAC-encoded iPod file". Let's not even put CD's into the discussion, since that we both know and agree that XM isn't even near-CD quality. Near-"normal-MP3" quality would be even a stretch in my book...

But of course, we can agree to disagree. More power to you if you are completely satisfied with XM's sound quality. I chose to cancel because it was unacceptable to me. And since I am not a big talk-show listener, I had no reason to keep paying $12.95/mo for it.

Remember, the OP was asking for "opinions" on if its even worth spending money on all the repairs necessary to even get XM functioning again. I said "it depends". You said one of my statements is untrue, set me straight on the "commercials on music channels", and called into question my claims that XM has very low bitrates. Hopefully the OP is getting some good answers out of this thread.

It's all good.

Cosmo Kid

I knew a while ago the sound quality was not cd quality. They USED to advertise it that way, a long time ago, when it first came out.

Now it is DIGITAL quality, which is a laugh.

For me, $13/month to not listen to commercial radio was worth it. Just having the huge number of choices is reason enough for me.

And MLB. As a fantasy baseball player, its invaluable.

And XM On-line. I get ot listen all day at work on my 'puter.