Featured Sponsor Listings

is xm radio cd quality?

Dec 29, 2006 at 11:19 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 29
keanej6

keanej6

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Posts
676
Likes
11
my car is in the shop so i'm driving my mom's quest and i'm listening to the classical music station and before the commercial break the lady says something about the radio station being brought in high definition xm which is cd quality. so is xm radio cd quality? seems hard for me to believe but she said it!
 
Dec 29, 2006 at 11:21 PM Post #2 of 29
Well it sounds pretty compressed to me, so I guess you could say it's about as good as most of the CD's being released today.

I will say it's very quiet, no hiss or static. And the channel selection is pretty good.
 
Dec 29, 2006 at 11:29 PM Post #4 of 29
Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanY /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, XM is far from CD quality, even on the best channels, which have a bitrate of 64kbps. Think about how a 64kbps MP3 or WMA sounds like. That's XM quality. This thread is helpful:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4434


Thanks for the link.

I always though it sounded very compressed.

Do you know if Sirrius is any different?
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 12:40 AM Post #6 of 29
Sirius is still the same, but horrible reception

There IS cd quality XM radio though, which that add was referring to, but can only be had, through a home receiver that is XM ready, and has an antenna. The last time I checked, they had three HD or w/e they call it, channels I think?
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 1:24 AM Post #7 of 29
Both Sirius and XM sound muffled, like a low grade MP3 to me. I've had them both.

They sound different, but equally compromised so I wouldn't go as far as to say one sounds better than the other.

If I had to try to characterize it, XM is softer in the upper mids, 3.15Khz/5Khz or so range.

Reception will vary depending on where you live. If you live where XM has saturated with ground repeaters, it can be great. If you drive all over the country, I think Sirius will have a higher average for reception quality.

In NJ at least, they both work equally well.

Neither of them have as deep a playlist as I really would have hoped. Listen to any particular genre station on either one and you will learn the playlist of the week.
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 1:42 AM Post #8 of 29
The thing is I live in SE Connecticut, and the topography makes for pretty bad FM reception.

Even though the SQ from the sats is pretty poor, it would still be an upgrade for me.

Have you heard about any plans for these guys to improve their SQ? I'd be surprised since they have everyone already convinced they provide "CD Quality" sound.
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 2:07 AM Post #9 of 29
Quote:

Originally Posted by nelamvr6 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The thing is I live in SE Connecticut, and the topography makes for pretty bad FM reception.

Even though the SQ from the sats is pretty poor, it would still be an upgrade for me.

Have you heard about any plans for these guys to improve their SQ? I'd be surprised since they have everyone already convinced they provide "CD Quality" sound.


I dont think anyone is convinced they have cd quality sound. Its just a matter of, listening to 150 channels at a "passable" level, or listening to FM radio, or a cd thats been in your car for the past month.

I listen to my XM 90% of the time, in my car and at the gym. Both of those tasks, I have alot of other things on my mind, so sound quality is low on the list. If not, it be junk to me.

At first, it sounded like cuhrap. But you get use to it.
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 2:27 AM Post #10 of 29
When the companies were new and had fewer channels they had higher-quality MP3s for all their music. But then people wanted more channels, and the satellites can only beam down so much, so they had to go to smaller and smaller MP3s. I'm guessing 64kbps is the standard for all new music.

Also XM stock is hurting bad. Sirius got Howard and NASCAR. Hope you didn't buy the lifetime plan!
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 2:29 AM Post #11 of 29
Quote:

Originally Posted by TopShelf /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The last time I checked, they had three HD or w/e they call it, channels I think?


I'm pretty sure those are their lossy surround-sound channels.

No SACD for you!
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 2:43 AM Post #12 of 29
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock&Roll Ninja /img/forum/go_quote.gif
When the companies were new and had fewer channels they had higher-quality MP3s for all their music. But then people wanted more channels, and the satellites can only beam down so much, so they had to go to smaller and smaller MP3s. I'm guessing 64kbps is the standard for all new music.

Also XM stock is hurting bad. Sirius got Howard and NASCAR. Hope you didn't buy the lifetime plan!


You make it sound like having Howard is a good thing?
Ill take MLB over Nascar anyday, if I was a shareholder
They also kept their Nascar channel, which keeps people informed, which about 25% of the Nascar fans want, so they wont lose out too bad.

Ya I havnt even attempted to try their HD channels, so your probably right on the surround thing
 
Dec 30, 2006 at 3:16 AM Post #14 of 29
XM radio sounds worse than 128kbps mp3. In a lot of cases FM actually sounded better. XM and other forms of high definition or "cd quality" radio are crap -- not even as good as a 128kbps mp3. I didn't even need nice headphones to hear how ****** it sounds, I heard it very clearly out of a stock honda accord car stereo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top