Mike Walker
Doesn't pull punches
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2001
- Posts
- 541
- Likes
- 14
I just got my first XM Satellite radio, the new Delphi "Sky-Fi", plus the home adapter kit. Since I'm legally blind, I'm less interested in the car adapter, although I probably will eventually buy it. My next purchase will no-doubt be the "boombox adapter" coming out soon.
First impressions: I LOVE XM! The variety of available music is just incredible. As for sound quality, it ranges from quite good (most music channels) to mediocre but quite listenable (most of the talk channels) to fairly poor (C-Net radio...sounds like the signal is being delivered to XM's headquarters on a noisy phone line!) Listening through my trusty Sony MDR-V6 headphones, digital compression artifacts ranged from noticable to a "trained" ear, but probably not to casual listeners (primarily on the announcer's pre-recorded bits on one of the music channels, interestingly enough, but not on the actual music) to NO noticable artifacts (most music channels). When I say "digital processing artifacts", I'm talking about artifacts that obviously are a result of using lossy compression, NOT AUDIO DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSION, which is also obviously in use to varying degrees on all channels. This audio dynamic range compression IS audible to someone in radio and/or pro audio who's accustomed to what it sounds like, although I doubt most people outside "the biz" would be able to identify exactly what the deliberate audio tinkering is doing to the signal. Deliberate "tinkering" is very, VERY well done, without any audible distortion resulting from the processing.
So, is the sound quality of XM "better than fm"? Well, yes and no. YES it's better than the vast majority of listeners have ever heard fm sound (with their boomboxes and stereos with wire antennas tossed behind the equipment rack. But those of us who have worked in radio, and actually have access to fm transmitting equipment (and state of the art receiving equipment) will recognize that XM clearly DOES NOT offer better sound than the best that fm has to offer. So, since most XM listeners will be coming to the new technology from boomboxes and Walkpersons rather than Magnum Dynalabs and Day-Sequerras, then YES to most people XM will sound quite a bit better. But those of us who have invested in proper roof ariels with rotors, and who listen primarily to public radio stations dedicated to quality audio know that fm at it's best is a true high fidelity medium which need not apologize to any format for it's sound quality!
So, sound quality on XM is (for me) good enough that it ceases to be an issue, allowing me to appreciate what's really important, THE PROGRAMMING! I'm VERY impressed with most of that! XM KICKS ASS! And is perhaps just the kick-in-the-ass that local am and fm stations need as an incentive to offer something, ANYTHING creative to listen to! To paraphrase the Clinton/Gore campaign in '92, "It's the PROGRAMMING, Stupid!"
First impressions: I LOVE XM! The variety of available music is just incredible. As for sound quality, it ranges from quite good (most music channels) to mediocre but quite listenable (most of the talk channels) to fairly poor (C-Net radio...sounds like the signal is being delivered to XM's headquarters on a noisy phone line!) Listening through my trusty Sony MDR-V6 headphones, digital compression artifacts ranged from noticable to a "trained" ear, but probably not to casual listeners (primarily on the announcer's pre-recorded bits on one of the music channels, interestingly enough, but not on the actual music) to NO noticable artifacts (most music channels). When I say "digital processing artifacts", I'm talking about artifacts that obviously are a result of using lossy compression, NOT AUDIO DYNAMIC RANGE COMPRESSION, which is also obviously in use to varying degrees on all channels. This audio dynamic range compression IS audible to someone in radio and/or pro audio who's accustomed to what it sounds like, although I doubt most people outside "the biz" would be able to identify exactly what the deliberate audio tinkering is doing to the signal. Deliberate "tinkering" is very, VERY well done, without any audible distortion resulting from the processing.
So, is the sound quality of XM "better than fm"? Well, yes and no. YES it's better than the vast majority of listeners have ever heard fm sound (with their boomboxes and stereos with wire antennas tossed behind the equipment rack. But those of us who have worked in radio, and actually have access to fm transmitting equipment (and state of the art receiving equipment) will recognize that XM clearly DOES NOT offer better sound than the best that fm has to offer. So, since most XM listeners will be coming to the new technology from boomboxes and Walkpersons rather than Magnum Dynalabs and Day-Sequerras, then YES to most people XM will sound quite a bit better. But those of us who have invested in proper roof ariels with rotors, and who listen primarily to public radio stations dedicated to quality audio know that fm at it's best is a true high fidelity medium which need not apologize to any format for it's sound quality!
So, sound quality on XM is (for me) good enough that it ceases to be an issue, allowing me to appreciate what's really important, THE PROGRAMMING! I'm VERY impressed with most of that! XM KICKS ASS! And is perhaps just the kick-in-the-ass that local am and fm stations need as an incentive to offer something, ANYTHING creative to listen to! To paraphrase the Clinton/Gore campaign in '92, "It's the PROGRAMMING, Stupid!"
