| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author
 |
Message |
wesmills
Everyday Listener
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 96
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| SuperH wrote: | They've been playing with the damn processors again.
Only lately - they keep making changes for the better!  |
SQ thread!!
As part of an unrelated experiment, I plugged my iPhone into my car stereo through the aux jack and fired up the XM app. To me, the sound quality was better on my XMp3 than the iPhone through the same jack. While I'm demonstrating how poor my hearing must be, I'll also point out that the talk stations I listen to (POTUS, ESPN Radio) lately sound much better than their previous AM-in-a-thunderstorm-under-a-power-line setting.
(Unrelated experiment: I wanted to see if the XM app would successfully play music during my entire 20 minute drive home. It did.)
_________________
 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
runnoft
XM 24/7
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wesmills wrote: | I'll also point out that the talk stations I listen to (POTUS, ESPN Radio) lately sound much better than their previous AM-in-a-thunderstorm-under-a-power-line setting.
|
I don't remember static being an issue on the talk channels, but I do think the tone quality of voices on the talk channels is a lot better than a year ago. To me, they sound like okay AM-radio quality... on a good day... which I'll take on the talk channels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian202
I am on Probation / On my Best Behavior
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 90977
Location: Tampa, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runnoft wrote: | | wesmills wrote: | I'll also point out that the talk stations I listen to (POTUS, ESPN Radio) lately sound much better than their previous AM-in-a-thunderstorm-under-a-power-line setting.
|
I don't remember static being an issue on the talk channels, but I do think the tone quality of voices on the talk channels is a lot better than a year ago. To me, they sound like okay AM-radio quality... on a good day... which I'll take on the talk channels. |
concur. the only reason you'd ever get static using satellite radio is because you have a crappy hookup. and i'm including any static you get from using an FM transmitter in this too. don't really get why everybody still loves the old radios cuz of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperH
Insane Fan!
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 1808
Location: Overland Park, KS
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian202 wrote: | | runnoft wrote: | | wesmills wrote: | I'll also point out that the talk stations I listen to (POTUS, ESPN Radio) lately sound much better than their previous AM-in-a-thunderstorm-under-a-power-line setting.
|
I don't remember static being an issue on the talk channels, but I do think the tone quality of voices on the talk channels is a lot better than a year ago. To me, they sound like okay AM-radio quality... on a good day... which I'll take on the talk channels. |
concur. the only reason you'd ever get static using satellite radio is because you have a crappy hookup. and i'm including any static you get from using an FM transmitter in this too. don't really get why everybody still loves the old radios cuz of that. |
I think he is talking about the recent reduction of sssssssssssssibilancccccce on the talk stations.
It seems that they are driven by (something) to improve sound quality more lately.
Keep it up!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neile23
Average Listener
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree they do seem to be obsessed with the sound quality lately which i find odd since they clearly felt it not to be a major factor in gaining or keeping customers for years. That is they chose quantity of content over sound quality over and over again but now seem to obsess over subtle ways to improve it abit at a time. It seems every week they do something to make it just alittle crisper and the total effect has been a dramatic improvement in the dynamic range especially on the high end and a crisper, punchier sound over the past two months. I don’t know if they have been doing this on the Sirius side or not, and if not if that is another sign they are tilting toward the XM side to keep in the long run? [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IdRatherBeSkiing
Long Live The Bridge (XM27)
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 4450
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan wrote: | Perhaps they're not marketing it anymore.
I just turned on XM and flipped on the Neural decoder and tuned to 77. I then tuned to 72 Spa, which is definitely not XMHD, and the rear channels were just as lively as XM Pops. |
The first thing you do before you turn it off is turn off promotion. It may still be active but in 6 months, they may just turn it off without notice (they may have already).
_________________
XM subscriber since 2005/12/05:- Pioneer Airware (LIFE, wife)
- Tao
- Pontiac G5 (XM Canada)
Sirius subscriber since 2007/12/06:- Stilletto 2 (LIFE)
- Premium Internet
- 8Gb Sandisk microSDHC (2000+ songs)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperH
Insane Fan!
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 1808
Location: Overland Park, KS
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IdRatherBeSkiing wrote: | | Ryan wrote: | Perhaps they're not marketing it anymore.
I just turned on XM and flipped on the Neural decoder and tuned to 77. I then tuned to 72 Spa, which is definitely not XMHD, and the rear channels were just as lively as XM Pops. |
The first thing you do before you turn it off is turn off promotion. It may still be active but in 6 months, they may just turn it off without notice (they may have already). |
I don't know why they'd just "turn it off".
If the bitrate is maintained, there is no reason to turn it off. Their processors support this sidecoding technology out-of-the-box.
They could turn it "on" on all channels. They just aren't high enough bitrate. The impact of turning it "on" on those channels, would be similar to using SRS WOW on low bitrate Podcasts. It'd be all "swirly". 
My speculation (key word) is that they want to be covered in the future, should there be a lineup change that would require reduction of Sirius XM Pops' bitrate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runnoft
XM 24/7
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperH wrote: |
My speculation (key word) is that they want to be covered in the future, should there be a lineup change that would require reduction of Sirius XM Pops' bitrate. |
Say... minority set-aside channels... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperH
Insane Fan!
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 1808
Location: Overland Park, KS
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| runnoft wrote: | | SuperH wrote: |
My speculation (key word) is that they want to be covered in the future, should there be a lineup change that would require reduction of Sirius XM Pops' bitrate. |
Say... minority set-aside channels... |
We have "The Heat". We have "Calibliasdajsdko" whatever it is.
Something French... Sur La Route?
C'mon... This is a dumb requirement... *Hoping this never comes to fruition*... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runnoft
XM 24/7
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 665
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperH wrote: | | runnoft wrote: | | SuperH wrote: |
My speculation (key word) is that they want to be covered in the future, should there be a lineup change that would require reduction of Sirius XM Pops' bitrate. |
Say... minority set-aside channels... |
We have "The Heat". We have "Calibliasdajsdko" whatever it is.
Something French... Sur La Route?
C'mon... This is a dumb requirement... *Hoping this never comes to fruition*... |
I completely agree, and I don't think anybody here disagrees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richie
True XM Fan
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 2472
Location: Arlington VA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| runnoft wrote: | | SuperH wrote: | | C'mon... This is a dumb requirement... *Hoping this never comes to fruition*... |
I completely agree, and I don't think anybody here disagrees. |
I disagree - did you really expect otherwise?
_________________
Lenny Bruce died for our sins! - Richie 3:16 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CTGuy
The King of Contrary
Joined: 27 Feb 2003
Posts: 8039
Location: Meriden, CT
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperH wrote: | | runnoft wrote: | | SuperH wrote: |
My speculation (key word) is that they want to be covered in the future, should there be a lineup change that would require reduction of Sirius XM Pops' bitrate. |
Say... minority set-aside channels... |
We have "The Heat". We have "Calibliasdajsdko" whatever it is.
Something French... Sur La Route?
C'mon... This is a dumb requirement... *Hoping this never comes to fruition*... |
None of XM's music channels count as minority because they are not OWNED by a person of color/person of non-Caucasian ethnicity or a corporation with majority black/Hispanic/other non-Caucasian ownership. They are owned by Sirius XM or XM Canada. The FCC's criteria maintain that a channel cannot truly represent minority interests unless the channel itself is minority-owned, hence the requirement that Sirius XM lease a big chunk of its bandwidth to qualifying broadcasting entities.
You and I might not agree with Washington's reasoning, but it is what it is. Want to take the FCC to the Supreme Court. Scrounge up a few million and hire yourself a great lawyer. Otherwise, continue to hope that there continue to be no entities out there with the money/qualifications to meet the FCC's and Sirius XM's criteria and that Sirius XM can continue to hold on to all the bandwidth it hasn't been ordered to cede to Clear Channel forever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IdRatherBeSkiing
Long Live The Bridge (XM27)
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 4450
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CTGuy wrote: | | SuperH wrote: | | runnoft wrote: | | SuperH wrote: |
My speculation (key word) is that they want to be covered in the future, should there be a lineup change that would require reduction of Sirius XM Pops' bitrate. |
Say... minority set-aside channels... |
We have "The Heat". We have "Calibliasdajsdko" whatever it is.
Something French... Sur La Route?
C'mon... This is a dumb requirement... *Hoping this never comes to fruition*... |
None of XM's music channels count as minority because they are not OWNED by a person of color/person of non-Caucasian ethnicity or a corporation with majority black/Hispanic/other non-Caucasian ownership. They are owned by Sirius XM or XM Canada. The FCC's criteria maintain that a channel cannot truly represent minority interests unless the channel itself is minority-owned, hence the requirement that Sirius XM lease a big chunk of its bandwidth to qualifying broadcasting entities.
You and I might not agree with Washington's reasoning, but it is what it is. Want to take the FCC to the Supreme Court. Scrounge up a few million and hire yourself a great lawyer. Otherwise, continue to hope that there continue to be no entities out there with the money/qualifications to meet the FCC's and Sirius XM's criteria and that Sirius XM can continue to hold on to all the bandwidth it hasn't been ordered to cede to Clear Channel forever. |
I think that if they have to cut channels, those type of channels would be the first canidates to be cut since they would be replaced with simular channels.
_________________
XM subscriber since 2005/12/05:- Pioneer Airware (LIFE, wife)
- Tao
- Pontiac G5 (XM Canada)
Sirius subscriber since 2007/12/06:- Stilletto 2 (LIFE)
- Premium Internet
- 8Gb Sandisk microSDHC (2000+ songs)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperH
Insane Fan!
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 1808
Location: Overland Park, KS
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IdRatherBeSkiing wrote: | | CTGuy wrote: | | SuperH wrote: | | runnoft wrote: | | SuperH wrote: |
My speculation (key word) is that they want to be covered in the future, should there be a lineup change that would require reduction of Sirius XM Pops' bitrate. |
Say... minority set-aside channels... |
We have "The Heat". We have "Calibliasdajsdko" whatever it is.
Something French... Sur La Route?
C'mon... This is a dumb requirement... *Hoping this never comes to fruition*... |
None of XM's music channels count as minority because they are not OWNED by a person of color/person of non-Caucasian ethnicity or a corporation with majority black/Hispanic/other non-Caucasian ownership. They are owned by Sirius XM or XM Canada. The FCC's criteria maintain that a channel cannot truly represent minority interests unless the channel itself is minority-owned, hence the requirement that Sirius XM lease a big chunk of its bandwidth to qualifying broadcasting entities.
You and I might not agree with Washington's reasoning, but it is what it is. Want to take the FCC to the Supreme Court. Scrounge up a few million and hire yourself a great lawyer. Otherwise, continue to hope that there continue to be no entities out there with the money/qualifications to meet the FCC's and Sirius XM's criteria and that Sirius XM can continue to hold on to all the bandwidth it hasn't been ordered to cede to Clear Channel forever. |
I think that if they have to cut channels, those type of channels would be the first canidates to be cut since they would be replaced with simular channels. |
x2
This is what I anticipate.
CTGuy: I completely understand that. That's why I hope it never comes to fruition. That is to say - no entities approach Sirius XM...
FCC rules and requirements can be changed at any given time. Money/lobbiests talk. I used to work in the industry (still do somewhat - wireless telecommunications); I understand how things work.
One of my favorite pasttimes? Reporting excessive ERP levels for competing stations. Slaps on them a huge fine each time. Noone ever knew who filed those reports - they end up having to run more commercials to offset costs. Then, former competitor listeners come listening to those who run their transmitters ethically (since the commercials drive them away from those stations).
Kniving? Yes. Genius? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wesmills
Everyday Listener
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 96
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperH wrote: | | Brian202 wrote: | | runnoft wrote: | | wesmills wrote: | I'll also point out that the talk stations I listen to (POTUS, ESPN Radio) lately sound much better than their previous AM-in-a-thunderstorm-under-a-power-line setting.
|
I don't remember static being an issue on the talk channels, but I do think the tone quality of voices on the talk channels is a lot better than a year ago. To me, they sound like okay AM-radio quality... on a good day... which I'll take on the talk channels. |
concur. the only reason you'd ever get static using satellite radio is because you have a crappy hookup. and i'm including any static you get from using an FM transmitter in this too. don't really get why everybody still loves the old radios cuz of that. |
I think he is talking about the recent reduction of sssssssssssssibilancccccce on the talk stations.
It seems that they are driven by (something) to improve sound quality more lately. |
Exactly. AM, even sitting next to a microwave, doesn't have much static. Instead, it has this annoying whine that seems to drag out high-pitched consonants and short vowels. POTUS and MLB especially sounds better, which is a major improvement over their previous settings. MLB in particular sounds much better, and is an improvement over the local FM broadcast.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
