How good is Satellite?
02-18-2006, 07:22 AM
#1
50 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 94
How good is Satellite?
I have read some conflicting information on the sound quality of Sat radio on non audio car forums. From it is no better than low grade MP3, to it sounds better than my CD player. What are you assessments of the sonic qualities of sat radio in a car?
Last edited by salty; 02-18-2006 at 07:24 AM. Reason: typo
02-18-2006, 08:53 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
the sq of sat radio can easily be descirbed like this, remember the sound quality and picture quality difference when you switched from cassete tapes to cd's, or vhs to dvd, same thing, sat radio is the cassette and vhs tape eqivilant when it comes to sq. sat radio is really good for 2 things, no static and massive selection. but the sq of sat radio reeks
02-20-2006, 12:18 AM
#3
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 597
From what most of my accounts have told me is that Sirius seems to sound like an average MP3 recording while XM sounds noticeably better.
Evidently XM uses a different type of compression that many people say sounds better.
I use XM & am quite happy with it's SQ but have never listened to Sirius so I cannot comment on how it compares personally.
Evidently XM uses a different type of compression that many people say sounds better.
I use XM & am quite happy with it's SQ but have never listened to Sirius so I cannot comment on how it compares personally.
02-20-2006, 11:06 AM
#4
0 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17
I have XM Radio, using it for almost 3 months.
I don't like it because its really distracting to use and drive. I only use it when I'm the passenger lol.
sound quality is pretty good. I honestly think its comparable to CD quality. Everyone who has heard it says they can't tell the difference.
I don't like it because its really distracting to use and drive. I only use it when I'm the passenger lol.
sound quality is pretty good. I honestly think its comparable to CD quality. Everyone who has heard it says they can't tell the difference.
02-20-2006, 06:37 PM
#7
Has anyone compared the direct feed vs. the FM modulated set-up? By direct feed I mean the units that send the signal directly to the Sirius or XM-ready head units without the modulator.
I heard that the FM modulated set-up compromises the sq quite a bit but the direct feed gives you CD quality results. I have not heard either myself.
I heard that the FM modulated set-up compromises the sq quite a bit but the direct feed gives you CD quality results. I have not heard either myself.
02-20-2006, 11:52 PM
#9
500 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 718
i've been using XM for a couple of months now...sq is fine by me (for radio standards), but when i want to listen to some really good stuff i still put in a CD. i just use the XM so i don't have to worry about bringing CD's with me all the time or changing them....either way, it sure beats an FM station.
02-21-2006, 12:58 AM
#10
While i love satallite, I have to agree that neither service is very good on the sq side. I couldn't live with sirius, but it sure wouldn't hurt if they had double the bandwidth rather then keep jamming channels in there, degrading the quality. I don't know how someone could say xm sounds better. I have the xm alpine box running off a 9855 at work and some channels, like squizz, etc sound so distorted i can hardly stand to listen to them there.
