XM over Sirius?

jcaut

Does anyone know--or perhaps someone from Polk will answer-- why Polk chose to develop an XM tuner and not a Sirius tuner? I'm just curious, is all. Wondering if it was for sound quality reasons or other.

I know that XM is bigger and until recently the subscriptions were a little less. I've listened to both on generally bad-sounding OEM car systems, but it seems to me that XM sounds a little better. I think I've read that they use a tad less compression, higher bitrate or whatnot.

Jason

steveinaz

Don't know the answer to the first question, but I'm about ready to ****-can XM on my main system. Just can't stand the aweful fidelity--especially since I finally got my source ironed-out and sounding great. Next to my CD/DAC combo it sounds like am radio, and I'm finding I use it less and less. I will keep 1 radio activated for the patio system though. Through a low-end receiver/bookshelves it sounds fine.

speakergeek

Yeah, I've wondered that myself. Is there an obvious difference in sound quality between XM vs. Sirius?

mantis

I think it's up to the times with sound quality. The failure of SACD and DVD AUDIO in the market , Ipod being the hugest thing since Tivo, bad sounding Xm or Sirius is natural. People love both formats. Polk makes the best sounding radio of both formats. But no Howard Stern on XM. I say choose not by sound quality but by service.

bobman1235

No Howard Stern on XM is kind of a selling FEATURE for me. How you can make as many millions as he has by having hte same freaking show every day I will never know.

polksda

When I first compared XM to Sirius from a sound quality perspective, I found XM to be clearly better. Sirius had a sibilant "hiss" on a lot of the music stations, and I found the MPEG compression to be very noticible.

That was early on, shortly after both came out, so I don't know if Sirius has gotten better. I do know that XM "allocates" different amounts of bandwidth to different channels; unfortunately "The Boneyard" gets shortchanged in that equation, which pisses me off. The dynamics on that channel are severely curtailed compared to other XM music channels...

jcaut

Well, personally, once my "free" year of XM is up (new GM vehicle) I won't have to worry about it. It's neat and all that, but I'm just not willing to pay for it. 200 channels, or whatever, and there's maybe 3 or 4 that I'd ever listen to.

I was just curious as to why Polk chose XM.

Jason

amulford

I have both. I've found XM's SQ to be much better, I attribute that to the receiver (and that's not favoritism, just fact). XM's transmission uses a variable rate bitstream, while Sirius uses a fixed rate w/ a little more compression.

I also think Sirius has better programming in some respects, such as their older rock genre. Both have their good and bad points, neither are true audiofile choices, but do make for good "filler" tunes. The no commercials aspect is the real winner IMO.

I think, as it was explained to me by Al Ballard, Polk chose XM for a couple of reasons. One was the quality of their broadcast, but the bigger reason was because of the marketshare. At that time XM had something like a 2/3 margin, so which market would you target?

Edit: Oh yeah, BTW, I asked if they would make a Sirius tuner and the answer was no. It would be a conflict of interest, so they will not be doing it. I am thinking about trying the Kenwood tuner for Sirius, just for S & G's, but I have a feeling it won't be anywhere near as good. (Now THAT was blatant **** smooching )

ohskigod

I would say they chose XM because they have more subscribers, hence a bigger market.

aaharvel

nevermind.

madmax

steveinaz wrote:

Don't know the answer to the first question, but I'm about ready to ****-can XM on my main system. Just can't stand the aweful fidelity--especially since I finally got my source ironed-out and sounding great. Next to my CD/DAC combo it sounds like am radio, and I'm finding I use it less and less. I will keep 1 radio activated for the patio system though. Through a low-end receiver/bookshelves it sounds fine.

Although not as good as CD I don't mind the quality on most stations. Just wondering, is yours a Polk XRT-12 or one of the portables?
madmax

speakergeek

Took the XM plunge thanks to Polk's XRt-12 (my christmas gift to me ). Sounds real good. Glad I did it. Some stations are very close to CD quality (classical and jazz), while others aren't. Overall it sounds better than I thought it would.

Cheers

hydrobud

I would say they chose XM because they have more subscribers, hence a bigger market.

BINGO!!

i think the most important thing would be content..if it sounds a little better with **** content then i would go with the lesser quality.i signed with sirius when howard made the annoucement.i bought a lifetime membership for the price of a 5 yr subscription,i figure he's there for at least 5 years and so am i.

shack

I'll be signing up for XM after the first of the year...I'll give it a year and see if I like it.

bobman1235 wrote:

No Howard Stern on XM is kind of a selling FEATURE for me.

My thoughts exactly...I didn't listen to this assclown when it was free...I'm sure not going to pay for the "privilege" :rolleyes:

speakergeek

bobman1235 wrote:

No Howard Stern on XM is kind of a selling FEATURE for me. How you can make as many millions as he has by having hte same freaking show every day I will never know.

Ditto that for me! I doubt there's little, if any, difference in sound quality between XM vs Sirius. In both cases some stations are going to sound real good and some won't.

scubamike

Just got my xrt-12 yesterday and like most people are saying, some stations sound great while others sound pretty poor. All in all I'm very happy with it though. Merry Christmas everyone!

steveinaz

madmax wrote:

Although not as good as CD I don't mind the quality on most stations. Just wondering, is yours a Polk XRT-12 or one of the portables?
madmax

I have the XRt12. The tuner is wonderful, it's the SQ of the XM transmission IMO.

I love the concept and programming on XM, just don't like the sound quality of most of my favorite channels. I also don't like companies that raise the price of their service, but don't raise the quality---I've had enough of that.

madmax

steveinaz wrote:

...just don't like the sound quality of most of my favorite channels.

Have you tried anything other than the Disco and Rap channels?

madmax

steveinaz

lol! of course not. No, seriously I'm a classic rock fan and 46 sounds like ****. I do like 71 (Jazz) and it sounds really good---just a shame about the inconsistency of the channels. 20, 22, 71, all sound pretty good and if the rest sounded this good I may reconsider, but as it stands, after my stint this time, XM is gone in the main system.

hydrobud

steveinaz wrote:

lol! of course not. No, seriously I'm a classic rock fan and 46 sounds like ****. I do like 71 (Jazz) and it sounds really good---just a shame about the inconsistency of the channels. 20, 22, 71, all sound pretty good and if the rest sounded this good I may reconsider, but as it stands, after my stint this time, XM is gone in the main system.

they do sell terk anttenas that is suppose to enhance the signal.supposively you can hook it up anywhere outside the house and get an excellent signal.
i just pick one up for my sirius.ill let you know how it works out.

steveinaz

I get excellent reception, all 4 bars all the time.

Polk Audio

Hey guys -- I'm new here -- anyway, after listenng to
XM programming for an hour or two -- technically it's fine ...
but even the blues & jazz channels got no soul.

I'm sendin the gizmo back.

(That;s itt in anutshell)

speakergeek

steveinaz wrote:

I get excellent reception, all 4 bars all the time.

I think the XRT12 only goes up to three bars for best reception. Four is REALLY good. :eek:

steveinaz

In the "antenna aiming" menu you've got 4 bars for signal strength...

madmax

Polk Audio wrote:

Hey guys -- I'm new here -- anyway, after listenng to
XM programming for an hour or two -- technically it's fine ...
but even the blues & jazz channels got no soul.

I'm sendin the gizmo back.

(That;s itt in anutshell)

So you don't like the programming I take it? It is my understanding that they have some of the best DJ's in the given groups of music but I have not been overly impressed, although the music itself seems to be a good mix. I find song after song that I really like but I'm not really a jazz guy. Give it a few days...
madmax

FicmanS

I have Sirius, my Dad has XM... So I've had some experience with both, to be honest sound quality is about the same I think... My Dad's rig does circles around mine, XM sounds pretty good on it for sure...

I think Sirius's programing suits my needs better, NFL Games Rock... Stern to come, works for me anyways...

I think Sirius sounds great on my rig, gets turned on everynight at my house...

Mike682

I don't know if it was just that XM just has better product stocking capabilities than Sirius, but it appears Sirius has sold a ton of radios this Christmas (probably because of Howard).

I was in both Best Buy and Circuit City looking to spend my gift certificates. In both places, the Sirius displays were empty, where the XM displays still had plenty of stock...CC still had plenty of Roady2 XM radios (among others)which are selling for only $17.49!!

dorokusai

Apparently FM is FREE or as my local FM station likes to label it.... FREE FM.

I'm not sure about you, but I always knew FM was free....because I'm not a moron. I also heard on the grapevine that something called AM and Shortwave was available....interesting. This "FREE" thing has me captivated.

Keep grasping for that last breath of air FM....see you on the other side.

madmax

I'm actually into AM and shortwave. It is free and worth every penny. FM, well, after getting XM I realize FM only plays the crappiest stuff. Why is that???
madmax

PS: My favorite shortwave is 5070. It's a somewhat radical channel. Very entertaining. Sorry, I can't think of the call letters right now. Lots of stuff on survivalism and investing in gold. Lots of religious stuff too but I'm not much into that.

shack

What is the old saying...."you get what you pay for". FM is fine if you like "canned programing" which is 50% BS, 40% advertising and 10% crappy music. There is always AM which has a slightly better mix of 60% "talk radio" and 40% advertising. It seems like everytime I find a FM station that plays a decent mix of good music they have a format change to 'Earl radio" playing the most awful mix of music immaginable. I am getting to the point that "pay to play" radio is attractive.

mlhm5

jcaut wrote:

Does anyone know--or perhaps someone from Polk will answer-- why Polk chose to develop an XM tuner and not a Sirius tuner? I'm just curious, is all. Wondering if it was for sound quality reasons or other.

I know that XM is bigger and until recently the subscriptions were a little less. I've listened to both on generally bad-sounding OEM car systems, but it seems to me that XM sounds a little better. I think I've read that they use a tad less compression, higher bitrate or whatnot.

Jason

That happend BHS (before Howard Stern)