Opinions on SiriusXM stereo sound

Of the channels I regularly listen to (First Wave, 80s, 70s, Bridge, Beatles, Ozzy, 60s) the stereo separation is poor to non-existent. I know there won't be anything close to normal stereo on these compressed channels wrt spacious sound but at least they can make a token effort to have things come from mostly one channel. The Beatles and the 60s channels have ping pong stereo songs and you do get a sense these songs may not be mono. However, this is far from the stereo you get from FM or even AM.

I may just be an audio snob and I'm putting this out to see if I'm alone here. Thanks.

To me the lack of stereo separation is the least of SiriusXM's audio problems, but I agree with what you say.

I drove the same car for over a decade so when I finally bought a car with satellite radio a year ago I was actually shocked at how horrible it sounded ... like a 32kbps mp3 file or worse. Over time I've learned to live with it, probably because I don't expect much now.

IMO, we live in a world where people's expectations of audio and video are so low that anything goes. They listen exclusively to mp3 files and are fine with Skype quality and YouTube video production. So if they get into the car and there's sound coming out of the speakers ... it's all good!

wadio said:

IMO, we live in a world where people's expectations of audio and video are so low that anything goes. They listen exclusively to mp3 files and are fine with Skype quality and YouTube video production. So if they get into the car and there's sound coming out of the speakers ... it's all good!

Click to expand...

You speak the truth! The audio quality complainers are a noisy minority, most of whom are hooked on the content and remain subscribers anyway. That's the true bottom line at SXM. If it were hemorrhaging paid subscribers over stereo separation or other audio issues, you can be sure Wall Street would have noticed and SXM would be doing something about the issue. But management long ago identified its keys to attracting and retaining subscribers (commercial-free music, celebrity-branded exclusive programming, a deep sports and talk lineup ... and Howard Stern), and improving audio quality has never been among them.

So true. This has been brought up before on other threads and other boards. All Sirius cares about is quantity, not quality. There are so many channels I can do without, but yes I do like the commercial free music, Howard Stern and some of the sports. However I have used the sound quality on their receivers as an excuse in cancelling my subscription every year come renewal time, but they always make me an offer to keep it. I also have in addition to a receiver their internet subscription which includes their smartphone app. And if you have that and can use it in your car or at home there's a day and night difference in sound quality compared with the receivers.

I have been recording Chris Carter's show on The Beatles Channel on a Nexus unit. When I play it back the audio is thin and the stereo separation is weak. No problem with the service on the Internet. I guess most people dont care about the audio quality on XM,but the difference between the satellite and on line is striking.




P

The only reason I listen to XM (the radio in my Chevy Equinox is XM only) is the dynamic range isn't screwed up like it is on FM. The stereo is barely there and the artifacts are barely palatable but it isn't Optimuddied up the way every FM station is.

And if I'm going to listen online via my iPhone I might as well hear high bitrate files or Pandora or IHeart.

There was some discussion a long time ago about "parametric stereo" vs. real stereo. Parametric stereo sucks - you might as well be listening to AM in mono for the sound quality you get. As for Howard Stern - I subscribed to XM, not Sirius, so I wouldn't be supporting him. Then the merger happened. Anybody who joked about the sexual characteristics of corpses at Columbine doesn't deserve to be on the radio - anywhere.

CTListener said:

You speak the truth! The audio quality complainers are a noisy minority, most of whom are hooked on the content and remain subscribers anyway. That's the true bottom line at SXM. If it were hemorrhaging paid subscribers over stereo separation or other audio issues, you can be sure Wall Street would have noticed and SXM would be doing something about the issue. But management long ago identified its keys to attracting and retaining subscribers (commercial-free music, celebrity-branded exclusive programming, a deep sports and talk lineup ... and Howard Stern), and improving audio quality has never been among them.

Click to expand...

There is a danger, though, in providing an inferior product. The "audio snobs" and "noisy minority" comments aside - how many people have never bothered to subscribe to Sirius XM in the first place because that demo period they got in the car proved to them that the audio is so bad it isn't worth it. People are not subscribing in the numbers they hoped for. Howard Stern, other talk, or sports in wideband stereo is not likely to impress anyone. But when music is poor quality, with no stereo separation - and the car is equipped with decent or high end audio - the shortcomings of Sirius XM are going to be very apparent compared to over the air radio, especially if they happen to land on an HD station (not assuming any consumer knows anything about HD or cares). Or they hook up their music player. Sirus XM is going to sound like garbage in comparison, nobody is going to be impressed by the audio. Especially if their car audio is Bose, or whatever the car company has hooked up with. If I had over the air content or music player or Pandora content I liked, the audio from Sirius XM would not be compelling. The are losing the marketplace and not even knowing or considering why! If I were them, I would cut the bandwidth and stereo on talk and sports channels - they don't need it - and boost it on the most popular channels.

I have also suspected for a long time that bandwidth is varying because their aging satellites are failing, and their bandwidth varies from day to day. One day - something like the 60's or 70's sounds OK, some separation apparent. The next day, it is muffled, mono. If their satellite was in great shape, we wouldn't be getting varying quality from day to day.

Where did you get the idea that sports channels are in "wideband stereo"? I believe all the play-by-play is streamed at 24 kbps maximum. It sounds shrill and distorted on a normal day, even worse during "overlap seasons" when you have all four major sports going on at the same time. SXM conserves bandwidth on most news/talk/sports channels and, crassly, on the afterthought Canadian channels (which are only there so SXM can do business in Canada, so nobody there in NYC gives a crap that the Canadian music channels are in low-bandwidth mono). Letting the sports contracts expire would certainly free up more bandwidth for music, but sports is a selling point AND SXM sells advertising (mostly financial and health hucksters, but advertising nonetheless) on the sports channels, while the music channels -- other than the two still programmed by iHeartRadio -- are commercial-free, so there's really no incentive for SXM to do that.

Again, the suits have obviously done their research and concluded that audiophiles -- both in their subscriber base and in the potential subscriber base -- are outliers and wackos, and the average American (and Canadian) will put up with the bare minimum in audio quality so long as they find the programming worth paying for. Remember what Mencken said about the American public! It's still very true today.