Hardware

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Satellite radio scam

0 helpful
49 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Satellite radio, has taken off somewhat in part due vehicle manufacturer's installing satellite receivers in new vehicles.

So lets say that you buy a new car and upgrade the stereo to premium component system with satellite radio, sounds like your in for some pretty high end sound doesn't it?

Unfortunately, you'd be better off downloading the lowest bitrate you could find for your i-Pod and playing it back through the FM radio modulator.

Satellite radio has been excused from showing actual bitrates of digital music broadcasts, and luckily so. If people knew that the bitstream was such substandard quality, who in their right mind would invest in a Satellite radio system and actually pay a monthly fee for the lowest quality broadcast music available to date?

With M3 downloads being a poorly compressed/lossy reproduction of the original, where does satellite radio compare?
A good MP3 weighs in at 320kbps, the average from i-Tunes (and most popular with kiddies) is 128kbps (ya its quite sad I know, I know).;(

Satellite radio in comparison, varies throughout the day, as traffic is busier bandwidth is reduced. The AVERAGE bitrate of Satellite radio is 48kbps, with a high being around 96kbps.

Hang on, that's less than the crappiest sounding MP3'S?

Morover that is a GOOD bitrate for satellite, with many broadcasts during higher use times, such as rush hour, offering as low as 34kbps (which is suitable for news and talk radio but nowhere near a reasonable standard for audio).

So, now mankind has evolved from appreciating 1441kbps music, down to 320kbps, to 128kbps and now millions actually [b]pay[/b] for 34kbps!

Shakespear once said, if music be teh food of love, play on.

Little did he know that sonic quality would become obsolete as people's ears slowly got used to accepting the hyper-compressed, lossy formats of today.

Satellite seems to have become the modern day Bose of the marketing world. People listing to marketing and believe they are hearing what they really aren't.

There have been lawsuits over XM advertising "digital quality" with that being interpreted as meaning "high quality", in actuality "digital clarity" simply refers to "static free" and is not in relation to the broadcast quality of the music itself.

49 replies

by gsg

It came free in my car for three months. I tried listening to it, but the quality was poor, and there were commercials. Now, if I'm paying for a service, I don't want commercials! Plus, the programming was awful.

Nope, I'll stick to radio, CDs, and MP3s.

by charliespencer

That's like saying a car is a rip-off if it doesn't have the same handling as a sports car or the same ride as a luxury car. If all I do is go to and from the grocery, it's good enough.

If I'm paying for satellite radio so I can hear talk or sports programming, I'm not going to want to load to an MP3 player and play back. That sticks me with yesterday's programming for today's drive. Downloading also doesn't work if I live my life on the road with no computer or way to download, or if I flat out just don't want spend time loading an MP3 player for something I'm never going to listen to again. Satellite also provides consistent programming across the country without having to search for new radio stations to continue hearing the game when the old one fade out, assuming there's a station in my new location carrying that game. I want to hear the programming now, live. Sound quality isn't as much of an issue for me with talk programming, and it certainly isn't the be-all and end-all when choosing a distribution medium. The content being discussed is more important to me. Not everyone listens to music, Shakespeare.

Disclaimer: I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I don't listen to satellite radio, either music or talk, and don't listen to much music in any format. I'm addicted to NPR and MRN.

by oz_media

It is marketed as superior quality. Juts like the old Vista Capable stuff, where it is loosely applied but heavily marketed.

Sure it offers better clarity, but it does not offer better quality, than FM. Just like AM radio offers better musical quality in MONO format than FM Stereo does, its just harder to tune in cleanly.

Marketing digital radio as being superior to FM radio is a scam.

by charliespencer

They're relative terms.

If my definition of 'superior' and 'quality' includes being able to drive from NYC to LA listening to the same programming without having to scan for a new frequency, or having more 'station' choices than are available locally, or access to programming no FM or AM station anywhere carries, then I may feel it's superior to FM. If my definition doesn't include the bit rate, or the accuracy of the sound coming from the speakers as compared to the live original production, I'm good to go.

See previous disclaimer.

by shoephone

It's part of the Total Roadtrip Experience. You get to see what's available locally and laugh (and cry!).

But seriously, my car is so old it has a tape player. I play old crappy tapes from the '80s on my roadtrips. They sound just great at any bitrate.

by slayer_

Some parts of the day its alright, and for older music stations its fine cause I guess older music doesn't suffer to bad from compression. But on a metal station, it sounds terriable, almost all forms of tone are lost and it sounds like a beating hissing noise. I intend to cancel my satelite radio and use my mp3 player with FM transmitter, as I am now doing for the majority of the time. That plus the rather poor choice of station/song mixes for my interests and that now some stations, especially the comedy stations, now contain ad's. The comedy stations, actually play more ad's than comedy acts.

But this explains why it was so much better before, I was an earily adopted, the sound quality used to be really good.

by oz_media

Used to be BETTER, but not 'good' from an audio standpoint. In fact the older systems were less busy and were broadcast around 96kbps, compared to the most heavily compressed MP3 being 128kbps, that doesn't say too much for them though.

As for the metal, I am a lossless or nothing guy. NOTHING is allowed to change my metal!

\m/\m/

by slayer_

In my Beater car with its terriably terriable speakers, when it was at its best quality you couldn't notice, but at its worst, it almost highlights it to the point that its no longer music but rather just hissing sounds and different pitches. They might as well just broadcast in 8bit mono sound. In my good car with the good sound system, I have always noticed it and prefer to just listen to CD's and MP3's which are comparativly much higher quality. The speakers aren't good enough to notice a difference between 160kbps MP3's and CD music unless you listen really hard. Unlike my awesome computer speakers of which you've seen, then even 320kpbs sounds washed out compared to the CD's.

by oz_media

I was looking at Sirius radio ads, the US website states, "the best radio on radio" which is borderline but is just a sensational statement, not a claim of superior quality. The Canadian Sirius website makes no such claims of clarity, improved sound or anything, just a focus on the music. the funny part is that they have an FM lookup, so you can find your local station on Sirius as well.

If out of town, I prefer local radio anyway, but why would I CHOOSE satellite of my local stations as opposed to listening to the FM version which is more than 10X the bitrate quality?

Hey, this sounds too good, I think I'll try it on Sirius instead. doh!

As for your own audio choices, I've seen your PC system and have heard your appreciation for audio before, I know everyone doesn't prefer low grade garbage but out ability to accept it as a standard leaves us in the dark. Especially when they have already stepped it up for other nations in the world and we just sit and look like uncultured idiots who will accept what the the industry throws at us.

by mjd420nova

I guess that for some, poor quality of sound and crappy reception isn't a factor. The big selling point was that you could listen to one station all the way across the country while on a long trip. Lousy reception was my biggest gripe, every overpass, underpass and soundwall corridor made for skips and blanking out that became very annoying. I enjoy tuning the AM band as I travel, picking up local broadcasts as I approach different cities to get local news and traffic info. Late at night I enjoyed picking up clear channel stations from thousands of miles away. And paying for something that is far below any standard is worse than listening to MP3's when I can burn my own .WAV music to a CD and have a complete library of what I want to listen to.

by jiminpa

I think my Sirius receiver I got stock in my Focus sounds pretty darn good. I also have my iPod linked through the sync system and I can tell the difference. It all sounds pretty crisp to me.

by oz_media

When you subscribe to Sirius, you can get UP TO 128kbps, which is probably the same as most tracks you throw on the i-Pod.

To be a real dick, 'Crisp' is not an audio term, however it is very often used by consumers to describe what is actually sibilance or forward high end, this is a result of over compression.

Sibilance/shrill or forward high end, is what a quality manufacturer seeks to avoid, it is too coloured and fatiguing.

DETAIL is best but without it being sibilant or 'crisp' sounding. Its a fine line that audio engineers and especially speaker manufacturer's spend many man hours tryign to avoid.

However, as some of my previous posts on compressed music have illustrated, people are becoming deaf to high quality music these days. To the point that over compressed MP3's sound 'just as good' to many people now.

If you ever gave your ears a treat and started listening to really high end audio recordings on decent sources, you would soon be completely disgusted with what you have been accepting a good music.

Even I've done it, I went through a phase in the early 90's when I was on the road a lot and started listening to bands demo tracks that I converted to MP3's to listen to on the go instead of sitting down and taking the time to conducts a proper, critical listening test.

It got to the point that I didn't mind Mp3, at 256kbps+ (definitely couldn't do 128 though).

Then I found FLAC, which is nicer that WAV but still not quite the full bitrate. compressed without being lossy. After listening to FLAC for a while, anything less than 320kbs sounded like it was made in a washing machine.

now that I work in the high end/custom audio field again, I can't listen to Mp3's at all, they just make me cringe. Even CD recordings off the shelf sound like crap for the most part, with modern engineering losing all quality and reducing costs due to the fact that people don't care anymore and just want to throw it in an i-Pod and hear it through piss-poor earbuds.

But the concept of buying a new car, or new stereo and PAYING to have something that is lower quality than AM radio pumped into it, on a monthly subscription, just makes me shake my head in disappointment.

We have remarkable microphone and recording technology at our fingertips, one would think this means we would have a more sophisticated sense of audio and a more critical ear. However the absolute opposite has occured to teh point that recording engineers hypercompress music in order to make it sound acceptable to people with i-Pods these days. Even as an MP3 player, i-pod lacks compared to others, there is no sound management, poor volume, unable to reproduce the frequency range (even with earphones?!?!?)etc.

I do have an mp3 player, for riding around Stanley Park, tunes when dirtbiking etc. But even then I only use FLAC files and the Samsung Yepp touch face is light years ahead of Apple as far as sound quality and control is concerned.

Apple is almost as good as BOSE when it comes to out marketing others while still offering a substandard product.

by jiminpa

Because that is over my head. I am not an audiophile so I guess most of that is lost on me. My biggest gripe is, Satellite radio is like cable... 160 channels and there is nothing on.

:D

by jmgarvin

Needless to say, we let it expire. Not only did we drop signal constantly, there were areas in downtown SF where there was 0 signal for blocks.

Oh and why would I pay for radio to listen to commercials? I can get that on free radio, thanks.

by oz_media

First of all a cross country drive would not usually have me listening to radio, unless it was local radio to get local info as I pass through a town, which I like to do sometimes as well. so the whole, you can cross the line without changing channels is useless to me, and most other people who use it to justify a monthly bill for low quality radio.

In a major journey, IF I was driving and not flying, I'd have my own music in tow. I rerecord all of my CD's for playback in my truck, I play with the mix to ensure I don't have holes in my music due to the head unit or speakers not being able to reproduce sound as I prefer it. Example, there is a gap somewhere between 7Hz and 12kHz that I colour in to bring it up to normal listening levels.

When all else fails, Fm takes over. I find driving through a different city and checking out their Fm stations is actually pretty cool. You get to hear THEIR gossip news radio, people's views and accent form a new area etc.

I had a new Explorer to drive around a while back and it had satellite radio, it sucked SOOOOOOOO bad I drove 149kms back home to pick up CD's before continuing my journey.

I have never heard such a poor quality broadcast before, and scanning through dozens stations, never did find one that I wanted to hear for more than one song. I don't get off on sports, and there were dozens of sports stations, news was insane! there were loads of Us news stations, nothing of even remote interest to me, and the rock and metal stations had the worst broadcast I'd heard.

When I gave the truck back, the sales rep was looking at my older Explorer and we found the only feature in the brand new, fully loaded, Explorer Limited Edition, that mine didn't have was satellite radio, thus I still drive mine. :D

He tried to convince me that satellite radio was the best sounding radio available, but when I explained how FM broadcast quality is around the equivalent of 752kbps (half an actual CD bitrate) he soon realized he couldn't sell me the hype without facts to support it.

by oz_media

I have always been on for the legal hair splitting too, your analogies are accurate but completely dismiss the focus behind my post.

It is an issue of musical quality. The musical quality of satellite radio is below the 'garbage' standard. It is so poor, is rife with ads, does NOT offer anything i can't get locally and the quality of the broadcast is pure crap.

Scan or Sham, you take your pick. Is it illegal advertising, not really but no more so than people's arguments about anythign else marketed to be what it isn't, thus my BOSE comparison.

Split hairs if you will, I always do from a legal standpoint. Fact is, people are being mislead and pay more money for a service that is substandard to what is broadcast for free, while under the guise of high quality reproduction.

Ask around, ask a few people with satellite if it is better "quality" than FM and then have them explain what quality is. I promise you that VERY few will actually say it implies there is no static and most will say that it is better sounding because it is "digital" (the old speaker sales scam).

by charliespencer

I won't disagree with you on the position of having to listen to advertising on something I'm already paying for.

As to not offering anything you can't get locally, Howard Stern leaps immediately to mind. Many major college sports have their own channel so fans can listen anywhere in the country; try getting Notre Dame football in SC without it. I could get NPR or a NASCAR race anytime I wanted regardless of my location.

I won't disagree with comparing it to Bose, but again, quality is in the ear of the credit card holder. A local seafood restaurant pumps in a Jimmy Buffet station as background music. Yes, it would be cheaper to download it all once and put a player on random, but that's their choice. With cheap speakers the sound quality is going to suck regardless of the source, but it's a restaurant, not a concert hall.
It gives them the ambiance they want as a seafood joint.

You want misleading? Go off on the auto ads. If I'm not supposed to drive that way, then build it that way? The cost of unnecessary engineering for illegal capabilities is passed along to the buyer. THERE'S a rip-off, paying for something I'm not supposed to do, then rubbing my nose it in the adverts.

I won't use satellite radio because I'm not buying equipment for a service that won't be around in five years. That's a business reason, not an audio- or content-driven one.

by oz_media

Howard Stern is to me, teh biggest loser on the air besides Vancouver's brother Jake. he's not funny, he's not amusing, he's not informative, he's not entertaining unless you like fart jokes and grade school innuendos. I don't listen to or watch sports, I play sports when I feel so inclined, I'm not n armchair quarterback though. I DON'T EVEN WATCH HOCKEY!!!!! (shhhh, I shouldn't say that so loud)

As for music, satellite doesn't even come remotely close to touching on FM broadcasts, custom mixed CD's beat satellite even further.

I have done this with friends and have proven it time and time again. We'll listen to low bitrate/compressed CD's from a friend's car while driving along the highway, sounds great until....I then pop in a properly recorded lossless CD and they instantly hear a major difference and stop throwing 129kb MP3's in their system.

We have dumbed down our ears and now the music producers and broadcasters have dumbed down THEIR work because the bar keeps getting set lower and lower. Pretty soon they'll be able to release midi based music in a gift card that people think sounds great.

simply put, in a world where we CAN be doing so much better, we choose to settle for less.

Now that also leads to cars, thanks for bringing THAT into the picture for me, great segue!

In Great Britain, Ford makes 10 sub compact cars, each with an endless list of motor choices and options, all VERY efficient, VERY good on gas, VERY tight handling, great fit and finish, interior styling etc. all very well done and with great care.

In North America, Ford build two subcompacts, with two engines that are inefficient, poor quality, wasteful as all hell, poor interior fit and finish, poor materials, low quality single or even double layer paint, etc.

Why?

Because North American consumers want cheap and are willing to sacrifice quality, which nobody here seems to really desire, over price.

Don't blame an industry for building crap when that same industry builds top quality products elsewhere, the industry is meeting consumer demand.

Like low quality crap music? Great we'll sell it to you instead of that quality free stuff you currently listen to. Sure we can do that, especially seeing as it costs next to nothing and you pay monthly for it.

Like poorly built subcompact cars that cost a mint to keep running after 5 years? We can build that too.

Even satellite radio in great Britain is better than satellite radio out here, DAB+ is double the quality that their US affiliates offer, Same company, different market demands, different market quality.

Better cars, better engineering, better cellular network, better digital TV quality, better internet speeds, better satellite radio.

Why? These are the exact same companies that service OUR markets too, why can't they offer us what they offer 'them'?

Because people here settle for less and are happy being sold and buying into media BS that others simply laugh at and demand better.

by slayer_

I can see its use for semi truck drivers and such, but ATM, the quality is so bad that some of my favorite metal songs are just fuzz and pitched Hhaaa sounds. Did you listen to the manditory metalic, in middle of night it sounded good, during day, dear god you could barely make out the song that was playing.

by oz_media

While one, Sirius, states it is the "best radio on radio" and the other states "Everything worth listening to is now on XM" they certainly don't push the distance issue as a selling feature. I suppose they find most people can find a local station with better quality music on FM. Their only claim to fame is that you can hear anything you can hear elsewhere. Okay, so they play the same stuff, great!

The best radio on radio, well we know it isn't based on quality, as satellite is about 0.1% the equivalent bitrate of an FM broadcast. 10% as good as FM? Wonder why they don't market on that premise?

Everything worth listening to is now on XM, again ignoring that the quality of everything worth listening to is about 0.1% as good as it sounds on FM (actually its less than one tenth of a percent).

So I don't care where it is, if I have run out of my own music, I'll tune in local FM.
Different, local DJ's are always interesting to listen to.

by slayer_

I might be able to put up with it, but shitty quality coupled with ad's and lack of good stations (to my tastes) spell its doom for me. However my father pays for it, and he could never understand, he even bought the "boom box" attachment for it that just mounts really nice speakers to it, and during the day it's ok, but in the evenings, it sounds terrible, like its a million miles away.

by slayer_

I love Midis on my old machine with its SB16 AWE64, they sound perfect and often better than the Wav counterpart. Midi's would definitly be a step forwards from the crap shoved down our throats now.

by oz_media

It IS the same crap that's shoved down our throats these days.

they use do do multitracks on DAT (hey, it's the latest and greatest!), but now thee sample most multi-track stuff through midi and midi multiplexers. We can thank the rap world and the 15 minutes from recording studio to CD store turnaround for that.

They have to get it to stores in 15 minutes otherwise the rap start is a has been already. :D

Actually midi is great for sampling but terrible for sessions with multiple tracks recorded at once, such as bands acts that record as a group and not as sessionists.

It allows FAST sampling and copy, instant compression fixes to quickly pump out a full sounding bass track in seconds. Burn to disk, wrap book and package in stores in two weeks from the day they hit the studio with bed tracks.

It is THOSE BAYSTARDS that are reponsible for ruining music. Seriously, Britney Spears sings ONE song on her new live tour, ONE!!

The rest is lip synched, now if you can picture precorded, hypercompressed sound echoing in a stadium, you have seen a Britney show (and have my condolences).

What's funny is poeple see her wearing that ear piece with mike boom on it, like an At&T operator, and think she sings through it. They don't even carry voice too well, God help you trying to sing through one. Its a prop!

When she addresses the audience, she hold s a mike in her hand (the AT&T headset doesn't either? :D ). The one song she sings, some ballad about 5 songs in to her set, she also holds onto a handheld mike. So why the trendy headset? she barely even dances anymore, just wanders around and throws out a pose once in a while.

And THIS is what's happened to music.

Time to drive your Chevy to the levee and drink Whiskey and Rye with the good ole boys, because the music has died.

Long live metal, keep defending the faith.

\m/ \m/

by oz_media

My point was in other eyes, we do not appear as an advanced or cultured society.

We demand garbage and eat it up like its the best thing in life to have.

By 'WE' I don't necessarily mean you or I specifically, but the average, bottom feeding consumer who knows no better but thinks they do. This is something I used to hear from parents during Boy Scout trips in the US as a little kid, and it still stands as a cultural view all over the place today.

by the scummy one

being in one place, and then being in another. What about people who traverse large areas via auto? I totally get Palmetto's point, yes, local stations may sound better and have a higher bitrate, however they are limited in broadcast area.

In a recent trip spanning about 700 miles each way, I just put in cd's for the trip, else I would have had to flip channels many times and try to find the right station while cruising at 78.5mph (all I am admitting to). Also, some areas may not even have broadcasts as well.
In some situations, it does make sense to use such a service.

However, this does not invalidate your point about the marketing and suckering of others. I would say, on average that, you are probably right. Some peopleare just getting suckered. However, because of these suckers, people like Palmetto are paying less for their service.

2 sides of a coin ya know :D

by santeewelding

Do you think this all would disappear if I pushed the spam button, taking your cultured approach with it?

by oz_media

"however they are limited in broadcast area." It's not that I don't get Palmetto's point, its not that I don't agree, but that ISN'T the focus behind owning satellite radio for most people. again, even today people still see DIGITAL as a buzz word, anything digital or satellite MUST be better, just look at TV and how good that has become.

However, what is perceived to be superior technology and integrated into the latest, greatest audio systems in new vehicles, is actually a big step below AM radio quality and MILES below FM's dynamics.

As for moving around and retuning stations, personally I prefer to listen to local radio, if it is no good I throw on my own music, its better in my min anyway.

So just as Palmetto's argument supports the small percentage of people who travel across radio broadcast areas and wish to keep the same programming choice, there are many more who believe that Satellite radio offers superior quality than FM does.

I've heard it myself, "I prefer XM because I don't have to keep changing CD's and its the same quality!"

Complete horseshi1t and nobody says boo about it so the unknowing public just THINK they are getting something better for that extra few grand they sink into a new system, plus paying monthly for a system that doesn't even stack up to the poorest broadcast quality audio for free.

My point is, there are many many people out there who are lead to believe Satellite radio is superior quality, and it is not.

by the scummy one

and I thought I brought it up.
I stayed away from Sat Radio for several erasons, but mostly, I just couldnt find the incentive for paying for radio and more equipment. Actually, the bitrate never even popped into my head (but my decision was made in mere seconds anyway, not a long debate).

If it was not for this, I would have less knowledge about the subject completely.

As for how it is marketed, personally, I think that the marketing for many, many products is misleading. I thought there were laws against such practices, however, it seems that they are not effective anymore (or were invalidated). There have been several times that I have purchased something and felt screwed after trying the product, usually software falls into this category, so I rarely buy software anymore.

by slayer_

I got lots of old MIDI's from video games, One Winged Angel comes to mind, it sounds EXACTLY like the video game version, minus the lyrics of course. But MIDI's greatest failing is it sounds different on every piece of hardware. Ever listen to it on AC97 audio? It's terriable, once again, I love having a sound blaster card. My SBlive 24bit does a decent job with Midi's, no where near as good as my old card but certainly acceptable. It doesn't get the same "whole sound" feeling, the instruments don't blend together perfectly, they are crisper than they should be, ruining the symphoney like effect. At one time I recorded my old machine playing a MIDI file into a wav so others could hear and compare, wish i had those still, i'd post it. But files are gone and that system detonated and I can't get it too boot again. I could hook up the sound card in another system if I wanted too, except that its an ISA card.

Interestingly, the SBlive doesn't utilize the 7.1 sound in a Midi file, but on MP3 the stereo is duplicated to all other speakers. how odd...

--Edit
Found some options to improve the sound quality, almost at my oldies level now, most of my midi files sound pretty good now, some of these options brought to life new sounds I never heard before from these.

by av .

I mostly listen to talk radio and news on my commute. Sometimes music. Even though the quality isn't there for alot of the music, I think they make up for it with the variety of music and other entertainment that they offer.

It's not perfect, but for $12 a month I can hear any type of music anytime and don't have to do anything but sign up. I really hate how it cuts out if you go under a bridge or in a parking deck. Thats annoying. Still, $12 a month.

I also have it at home where I always listen to just music. Hardly ever from XM radio though. When I play XM radio on decent speakers, it sounds crappy and its always cutting out. Annoying, but I just use something else for music at home.

AV

by slayer_

It doesn't work in my garage or under a bridge, but I drove into an underground parking lot under a 20 story cement building, I was 4 floors down... perfect reception...
I don't even have it on the outside of my car, I thru it on the trunk cover under my back window.

by av .

The minute I go into any kind of parking garage, it immediately doesn't work. I think the difference might be that mine is factory installed. Hmmm.

AV

by oz_media

In times of economic hardship for many, getting ripped off with our cellular and digital TV costs, a time when gas prices are a concern for many, the rising cost of foods etc.

You seemingly don't like satellite radio much at all, but justify paying $12/mo to listen to news radio, which you feel you would not get otherwise? now I can't talk when it comes to living large and pi$$ing away money frivolously as i always have done, however I wouldn't pay for what I don't really appreciate or like that much.

or if I did, I certainly wouldn't be in a position to complain about the cost of anything else.

Doesn't dropping $150.00 a year merely on news radio bother you at all? Especially when it is the same news that's available on most other stations and just needs tuning in on longer journeys. New is news, doesn't matter who broadcasts it, its still the same news, granted it's with a spin that we are supposed to try and see through anyway.

by av .

Theres music, comedy, financial and entertainment shows. Music and news from other countries. $150 a year is a good value if you have to spend 2 hours a day in your car commuting AND you don't have to do anything but push a button. It's perfect for commuting.

When XM recently had the Led Zeppelin channel for a couple of months, I was in total heaven. I was reliving my younger days on my commute with that channel. $12 a month = worth it. If I can get content like that, I'll pay. $12 a month is nothing if you spend a good chunk of your life on the road. So no, it doesn't bother me at all.

AV

by charliespencer

I agree about Stern; I'd rather listen to static, but my point was there is content on satellite you can't get on FM. Not necessarily good, but then neither are John Boy and Billy (syndicated red-necks out of Charlotte).

You don't like sports. I don't like most of them, other than NASCAR and NFL. That doesn't mean there aren't millions of other who like baseball, college football, basketball, etc. Not everything in the world has to appeal to you or I.

My points remain: not everyone who listens to satellite radio, or even FM, is doing it to listen to music (I can't seem to express that effectively, because you keep bringing music back up); not everything on satellite is available on FM; not everything broadcast over either is available for download to an MP3 player.

More disclaimer: I listen almost exclusively to NPR at home, in the yard, at work, or in the car. Nationally, all the affiliates occupy a pretty small slice of the U.S. FM spectrum and a limited number of known frequencies, so finding another station when I travel isn't a problem. Finding a NASCAR broadcast can be a problem and I'd appreciate satellite for this, but the FM affiliate list is available on the web and I print it before I hit the road. (I print instructions before I leave too, and don't understand the desire for a GPS in the car.) I have three CDs that never leave the car; I may toss in a few more before I leave IF I remember / care, but I rarely do. Obviously my listening (and navigation) habits are my own but I wouldn't bad-mouth an entire class of technology because it doesn't do what I want, without considering if others find it useful.

by slayer_

The ones you can buy are far better, they display more information, the down side is they rely on an FM transmitter, and every semi or every one else with one always seems more powerful that yours. Also every high voltage powerline will cause static.

by oz_media

Not worth the investment. 5.1 is more than sufficient for any low end recording you'll find on DVD these days.

I work in the custom home theatre industry, 7.1 is requested for all these mutimillion dollar homes. It will be years yet before 7.1 is worth the investment and unless you have a VERY LARGE great room, you would be hard pressed to find any difference between 7.1 and 5.1, not to mention the limited media available.

As far as Midi is concerned, I wasn't really referring to the beep beeping midi or corny keyboard midi sound but the format itself. Midi is actually used for very high end studio recording too, including classical recordings, due to its ability to segregate and reproduce individual tones, more than a compressed format.

Old Atari game sounds will never become cutting edge though.

by oz_media

I am not "badmouthing" a technology or industry, I am trying to simply dispel a myth that satellite radio is a great or cutting edge format. It is sold as the best thing to happen for mobile radio, which it is not. As far as sports, sure you can get games on it, as you can with any shortwave radio with a good tuner. Just like picking up quality digital TV signals with rabbit ears.

But to market an entire format as cutting edge, a must have and selling it with new vehicles as a compliment to high end sound systems simply misleads the general public.

more channels: When Digital TV came out, it offered more channels, usually the same crap at different times and sources but a few new channels all the same. But they ALSO improved picture quality across the board, no matter if you have an HD 1080i LCD or just a 32 inch CRT TV, you still got better quality and more channels. "DIGITAL"

But they sell 'DIGITAL' under false pretenses, I bet that if I stood in a mall parking lot and asked everyone with satellite radio if it was better than FM, they'd say "Of course, it's digital!" (I know this from hearing consumer feedback anyway). But it does not mean quality, as in a CD's ability to be noise free, or a cable signal that eliminates cable noise.

Satellite radio is just much lower quality radio with better coverage.

It' snot a new premise, AM radio has great reach for suburban areas, but the mono quality doesn't appease many people (even though it is sonically superior to FM stereo).

FM came out, shorter wave but better quality stereo to please the ears with more dynamics.

Now Satellite comes out, but it is well below the AM radio capabilities.

When you buy a new Lexus, and it has a $8,000.00 system in it, satellite included, how many people do you think understand that it sits below FM or even AM as far as playback quality is concerned?

Sure it's sound great compare to the old stereo and blown speakers from the Honda, but as a format and technology, it sucks wind and is sold as cutting edge.

by oz_media

A great metal station as is CITR at University of BC, which has a great spot with a local dude here that's been around university radio forever. Funny enough I still see him at all the concerts, jean jacket with no sleeves, metal badges and pins all over, just keeping the faith alive in his own way.

They used to have a heavy university station that you'd pick up entering Tacoma,
"You're listening to K.U.M.E radio, the come spot on your dial" Only heard it a few times in the early 80's and never found it again.

by santeewelding

To an (authentic) spam post to which Scummy and I had both responded last night. No sooner had I, then it was "disappeared".

I mentioned that some of the best invective and creative writing comes of responses to the more egregious examples.

I don't imply that this thread is spam. In fact, I've been following near your every word here, and learning a great deal from what is obviously just the tip of your knowledge about the subject.

Thank you, by the way.

by boxfiddler Hot topic

a personal jab I make at my own expense, having wasted too many years trapped in addiction to have acquired 'culture'.

As you noted, a significant failing in the eyes of some. I quite understood.

by oz_media

Advertising is a fine line. Think of a modern sitcom, they constantly push the envelope to see what the FCC will let them get away with.

In the case of advertising, it works the same, pushing the envelope between misleading people and misinforming them or misrepresenting your product line is always the key issue.

At one time you couldn't say anything that would even lead to a few people getting the wrong idea, years later they are getting away with blatant misrepresentation.

Today it is just wavering line.

As long as the product isn't directly referred to as being able to perform a task it cannot, they can get away with almost anything.

In the case of satellite, they boast 'clarity', but clarity is a loosely used term that MOST people use to describe full frequency sound, detailed upper frequencies and clean, tight high range etc., meaning high end sound.

As used in Satellite radio, clarity simply means less static on the airwaves.

They are able to use terminology that is commonly used to describe one thing, but in their case means something entirely different.

Just like Vista 'Capable'. Capable is commonly seen as being able to use something effectively, but capable as used by Microsoft means simply able to install and run the operating system at its minimum level with all extended features shut off.

One of the first things I ever learned to do in sales, was to investigate competitive advertising, at 16 I was taught how to take a Future Shop ad and strip it to find the real underlying promises.

Such as "We will beat any advertised price by 5 percent*"

People would see a system in our store for $1000.00 and in FutureShop for $1025.00 so they would go back to FS and expect them to beat it by 5% of the $1025.00. (which is 51.25 LESS than we were selling it for). In actuality, Future Shop's asterisk after the 5% lead to find print which states "Of the difference". So they would only beat our price by $1.25!! And the customer was left buying from a big box outlet with no customer service and no warranty support (at that time)all to save $1.25.

Advertising, a multi-billion dollar business that people just don't spend enough time questioning, as it is targeted towards capturing them blindside. After learning about ad scams at such a young age, I learned to investigate everything much more carefully and now know what to look for in order to find out the real bottom line.

by oz_media

I average 4 hours a day minimum on the road while at work.In the summer it can be 8-10.

I take my audio seriously though and can't even handle playing MP3's in the truck, having a perfect acoustic chamber, I want to hear the best I can. A 6 CD changer and a wallet of disks keeps me going just fine, and it also is just the push of a button to control, right on my steering wheel even.

But if i was to pay for a Led Zeppelin channel, it better be in Fm or even AM, and not a terribly lossy satellite format where half of Jimmy Page's guitar notes are muted and the rest all sound the same. In fact LZ is probably the worst example of a band for such lossy music, as they recorded with all kinds of quadraphonic effects and stereo separation that is instantly lost in poor formatting.

$150.00 a year to hear low quality Led Zeppelin would make me slit my wrists, especially when I can get better for free.

For news radio I can see it, if you travel great distances, lose reception and only want to hear news from a single source.

For anything else, satellite just doesn't have a viable case.

by oz_media

Perhaps a more common example is better, hard drive speeds.

A normal CD, with quality sound usually decodes CD data (no bumps and grooves of course, it is just decoding digital data) and plays the information at rate of 1441kb per second. Think of a fast SCSI hard drive running at at 10,000 RPM.

a compressed track, MP3 for example, has a top bitrate of 320 kbps. as you can see, an MP3 cannot decode and playback as much detailed information as a standard CD can. (think of a standard IDE drive at 5400RPM) This means lossy format. An MP3 compresses the data by eliminating certain sound details, such as similar notes etc. unfortunately, the original depth of the recording is lost when the instruments blend into one big blob of similar sounds and you don't get the detail and separation needed to define different instruments, little nuances in live music etc. It is less 'dynamic'. Think of a record, with the bumps and grooves smoothed out to simplify it, you would lose separation and start to hear a muddy, blended sound instead. Compression is just more and more smoothing of the record's details.

So with the top MP3 bitrate, meaning you lose so much of the original data, and an i-Tunes song falling in an average of HALF that again (128Kbps) (now we are down to a CDROM drive speed) , you get horrific sound on an i-Pod compared to an original CD. In fact you are only getting about 10% of the information stored on the original when you listen to a 128kb mp3.

To take that a step further, satellite averages less than 40kbps! Meaning you get a TEENY fraction of the original date stored on the CD which is merely enough to recognize the song and hum along with the chorus, and that's about it.
So its like a floppy disk speed compared to the original being stored on a 10,000RPM SCSI drive.
The whole dynamic range of the music is completely lost, similar sounds are melded into one big blob of sound.

New CD = High Speed SCSI drive
Satellite radio = Floppy disk

And yet satellite is seen as the latest and greatest. Could YOU pass of a floppy disk as being superior to a SCSI hard drive?

They use buzz words that many people don't understand but relate to technology. Such as 'digital clarity'. After all if its digital it must be better, right? To many people, CD's sound better than analogue LP's. Therefore anything 'digital' must be the same.

Kinda like saying eagles fly, therefore anything that flies must be an eagle. :D

This discussion is closed to new replies.