4 ms·
The whole stream (all channels combined) is only 1.5Mbps? Yikes. I knew it was bad - but not that bad. I reluctantly pay for XM. I enjoy some of the talk ra
by rplst8 12y ago
The whole stream (all channels combined) is only 1.5Mbps? Yikes. I knew it was bad - but not that bad.
I reluctantly pay for XM. I enjoy some of the talk radio stations, but the music quality is sub-par. That said, if I had a $1 for every person that said they loved XM and thought it sounded great, I could buy... well not much but many people I've talked to think the SQ is great.
I think it's worse than: CDs, MP3s over 128kbps, cassette tapes, vinyl records, 8 tracks, and FM. They only think that it's maybe better than in terms of SQ is AM radio, but it still suffers from loads of high frequency distortion that is maddening - especially if you have a high end car stereo. AM doesn't try to be something it's not - there is a roll off starting around 4 kHz, but it's fine for talk radio and music just sounds dull, which is fine. XM sounds "bright" in that it has HF content, but it's distorted and "warbley" for lack of a better word. It sounds like the the HF is passed through a filter of moving water or a fan or something.
- joezydeco 12y agoI don't recall if it was 1.5mbit for both ensembles or if it was 1.5mbit each (there are actually two data streams that are broadcast by the two satellites to give redundancy and time/space diversity). There's also forward error correction built into the data. The "warbly" stuff is the artifacing in the AAC decoder. That's how compressed the stuff is. I can hear it and it drives me nuts. Many can't. Protip: two of the best quality channels are the Preview channel (of course) and the classical music one.