On 1/12/12 6:49 PM, SMS wrote:
I've only had a rental car with satellite radio once, but I was amazed
at how poor satellite radio performed. There apparently is little
buffering, so if I were under an overpass for more than a few seconds
the signal would be lost. The audio quality was mediocre. Maybe
satellite radio is good for Howard Stern, but not for music. I thought
that maybe the GM car I had simply had a sound system that didn't do
satellite radio justice. I see a lot of complaints about satellite radio
signal loss and audio quality, i.e. "their quality isn't even FM Quality."

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

gr, hwh

On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better. The difference is
in coverage. HD Radio coverage is very limited on stations that have not
taken advantage of the power increase.

On 1/12/12 7:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Most stations use subchannels. There are very few stations using more
than 48 kbps. The difference between 46 and 48 kbps or something like
that will be hard to notice.
Of course the smart thing to do would be to use the digital for a second
service *only* and leave the first one on FM (for now). For instance an
owner of an AM and an FM station might simulcast the AM on the HD at 96
kbps to lure the audience over. The big saving would come when the AM
can be switched off. The FM would of course benefit when the FM goes as
well and the bandwidth goes up. A third station could be added then.


Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

Of course, but that is of no use at all for now and many years to come.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better.

Bitrates are similar, sound is similar. I tried both. There are a few
positive exceptions though, indeed some of the ones transmitting just
one service.

gr, hwh

On 1/12/2012 10:41 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/12/12 7:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Most stations use subchannels. There are very few stations using more
than 48 kbps. The difference between 46 and 48 kbps or something like
that will be hard to notice.
Of course the smart thing to do would be to use the digital for a second
service *only* and leave the first one on FM (for now). For instance an
owner of an AM and an FM station might simulcast the AM on the HD at 96
kbps to lure the audience over. The big saving would come when the AM
can be switched off. The FM would of course benefit when the FM goes as
well and the bandwidth goes up. A third station could be added then.


Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

Of course, but that is of no use at all for now and many years to come.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better.

Bitrates are similar, sound is similar. I tried both. There are a few
positive exceptions though, indeed some of the ones transmitting just
one service.

gr, hwh

48kbps is where listeners are react overwhelmingly favorable to HD. See
section 3.3.3 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf.
If you look at tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, you see that the big drop-off in
perceived quality is below 36 kbps.

Satellite radio is going well below 48kbps, down into the bit rates
where listeners are much more negative about digital audio. See
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64686. Only
two music stations are at 64kbps, most are at 24, 32, and 40 kbps.

The endless complaints about the audio quality on satellite radio
apparently do have a basis in fact. You never see any complaints about
HD audio quality.

On HD Radio, the frame of reference for comparison is FM analog radio,
and HD sounds much better than analog FM under most circumstances,
whereas on satellite radio, apparently many subscribers expected it to
compare to CD quality, maybe because they are paying so much for it.