Print Email RSS RSS  Share del.icio.us Facebook Twitter
Info and Answers
Open Letter to Sirius/XM: Sound Quality Matters
With a Sirius/XM merger on the horizon, audio expert John Caldwell says it's time for satellite radio to improve its sound.
Sirius and XM
February 26, 2007 | by John Caldwell

We became an XM family a little over a year ago. I bought my wife a boom box unit for her office and its portable tuner module moves back and forth between our two cars on weekends. But the home docking station hasn’t found its way out of the box.

Based on my sub-par ownership experience and the emotionally unsatisfying sonic performance, I was really starting to feel that XM, while useful for things likes out of town sports broadcasting and some commercial-free narrow-format channels, wasn’t part of my listening future. However, last week’s XM/Sirius merger announcement caused me to rethink my position: Maybe there’s hope for satellite “radio” yet.

My ownership experience got off on the wrong foot when I had to return the boom box unit and tuner to Delco for a modification. My wife pointed out an irritating buzz and a secondary ticking sound at low volume. As the resident audiophile, I felt ashamed. I originally demo’d the XM tuner at high volume and only for a few moments. My wife listens to music at very low volume so she won’t disturb anyone in the next Dilbert-like cubicle at work. Sure enough, there it was. Buzz, hum and ticking. A real turn off.

So I shipped the unit back for modifications once the customer service dude said “oh yeah, we know what that is. We have a mod for that.” As my upper Midwestern Norwegian friends would say, “uff dah.”

Buzzing aside, it’s been the less than advertised sonic experience that really disappoints me. How one judges the quality of HiFi gear or a recording should largely be based on emotional satisfaction. So far, satellite radio leaves me cold. Distortion free? Hardly. Especially when you use the FM modulator interface. Shortcomings include: high tension wire distortion, bleed-over from analog radio stations, an insidious “gurgling digital noise,” and signal drop outs.

But it’s the overall lack of dynamics and compressed “thin” quality of the signal that’s been the biggest turn-off. The sound is much worse than that of the first CDs back in ‘82-‘83.

Sure satellite radio’s scrolling information displays are nice. And the “rewind” feature is nifty for catching something on the news or talk radio you’ve missed while on the phone. But with all this Buck Rogers satellite technology, surely someone in charge will finally ask the ultimate question – how does it sound?

Memo to the new guys in charge at XM/Sirius or whatever you decide to call yourselves: here’s my top three ideas on how to win over myself and others who care about sound quality.

  1. Stop calling yourself radio. You don’t broadcast on radio’s electromagnetic spectrum. You don’t sound like radio. Radio, at least right now, sounds better. Radio is free. You charge a good amount of money each month and have the audacity to make people listen to commercials. You don’t feel like radio. Radio is local and connected to a place and an audience. Radio makes people show up at Comiskey Park and blow up disco records or pose naked on top of billboards just to win Loverboy tickets. You don’t have that connection and you probably never will. Call yourself something cool and different like “satellite streaming.” It would be far more honest and appropriate for this century and the new audience you must attach yourself to. Play to your strengths and stop comparing yourself to a technology that is more than 100 years old.

  2. Don’t give us 900 channels of newly combined programming. Use the extra bandwidth for a better sounding signal. Drop a few (OK lots) of the overlapping channels and give us audio geeks some well programmed channels with bigger bandwidth and less compression. We can hear the difference and we’ll gladly pay for quality over quantity.

  3. Go ahead and make a deal with Apple. The iPod will need a shot in the arm for next Christmas. Just make sure that your sound is better than MP3s or other lossy compressed-sounding codecs.

Maybe if you take this list to heart, you might just win me back and keep me from saying “uff dah” to satellite “radio” forever.

John CaldwellJohn Caldwell is a 28-year grizzled veteran of the A/V business
and co-founder of StJohn Group, Inc.




John Caldwell - Contributing Writer, St John Group, Inc
Caldwell is a 28-year grizzled veteran of the A/V business and co-founder of St. John Group, Inc.



Article Topics
What's Related
Popular Tags
Social Bookmark   less


Comments (49) Most recent displayed first.
Posted by steve preston  on  06/13/10  at  01:16 PM

I have XM and Sirius both. At times,I’m amazed at how certain songs (even on the same channel) can sound decent, while most of the rest,especially any song with symbals, just sounds awful. Not sure why that is. Maybe phase issues with different recordings.  I have seen people describe the sound of satellite radio as being better than FM,and I just have to stare at their words in dazed disbelief. What kind of FM radios do these people listen to? What satellite channel sounds even half as good as an FM station? Just because an FM station CAN sound bad due to poor reception or incorrect processing by that station,I assure you that the fidelity of that analog radio station is MUCH closer to the original song. As far as talk is concerned,AM is better. It doesn’t have that thin,over “fake sibilant” sound. I don’t know if I will continue on with satellite radio for very long. It’s that bad. Again,though…once in a while there will be a song that comes on,and it’s tolerable. Who knows why.

Posted by Jeff  on  07/31/09  at  12:49 AM

I bought a new car recently and it came with a 3 month trial for Sirius XM. I enjoy the music and so on and would love to spend the money every month on the service, but the sound quality is so bad, I just can’t do it.

My car came with a top of the line 7 speaker Pioneer sound system, so I know it’s not the radio; cd’s, my ipod and FM sound great. But when turning on Sirius XM, it sounds just a tad bit better than AM radio.

Doing research, I found out what many of you know already, the problem is on Sirius XM’s end with their low transmission rates and high compression.

I don’t have a problem paying for satellite radio. But, when I am paying for a service as oppose to getting it for free, it should be better than the free service. I enjoy the programming, but, unfortunately, my ears cannot take the sound quality of the broadcast.

Maybe, my expectations are too high because satellite tv is so much better in picture quality than broadcast tv and I figure that satellite radio could/should be the same. I guess it could be, but Sirius XM doesn’t see it that way. So, I keep my money and have it to spend on something else. It’s frustrating, because the potential is there for an excellent service that I would be more than happy to spend $16 a month for, but it just isn’t worth it to me in it’s current state.

Posted by Joe Blake  on  01/04/09  at  01:15 AM

I have XM on a Pioneer XMP3.  My original excitement has turned to disappoint because of the poor audio quality.  Definitely not as good as broadcast FM. 

I would say the quality is poor for the home, but probably acceptable on a car audio system. 

My equalizer has not been able to get any channel to sound good. 

I feel ripped off due to the poor quality, which is disappointing because commercial free radio is great.

Posted by Mark  on  12/08/08  at  09:18 PM

The deal: I have Sirius in one car and XM in another. I can access both via the Internet for “free”. I upgraded the sound quality to 128k for my Sirius account for $2.99/mo. (Sirius—and the Jeep w/ Sirius came first). I buy another car with XM and it has one and only one Internet access (no upgrade available). Is this access Sirius’s “premium” or “standard” version? The reason: Why pay an extra $2.99 if XM’s one option is the Sirius-equivalent-premium version and that comes free? Anyone know the stream capacity of XM Internet? Thanks!

Posted by John Caldwell  on  10/18/08  at  10:22 AM

Yo Crib,

Analog television broadcasts from 54 to 88 Mhz for channels 2-6 and 174 to 220 MHz for channels 7-12—and yet we don’t refer to that as RADIO now do we? 

I wasn’t referring to the frequency. Just the popular definition of the medium itself. Just because your garage door opener operates at around 40 MHz dosen’t mean we call it RADIO.


+ View all comments on for this article



Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.