I bought it for 80$ tax in at Cdn tire here in bathurst,,, and the radio was easy to install and the activation was a sinch(as soon as my bud let me use his CC)and I love the music... but in all honesty I AM RETURNING IT AT THE END OF THE WEEK!!... it sounds like crap!!!!! sorta like a mix between am and fm... real FM radio sounds awsome. I would say its like 64 kbs mp3 or a liitle bit better than dialup radio streaming, ,and all the audio out does to the sound insted of using the fm noudulaor is make it sound less "hissy"
it is going back and I am glad I just bought a 1 month sub to "test"
so if you guys like music and dont have a 4000$ car stereo go for it.. content is awsome(was just lisening to some show with bam margrea(viva la bam) taking phone calls from crazy girls)... but if you want music AND sound ..... you have choosen the rong item,,, but what I find funny is that on dishnetwork the sound is awsome.... near cd quality (in my ears and I blast it all the time in my house)

now bofore you guys start saying that maybe its my car stereo..it is not... I have the Kenwood KDC-X789 deck(already sirius ready, I wonder if the add on tuner would sound better) and 2 kicker SQUARE 15" powered with a older zr 1000 amp with a KAC-X541D runnin mids and tweeds in the doors and a set of 6x9s in the rear deck I get about 146.9 db with this setup and I am a avid installer of car audio in my area... and when its come to car audio I know my stuff

yup I agree sound quality isn't good.

However I use Sirius mostly for talk content like World Radio Network and BBC World Service so it's good for that.

I have the Starmate Replay and also use it for WRN, BBC as well as NPR, CBC-R1 and PRI.

I listened to Iceberg yesterday with headphones on and thought the quality was pretty good, but the sound quality of Bandapart was awful. So I think it is hit and miss.

Hi Kevin007,

I have an X-Mystique 7.1 sound card (which on the fly encodes DD 5.1 audio) for my computer, and the sound quality of Sirius is great routed through it. My $48 Xact ( http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4245547 ) sounds amazing in 5.1, and songs that have hidden Dolby Surround sound great using all speakers.

You need a system that has a good equalizer, or the highs and lows get lost, definitely.

Thanks for sharing your experience Kevin007.

I will stick with my iPods for the next year or so. Then, I will re-evaluate.

wild, i have a PNP2 from AudioVox and find the quality quite good at home and in the car

I have Sirius and/or XM installed in all my cars (and g/f's car) and I'm a huge audiophile and I do agree it's not cd quality, but mine at least sounds better then AM and probably the same, if not a little better then FM. BTW, I never use the FM module to connect the receiver, it's either a OEM receiver or hooked up with the AUX. I'm not sure if it's the cheap Sirius receiver that you're using is the problem or what. Also, did you use the FM module to connect the receiver?

first i was using it "as is" out of the box....fm modulated
was very bad in my oppinon BUT I am picky and used to hearing good quality sound... I guess peeps with factory decks dont hear the diff till you actualy sit in a car with a already awsome car stereo in it...
I am going to try the add in tuner for my kenwood deck to see if that will be better...(if my dealer can ever get it) too bad thoug as the seletion and music is AWSOME... hair nation and octane are my favs

I have the Kenwood SR-903 receiver on higher end deck (bought 2 years ago). It sounds ok to me. It's definetly not comparable to CD but it is noting close to dialup audio. (Except for the talk stations..)

first i was using it "as is" out of the box....fm modulated
was very bad in my oppinon BUT I am picky and used to hearing good quality sound... I guess peeps with factory decks dont hear the diff till you actualy sit in a car with a already awsome car stereo in it...
I am going to try the add in tuner for my kenwood deck to see if that will be better...(if my dealer can ever get it) too bad thoug as the seletion and music is AWSOME... hair nation and octane are my favs


Sorry but my cars have systems that are no way near stock ones, they're also not just boombox's on wheels...lol

Satellite radios have set new standards of mediocrity in terms of sound quality. Previously the worst offender to the ears was AM, but except for its clipped high frequency end, it sounded kind of more natural than Sirius today, because it didn't have all these distortions inherent to low bitsream digital sound. Up until satellite radios appeared, the only way to experience quality so bad was to use PC and dialup internet streaming. And if we define dialup sound quality as 40 kbps, I guess it exactly describes what Sirius/XM bitrates are. But since they use a bit more enhanced codecs, some of the music stations do sound a tad better than say 40 kbps RealAudio stream, but not by much.
The ironic thing is that on the stations which have wider frequency range (i.e. intended to emulate FM quality as opposed to the AM level talk stations), the distortions sound more irritating - there's only so much sound detail that can be transmitted via a bit-starved digital pipeline. The higher the frequency and dynamic range - the worse the distortions become. In order to fight intollerable even to the average ear level of distortion, Sirius have done 2 things.
First, they have compressed (decreased) the dynamic range. Some people actually like that because it makes channels better audible in noisy cars, and you don't need to adjust sound level from channel to channel. All this at the expense of sound quality, of course. Lots of FM stations do that too.
Second, they have practically castrated the stereo. In the latest version of the Sirius sound there is almost no audible stereo effect on most channels.
The result of the above 2 measures is that less information needs to be delivered, and that helps achieve less distortions with the miserable allocated bitrate. I personally can't compare the Sirius sound directly to analog media like FM or AM, because in a way it is worse than both. Given there is no static in AM/FM, they are never as distorted as the Sirius sound.
My Sirius experience comes from a Sirius Alpine add-on unit directly connected through Alpine's proprietary interface to one of this year's Alpine head unit model.
This has been my daily sound quality rant. I feel much better now. :)

If the sound is really that bad, then how come so many sources are claiming that the sound is "noticeably" better than FM? I'm not talking about SIRUIS or XM propaganda either. There was an article in the Toronto Star this week that read as follows:

"The digital stereo sound quality does far exceed the former FM standard — satellite tracking glitches and electric storms notwithstanding — and the units are transportable, though some models require cradles and some rather specialized installation."

I've seen a bunch more independent sources saying the same thing... If the music is that bad, then I can only imagine how bad the talk channels are. Maybe I don't even want to listen to Howard Stern with AM quality sound... lol!

This is also very weird because the music that I get through my bell ExpressView is perfect. I think these guys [XM and SIRIUS] need to crank-up their bandwidth!

There is quite a noticable difference between what I get on my Dish Network for Sirius and what I get in my car. On Dish it sounds like 192 kbps MP3, whereas in the car it sounds more like 64 kbps MP3.

For me though it's about the selection and not the sound quality. (although quality would be nice to have.)

If the sound is really that bad, then how come so many sources are claiming that the sound is "noticeably" better than FM? I'm not talking about SIRUIS or XM propaganda either. There was an article in the Toronto Star this week that read as follows:

"The digital stereo sound quality does far exceed the former FM standard — satellite tracking glitches and electric storms notwithstanding — and the units are transportable, though some models require cradles and some rather specialized installation."

I've seen a bunch more independent sources saying the same thing... If the music is that bad, then I can only imagine how bad the talk channels are. Maybe I don't even want to listen to Howard Stern with AM quality sound... lol!

This is also very weird because the music that I get through my bell ExpressView is perfect. I think these guys [XM and SIRIUS] need to crank-up their bandwidth!

I'm as puzzled as you, because NONE of my set-ups sound like AM (including the sports and talk channels I listen too) and none of them sound worst then FM. I'm really questioning what units and set-ups these people are using. BTW, I'm not sticking up for one service or the other, as I have both Sirius and XM.

There are many explanations for the contradicting opinions. It depends on who you are asking. I'll try to make a breakdown of the reasons why some give favourable opinions about sat radio quality:

Common users without vested commercial interest in sat radio (aka Joe Six Pack):
Most people don't really have a good idea of what sound quality is, and are not familiar with the huge differences in analog and digital delivery of sound. They are well familiar with analog FM and AM sound, high quality audio CDs, and some of them with high but somewhat compromised quality digital MP3s. Here comes the low quality 40-50 kbps Sirius/XM digital stream. Those people first notice the lack of AM/FM static - there's no such phenomenon in the digital world. The lack of static reminds them of how the CDs sound. This by itself is enough for a huge number of those people to conclude that Sirius is better than FM and stop here. Some more "discerning" also notice that Sirius volume does not vary from channel to channel and is set quite high, and they conclude that it sounds better than XM too. :) They listen mostly to the rock and talk content in moving cars, where the crippled digital sound is not so noticeable - as long as it sounds loud and without static, they are happy.

More picky users without vested commercial interest in sat radio:
Generally they notice some or all the bad things I described in my previous post and never claim that sat radio is better than FM. But most of them put up with the low quality, because of the great concept behind sat radio - huge selection and no commercials. Now and then they say a good thing about sat radio (myself included). Some like the concept so much thath they also try to downplay its poor sound quality (not me :)).

Specialized audio magazine writers:
I'm pretty certain that all of them would like to trash sound quality of sat radio using even stronger words than mine, but they risk losing a huge core group of advertizers in their magazines. So they use softer, more forgiving language. People need to read between the lines if they want to understand the writer's real opinion.

All entities with vested interest:
It's obvious you should take everything they are sayng with a grain of salt.

Other journalists:
Some of them have vested interest, some are technologically clueless. Both end up quoting definitions from providers' advertizing papers.

Posts deleted here. Lets stay on topic people.

This thread is about the sound quality of two Canadian services. If you wish to discuss other types of radio then please start a new thread.

If you have a decent car stereo, it should have an aux input or an option to add it. It makes a HUGE difference with the sound quality. Using the FM modulator is a temporary install but the audio is not the best.

I have had both Sirius and XM and found the audio to be much better then FM and only a step below CD when I used the aux input. This applies ONLY to the music channels.

The talk channels audio ranges from near FM to sub-AM stuff.

Although Arthur comes down hard, I tend to agree with much of what he says especially

I'm pretty certain that all of them would like to trash sound quality of sat radio using even stronger words than mine, but they risk losing a huge core group of advertizers in their magazines. So they use softer, more forgiving language. People need to read between the lines if they want to understand the writer's real opinion.

I was struck by several publications that reviewed the Polk home audio receiver.

Here is what Stereophile said in an article XM Radio & Audiophiles

The product that will most appeal to audiophiles is Polk's XM Reference dedicated home tuner ($329). The first XM tuner module aimed specifically at discerning home listeners, the XM Reference is housed in a 17" wide chassis and features Burr/Brown DACs; a signal-boosting preamp section with 104dB S/N; and discrete PCBs for its power supply, display, connector module, and audio boards. Its rear-panel connections include a screen-saver video output so that it can feed XM's text read-out to an external monitor.

Some audiophiles have expressed doubts concerning the audio quality of XM's codec, a point that remained moot as long as XM was solely considered an automotive accessory or an adjunct source for boomboxes.

Now that a respected home audio company has manufactured a separate component-quality tuner, we'll be in a better position to assess XM's ultimate quality.

To Arthurs point: Reading between they lines, Stereophile is very kindly saying that the audio quality on most hardware is crap so lets hope this Polk unit gives us some sound we can listen to!

Finally, I'm amazed at how many people listen to MP3 players so the average ear is not very discerning.


I can't comment personally on the quality of sound from these services since I have not test driven them but from what I have read (from people and publications that I respect) the feedback has not been glowing, however, the other issue is the hardware. (buy crap and it sounds like crap!)

Its one more reason, I suggest people really do their homework before plunging in.

Finally, I'm amazed at how many people listen to MP3 players so the average ear is not very discerning.

I was working with fairly large sound systems (2000 watts - 25,000 watts most of the time) in the late 90's. Over the years I noticed that most people did not appreciate a well tuned, high quality sound system and something that sounded like a piece of junk was accepted by 95+% of the people. I came to the conclusion that the general public for the most part does not care about sound quality as long as they can hear the vocals and most of the music. I believe what Sirius and XM have done is found what the majority of the population is willing to accept. I personally can't tell the difference between a well encoded lame 128 bit MP3 and a CD but I sure can tell them from Sirius. When I got my Sirius setup I compared it to 128 bit MP3s for hours. I was quite frustrated, I wrote Sirius and I posted in forums about it. Eventually I got used to it. I am not happy at all with the sound quality but it sure beats fumbling CDs, changing stations all the time (due to commercials) and last but not least there is no alternative (that I am willing to accept) to The Beat and Area 33 in Ottawa! Would I say Sirius sounds better than FM, no (but a close second). Would I say it is better then AM, yes unless you listen to a talk channel.

Also, for some people it's not all about the sound quality, it truly is about the selection. I get two FM stations where I live. One is a local station that plays an okay selection mainstream hits and the other is a French CBC station. For me adding another 80 choices in music and talk (I went XM) is definately worth the tradeoff in sound quality.