Satellite Radio - XM vs. Sirius? 498
"So far I have gathered that XM seems to have better audio quality, and a larger selection of music channels. Sirius has less music channels, but more "commercial free" music channels and more talk channels. Also, it scares me that Clear Channel has a stake in XM -- does this mean XM will eventually turn to utter crap like every Clear Channel station seems to have? Does Clear Channel have enough ownership to have a say in programming?
I'm looking for more strengths and weaknesses from people who have used one (or better yet, both!) of the services. I'm leaning towards XM right now, with the Clear Channel issue being my main fright. Sirius streams their stations online, giving me a good sample. So far I have been fairly impressed. But, I like the fact that XM carries Art Bell, more than one 80's station, and VH1 content. It's a toss up, so I'm looking forward to some info from the Slashdot community."
also check (Score:2, Insightful)
Pirate Radio (Score:2, Interesting)
Sirius vs. XM (Score:5, Insightful)
Sirius to me seems to be the more professional of the two, where XM seem to be the "Clear Channels version" of the two. That is how I have always thought of them, which is interesting since this is my first finding out Clear Channels is a part owner.
I wouldn't give my money to XM if I have a viable choice. Remember, XM has had a head start as well, give Sirius a little time to get underway, then we can do a more fair comparison.
-Pete
Re:Sirius vs. XM (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sirius vs. XM (Score:4, Informative)
The two approaches have different plusses and minuses. With the geo-stationary birds, if you get a good signal in your driveway right now, you will most likely always get the same good signal there, while with the lower orbit birds the signal strength may cycle with position of the satellite. On the other hand, the lower orbit sats are much closer, and so might be able to get a stronger signal to you.
Neither approach has redundancy, as they need all their satellites for complete coverage. If one went down XM would have permanent dead zones, Sirius would have wandering dead zones. Take your pick.
XM's satellite info page [xmradio.com]
Sirius' fairly lame "how it works" (PDF) [onlinepresskits.com]
About the satelites (Score:5, Informative)
Sirius' three satelites are in elliptical orbits, and two of the three are over the continental US at all times. The orbits make the angles better (less likely to be blocked by building because the satelite is more likely to be overhead, even in Seattle), but makes doing ground based repeaters hella hard. Sirius rents bandwidth on K-band IIRC to beam signal to the ground based repeaters, which is more expensive and more complicated, but works nonetheless.
That third satelite doesn't do much for reliability. If you lose it, you're going to have areas of the country not getting signal for a good portion of the day, which isn't much better than having portions of the country not getting signal most of the day in the case of XM.
And as far as being money hungry, IIRC these are both publicly traded companies with corporate partners. They both want to make money, and neither of them has your best interests at heart no matter how good their marketspeak is. There is no good guy here. You can morally oppose Clear Channel, and XM by extension. Go ahead. Just remember that its your opinion, and you'll be fine.
Re:About the satelites (Score:2)
According to XM, they have radio-transcievers that convert the satelite signal to radio transmissions so that you are no longer limited to line-of-sight.
I would imagine this is really only in major metropolitan areas, but it's good to know.
Re:Sirius vs. XM (Score:2, Insightful)
Although XM is not totally commercial free they play very few commercials when they do play them. I listen to primarily the Bone (Heavy metal) and Liquid Metal (Heavier Metal) and both of these stations are stations that have commercials. I think I might here 2 minutes of commercials in an hour. Plus not all of their stations have commercials. There are many that are commercial free.
To say that XM is cheap because they only have two satellites up is to not understand the systems that Sirius and XM have in place. Sirius has three satellites because they use a Tundra orbit. Only 2 satellites can be seen at any one time. XM's are in a geosync orbit so both satellites can be seen at all times. I'm pretty sure both companies have spares on the ground.
Clear channel has a minority stake in XM. The only place that I've seen their influence is that XM re-broadcast 2 or 3 Clear Channel FM stations. It's a waste of bandwidth but I don't think Clear Channel has any real power over XM right now.
Also I have talked to a few of the DJs there for The Boneyard and Liquid Metal and these are people who are actually into the music that they play.
for more information about XM and to a lesser degree Sirius check out http://www.clubxm.com
Re:Sirius vs. XM (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been using XM for about 4 months now and really enjoy it. The fact that there are few commercial free stations is not all that big a deal as they only play 1 or 2 commercials an hour anyway. That may change as popularity increases (it has a little already), but I still think you won't see the 20 minutes of talk, 20 minutes of commercials, and 20 minutes of the same music they played 40 minutes ago that you do say here in Chicago.
I chose XM because Sirius wasn't available yet, and I like Pioneer for equipment (different topic, don't flame me if you disagree). My antenna is a roof mount that gets signal all over (I was on the bottom floor of a 6 floor parking garage getting signal, but lost it this afternoon under a tree, go figure), and the added advantage of driving to Indy or Champaign/Urbana without having to tune is huge.Basically, I figure I get signal 99% of the time, which is actually better than any of the FM stations here in Chicago.
As for the satellites, Sirius is actually in worse shape if a satellite goes down as there may be a small percentage of time when there is no signal, whereas if XM loses one, at least there is still one up there. I don't know what plans either company has in that event, but I suspect they both have a replacment plan. I base this assumption on the "Can't charge me if I can't get the signal" sorta thinking.
And finally, the Clear Channel bits scares me, but it seems they are only a minority share holder and don't have any rights to decision making. If that were to change, I would be worried, but this seems like an investment rather than a M$ attempt at world domination. I'll wait and see on that bit. And if it becomes a classic Clear Channel POS, then I unsubscribe and listen to home burned CD's for a while.
Re:Sirius vs. XM (Score:2)
Going with Sirius, Myself (Score:2)
Hopefully congress will reconsider the lame-brained legislation in the past which protected local broadcasters.
Re:Sirius vs. XM (Score:3, Informative)
Happy with XM (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Happy with XM (Score:2, Funny)
Err, how bout a real upgrade. (Score:2, Interesting)
I use XM (Score:5, Interesting)
The stake of Clear Channel in XM has very little to do with it. XM is mostly managed by GM and subsidiaries (like Hughes, aka DirecTV). The reason Clear Channel is involved is provide some of their local stations (like LA Kiss FM) onto the XM radio waves, however there are only 4-5 of these out of 100 channels.
There are also about 30 different "talk", but not your normal talk. You can get CNN, MSNBC, Weather channel, ESPN, CNN-SI, and various other "news" stations and the such. Basically, CNN Is just a stream of CNN Headline News, but it's nice to keep up on the news if need be.
Heck, XM even has Bluegrass if yer into it
And to be honest, XM does cut out like if you get stopped under a bridge, it takes a second to find it's way around or if you pass in between a couple big trucks. Basically, if your antenna gets blocked by any metal objects, it'll go out for a couple seconds until it switches to the other satelite.
Re:KISS FM (Score:2, Informative)
And it's not surprising that your KISS actually was issued those call letters, since ClearChannel is based in San Antonio.
Only room for one (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider the following: Which does more advertising? Who has more unit production? Basically, which has greater (cringe) mindshare? Of course, if you're willing to deal with a failing company and face buying a new head unit in a couple of years, be my guest.
Also, don't forget the rest of your sound system. Decide what you need and buy accordingly -- you almost certainly need a decent pair of componant speakers for the front and probably new, high-quality speakers in the back, not to mentioned the amps to drive them. You should also seriously consider a sub if you listen to hard rock, heavy metal or rap (among others). I have a pair of 10" subs in my trunk (largest that will easily fit in a tiny Mustang trunk) that are set up to be easily removed -- unplug the power and signal and pull 'em out if you need space for luggage or cargo.
Anyhow, don't just upgrade the head unit and go with your crappy stock sound system.
All Depends on what you drive. My Acura rocks. (Score:2)
-Pete
Re:All Depends on what you drive. My Acura rocks. (Score:2)
Re:All Depends on what you drive. My Acura rocks. (Score:2)
Re:Only room for one (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Only room for one (Score:2)
There's always room for multiple providers. However, I have become convinced that the general public hates competing standards or formats, and will seek out the standard that they think will become, well, standard.
VCRs are a good example, as are PC operating systems. People are afraid that the format they choose are is going to go the way of BetaMax, so they are more apt to pick the popular one -- I'm even starting to see this in things like Satellite Dish networks and (I think) PVRs.
Of course, I could be wrong.
why why why why why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that before you take the plunge and get one of these things, your first priority should be figuring out, not the feature set, but if either company is likely to survive. Both XM [yahoo.com] and Sirius [yahoo.com] are gushing money (both lost over five bucks per share last quarter.)
What a drag it would be to spend 500+ dollars to install a system into your car's dashboard, and then have to rip it out in a couple years if the company goes belly up. At their current burn rate, I'd be willing to bet that at least one of the two companies will fail.
Plus, keep in mind that once you install one of these systems, you are going to be held hostage to any rate increases down the road (pun not intended.)
I personally think these companies took off during the go-go optimism of two years ago. For the money you'd spend on one of these things, you could get one of those hundred-CD units that goes into your trunk, and never worry about the company going belly-up.
Re:why why why why why? (Score:2, Informative)
Sirius has Ford. (I think, I cant remember the exact list.) Not to mention numerous after market companies using xm and sirius. This isnt going to die out anytime soon as it will be very wide spread.
The only downfall they have is buying the deck, the antenna and the xm/sirius receiver. That gets very expensive like any other new product on the market. Just wait till the competition heats up and prices should plummet.
Re:why why why why why? (Score:2)
Business health (Score:5, Insightful)
The Motly Fool recently shorted sirius [fool.com] believing their company to be overvalued. (That is not to say that their company will fail, stock price doesn't necessarily equate business health) The fool has quite a bit of discussion on each company.
It's a an important perspective.
-pos
I'd go with XM (Score:3, Interesting)
XM user (Score:2, Informative)
YALLMF (Yet Another Low Low Monthly Fee) (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, you get more channels, but how many do you really listen to? How many of the channels are really worthwhile--and how many are the audio equivalent of the "Knitting" channel on cable?
Yet another "Low Low Monthly Fee" to keep you chained to your position in the U.S. Economy. God forbid you have freedom.
Yet another free resource you now pay for. What's next, charge-per-page to read at the local public library?
Save your dollars, put them into retirement investments or CD's (the bank kind, not Limp Bizkit). Try making your self rich instead of the media giants for a change.
costing (Score:2)
Re:costing (Score:2)
Strength of Network (Score:3, Informative)
XM has a strong ad campaign, has been out longer, is cheaper (10 a month vs 12.99? I think..), more people have heard of XM, and if I am going to as a production company go with one of the Satilite Radio networks, I am going to go with XM, because more people are going to use it.
In addition, I believe that XM has deals with some major car companies, to install XM radios on many of their cars, and some are prepaying to subscription fee (which in the scope of a car purchase isn't that much really). XM has better numbers (their stock that is). They only needed 60,000 users to break even i think, but they will have over a half million i think by the end of the year.
I might be wrong on a few of those facts, but I think I am right on most of them. Overall XM seems to be better (and my XM stock has performed alot better, I wouldn't touch Sirus at all, except to short it!)
Overall, check their stock news, etc.... its got some great info. You don't want a receiver that in one a year will be nothing more than a Busted Tech company reminder (think of BS Zelda on Nintendo, 300 dollars, and it didn't last more than 3 weeks...)
Re:Strength of Network (Score:2)
At $10/month with 60k subscribers they'd only get 600k/month, which might pay for 10-20 employees, nevermind satellite usage, licensing fees, etc. I doubt it's that little, they are likely going to need a few million subscribers to succeed in the long run - and that's what they're betting on.
-Adam
Satellite radio is cool, but has problems (Score:2, Informative)
Also, I'm unconvinced that it works well in metro areas. Like GPS, the signal gets blocked by obstructions like buildings, trees, etc. To get around this, they have repeaters in places where the signal is likely to get blocked. I'd put money on those transmitters not doing the trick everywhere you might go in, say, SF or New York, where you would expect lots of repeaters, much less smaller population centers that still have tall buildings. And what do you want to bet that it won't work for crap in mountainous areas where there are absolutely no repeaters.
Why pay for the novelty of receiving radio from satellites if it has to fall back to a more conventional terrestrial transmission much of the time anyway? Truly, the only real use I can see for this is if you travel cross-country a lot and want to be able to hear the same stations wherever you go, or if you use it at home and are just really married to some station on XM or Sirius that you can't get elsewhere.
Insensitive Ask'er (Score:5, Funny)
This is a News for Nerds site, and Nerds everywhere are hurting, ravaged by the downturn in tech stocks and reduced spending by speculative investors everywhere. Instead we need articles on the proper techniques for dumpster diving and living on the "Second Harvest." That's the Stuff that Matters right now.
(jj)
I've had XM for a couple of months... (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple of things to think about:
1. Commercial free - not as important as I would have thought. Yes, lots of channels have commericials. I thought that breaking up the music like that would have annoyed me, but it didn't. I either listen to the commercial, or change the channel, just like TV. Don't be afraid of XM because it has more commercials.
2. If you're afraid of Clear Channel, don't listen to "20 on 20" or KISS-FM from LA. I doubt that Clear Channel is going to mandate a Britney Spears quota on XMU, Liquid Metal, or Unsigned, for example. And some of the corporate content is worth listening to. CNN en Espanol, ESPN Radio, Fox Sports Radio, Sporting News Network, and NASCAR Radio are all on my rotation. How can you not want 24 hour coverage of NASCAR? (Wait, don't answer that. I know I'm a redneck. Get over it.)
3. Don't worry too much about audio quality. Just as high bit rate MP3s still sound like MP3s, satelite radio is going to sound like satelite radio. I would say that the sound quality is generally more consistent than the FM stations around here, and richer than the AM stations, but its not like a CD or MD. I don't notice many digital artifacts on the music stations, and even less on the talk stations (although the bumper music for ESPN Radio's Sportcenter sounds pretty nasty, but that's not a deal breaker for me), but I do notice them. And music that was recorded with too much bass then mixed with too much bass will never sound bass-y enough, no matter how much I play with my equalizer. But the variety of options available makes up for any percieved shortcomings in the audio quality.
4. XM Comedy is worth 10 bucks a month all by itself.
Just my two cents.
Re:I've had XM for a couple of months... (Score:2)
And that commercial thing. It's like the stupid one-button mouse topic every time an apple story gets posted. OK, let's review which XM channels have commercials: The talk stations, which are by and large syndicated stuff you'd pick up on AM radio (ESPN Radio, CNN headline news is just the audio feed from the TV bits, and so on). The comedy stations and a few of the music stations play commercials typically on the hour. A few of the music stations play commercials. Not all of them, and consequently none of the ones I listen to. The other stations that play commercials are rebroadcasts of crappy-ass pop stations from LA.
So get off the friggin commercial thing. It's limited, and you have the power to change the station and the variety of having something to land on that won't suck.
or DAB? (Score:2)
Anybody have any experience with it? I'm curious, but I haven't heard anything about it, except ads on local radio.
Re:or DAB? (Score:2)
http://www.worlddab.org/dab/whatis.htm#Question
The problem with this approach is that it results in much more stringent transmitter requirements. (Which is what I'm working on at my current job)
User Interface Issues (Score:2)
I want something I can read easily from an appropriate distance, be it in the car, or even from across the room. It really gets annoying after a while.
Read this (Score:3, Interesting)
Q: Is the Net going to change radio at all do you think?
A: No, not yet. Not for a long time [because of the legal issues]. Greed is choking the Internet right now. It's definitely territorial. . . . The artists are greedy, they want their cut off the Internet, the record labels are greedy . . . . Everybody is so greedy that nobody can work on the Internet so there is going to be no radio on the Net, not even Internet radio stations. They all are going to start playing more independent. It's going to favor the independent artist; the unsigned artist really is who people are turning to because the unsigned artist isn't going to sue anybody.
They want the exposure, so is the Internet going to change anything for a while? No. There are so many court battles that need to be fought that haven't even been thought of yet. The only Internet radio I like listening to is Christian pirate radio. It's aggressive, it's all new bands that nobody ever heard of. Its great rock, great pop.
Another prediction is the success of satellite radio. The satellite radio companies that I invested in like two years ago are going to come sneaking up and they're just going to level local radio. Local radio will go under. . . . I'll pay $10 for commercial-free guaranteed. You start doing that and what is your local sponsors going to be saying? Why should I advertise on your radio when they're not even listening to you? They're listening to satellites, commercial-free; they're paying $10. When those numbers go up, so [does] XM Satellite Radio stock value, which Clear Channel has its fingers in. They own a big chunk of XM because they know better.
Q: Is that something that you're invested in as well?
A: Oh yes. Yes, I invested in it as soon as I heard about it. . . . When satellite radio kicks . . . there's going to be no more syndication. You put a talent like Howard Stern in the XM building and boom, he's syndicated instantly. All satellite shows are considered instant syndication. It's going to be like having cable TV in your car.
You're going to have so many selections. A&E has its own channel; Home Shopping Network probably has its own channel. There are 50 channels of music and 50 channels of news and entertainment. They're going to be able to fine-tune exactly what you want. If I want to listen to Hollywood gossip there's going to be one channel just for Hollywood news. If I want to just hear about the planet, there might be a Nova channel. Local radio is nowhere near that level. I don't know if you spend much time in Los Angeles, but we have some of the worst radio in the United States. . . . XM and Sirius are going to be really good if they play their cards right and Clear Channel is very smart for being apart of that.
Q: Do you see XM as the winner, as opposed to Sirius?
A: Yes and two reasons. Sirius had a lead when they first started with Cosby backing them and they were at the top of Rockefeller Center and they had three satellites instead of XM's two. The tables turned when Sirius wasn't ready to launch on schedule. The car dealers weren't ready for them and Sirius announced they had to up their rates past $10 before they even launched. XM launched before them and XM now is running commercials full time and XM has the lead. If you look at their stock, Sirius is at $5 a share and XM is at twice that. There's an interesting battle going on; XM would love to beat out Sirius before they can even get off the ground. You always see the David Bowie falling through the roof or B.B. King falling through the roof, those commercials. They're going hard. I see it being a huge thing; I see it being in every car and every radio in the next three years.
Satellite? Pheh! (Score:2)
No idea if they have this in the US or not, though. It's in the middle of a nation-wide rollout here in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem (Score:2)
It's not like we are talking about rocket science. It is perfectly possible to sell a basic tuner for less than $100 for XM or Sirius. If they did that, they'd sell a lot more units. They could even do like the cell phone people and say if you sign a 12 month contract you can get model X tuner for $100 or whatever. You can't just throw this stuff out there and hope people will buy it.
Same thing with HDTV: WHY would I spend $2000 for a really cheapo set? It's not like they cost oh-so-much more to engineer or manufacture. Plus studios are getting gouged on the production-side. Why outfit your whole setup for HDTV when it will cost you more than 10x a comparable analog setup? Frankly, I'm surprised that GE hasn't just designed their own line of cameras, TVs, etc and started selling them for slightly above cost; that would be cheaper (think in terms of outfitting all of NBC for HDTV) than buying the stuff from anyone else.
When you want something to reach critical mass quickly, you have to offer the equipment at bargain-basement prices to get people on-board. The cell phone craze didn't really take off until you could get el-cheapo phones for $100-$200, depending on how long you signed a contract for.
Re:The real problem (Score:2)
As with ALL new "shiny things", there is an early adopters tax. The price of XM receivers has already fallen, however.
There will be a lot of these things in new cars, which will help hide the cost (you are really paying for it in the price of the car), which will help out some.
Wait 6 months to a year or so. The price of a receiver will fall significantly. You will be able to pick up a used receiver. Let the Beemer and Lexus crowd pick up the early adopter cost.
Using XM in the NH/MA area (Score:2, Informative)
As far as XM signal quality, it does cut out for not more than one second several times on my trip (Rt. 3, 495, 95 from NH to Boston), most of these cutouts are under bridges. They are mildly irritating, but not enough to discourage my listening.
They appear to be listening to their customer base too. When I started out, they had a lot of dead advertising slots that they were filling up with ads for other XM channels. Some of these ads were enough to make me scream and throw the radio out the window.
Top 5 Signs That Sirius Is The Way To Go (Score:5, Informative)
Top 5 Reasons:
1) No commercials.
2) 3 Satellites
3) Just released the PAC v4 Audio Codec; derived from a series of unique technologies that include the latest generation of psychoacoustic modeling, based on a deeper understanding of hearing physiology. This new coded beats XM's previous audio comparison hands-down. (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020610/nym024_1.html
4) NPR.
5) Sirius has the business advantage of being the second on the market. They can learn from XM's mistakes without making a fool out of themselves.
5a) The cool little dog logo.
Re:Top 5 Signs That Sirius Is The Way To Go (Score:2)
Re:Top 5 Signs That Sirius Is The Way To Go (Score:2)
I own an XM Radio (Score:3, Informative)
It's that good. Where to start....
1. Content: Excellent. The 6 or 7 rock channels are superb and all are commercial free. I start my day out with Fred, Channel 44, and listen to a little alternative music. Move over to Unsigned, channel 51 and listen to the new bands that are up and coming. Some really good stuff there. Decide I want to make the commute a little better, so I flip over to CHannel 160, Comedy XL and enjoy some of the stand up bits they play constantly from people like Margaret Cho, Chris Rock, Denis Leary, and a whole bunch of other talented, dirty comedians. Next switch is to BBC World Service, then onto Discovery Radio News where I listen to a bit about the Endeavour Mission to the Space shuttle.
Memorial Day Weekend: XM Special channel 30 plays surf music all weekend long to kick off the start of the summer. Excellent!
I can literally listen to more music than I could possibly have in my car in the form of $15 CDs with 12 songs on them. Bluegrass, country, the best of the 70s, Classic rock,Opera, Broadway shows, they even had a John Williams special on the Show-Tunes channel and I was driving down the road listening to the Vader Theme from Star Wars. They also had Blues Traveller perform live, interviewed Mic Jagger once, and many others.
Talk- Great selection. Phil Hendrie, the funniest man in radio is on in the afternoon on 166, The Buzz.
2. Audio Quality and clarity- Excellent for the most part. I'd say the sound quality is just below that of a CD, but I have the Sony plug and play unit that interfaces into my cassette player in my car. I didn't want to get a new head unit. It sounds excellent at home plugged into my receiver. The sony unit also has a USB connection on the back for future connectivity with a PC, I assume.
I live in Los Angeles, and in some parts of the City, the signal will go uninterrupted even under bridges. I was under the impression they didn't have the audio repeaters up yet (due to fights with the Cell phone companies and the NAB), but in some areas of LA you can be in a deep dark tunnel and still hear your radio. In the suburbs, however, a bridge will temporarily knock out your reception.
Sirius isn't even nation-wide yet. They don't anticipate a full launch until August. As far as Clear Channel investing in XM, it's not a worry. XM is selling a service. XM is the new HBO of Radio and they are not going to screw it up. It's their business model to say they are different from FM, Clear Channel is just providing content, especially the talk shows. And BTW, Sirius is also being invested in by Infinity/CBS, another major radio player.
As far as advertising, on the talk channels you may have up to 20 minutes per hour, but on XM content music channels, you won't find more than 6 minutes per hour, and there are 30 commercial free channels.
GO with XM. You will not regret it, I promise you. The variety of the content is just remarkable, you will want to drive around more or bring the unit into your house just to explore. This is the future fellas, I was skeptical at first, but now I don't want to be without it.
Content is the key (Score:2, Informative)
Also, I have found that, depending on the area of the country you live in, you may find that internal mounting of antennas (under rear windows, for example) is quite feasible. I have a Terk antenna mounted on the back shelf of my car and it works fine in Arizona. Some people in areas with more trees do complain about drop outs due to heavy foliage, etc. So be aware of your surroundings...
Go commercial free !! (Score:2)
Even the few "commercials" on NPR irritates me.
Normal commercial channels drives me nuts.
Mats
watch what you buy. (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing on the market that has XM capability (or any aftermarket for that matter) that can integrate with today's advanced vehicular computer systems. getting XM and losing all that is not a worthwile trade off. and the XM tuner is a pure joke.. the reason for XM radio is for CD quality, not to listen to really crappily modulated FM (as the modulators are of the crappiest quality.)
Pay really close attention, if you buy a cheapie car that has no systems integration then you are set, but most any modern car with luxury options cannot have the radio replaced without losing a ton of features.
Re:watch what you buy. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:watch what you buy. (Score:4, Funny)
The commercial for the Aztek should read:
Aztek. The bounding box for the Ford Focus.
Re:watch what you buy. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:watch what you buy. (Score:3, Funny)
No self-proclaimed hetero male would ever admit to driving, let along owning, one of those stiff horrid looking vehicles.
You geeks can afford much better than that eyesore.
Re:watch what you buy. (Score:2)
Let's break it out. You make the following trolleriffic claims:
1. You believe an aztec is "a big truck."
2. You believe SUV's are "big trucks."
3. You want to drive "a big truck."
4. You believe people who drive SUV's are Dorks.
5. You believe people who drive Fords are Dorks.
6. You believe mustangs are "supposed fast."0
7. You believe that heavily riced out low-end japanese hobby cars are "supposed fast."
8. Your definition of "fast" is "i get away from stoplights quickly."
9. You compare a Pontiac to a Buick.
I would give you a perfect 6.0 out of six points, except the execution falls short. First, you failed to mention that your Pontiac Aztec run the superior operating system, Windows CE. Second, you failed to make the analogy that the American-built Pontiac Aztecs is like a well-made Apple Macintosh, while inferior European and Japanese cars are built like a crappy PC-Compatible or cheap Unix Workstation. Last, of course, you trolled anonymously, which is an automatic 2 point deductions.
Overall, I'm going to give you a 3.5 out of 6.0. But you show great promise, and I'm sure you can improve.
XM Radio (Score:3, Informative)
The XM radio has three separate components. You have the antenna, which attaches to the top of the vehicle, then you have the decoder which decodes the satellite signal. Finally, you need some sort of receiver, like an XM compatible head unit. XM radio can also be installed by putting an FM modulator in, requiring no replacement of the head unit. You also have the option of purchasing an XM compatible head unit, however. This is nice because everything is all in one unit, but if this isn't possible, you get a small square control device for it.
It's also important to remember that if you have a Pioneer head unit that's XM compatible, you *have* to have a Pioneer decoder. A friend of mine has a Sony XM compatible head unit, and he's still waiting for Sony's decoder to come out. As far as I know, Pioneer is the only one that has a complete decoder/modulator combination in place.
As far as Sirius goes, I've never heard of it, and I've never seen any head units supporting it. Sounds like a bad idea, to me. Overall, I spent about 300 for the install/setup, and it's 10 bucks a month.
Go XM Radio. I like mine. CDs are stale. (Score:3, Informative)
Choose your receiver carefully. Don't let them sell you an "FM Modulator" -- hardwire your receiver to get all that sound quality you pay for. After all, an FM Modulator can only sound as good as FM.
The Sony receiver is nice, and I like that it is removable. However, it has some drawbacks. The blue-backlit screen is terribly blurry and hard to read, especially at a quick you-should-be-driving glance. It only has five presets, which is fewer than I would like on a lineup of 100 channels.
The XM programming so far has been terrific. No complaints there. Ethel rocks.
For all those hosers and thread-crappers saying "Get an MP3 player", "Get a CD Changer", you miss the point! I'm tired of listening to the same CDs I've heard before. Where do you go to hear something new? Your own CD collection? Your own MP3s? I go to the radio, and XM Radio beats FM.
XM vs Sirius (Score:2, Informative)
Another Option... (Score:2, Funny)
Motorweek has an story about this subject at... (Score:2)
They explain the merits of both and it seems to be well balanced.
Same problem with satellite radio as terrestrial.. (Score:2)
When I listen to the radio now, I listen to NPR 90% of the time because they have news programs superior to anything else out there. When I do listen to music, I have to bring my own because there's nobody who broadcasts what I like.
I suppose if these radio stations broadcast something I would like more consistently I might consider it.
XM has satellite problems (Score:5, Informative)
http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2101_89
I've read that in as little as 2-3 years they will have to start shutting down channels. And I can't see them being able to replace the satellites so soon.
Cash wise, Sirius has more money available, while XM has been close to going broke for the past year.
XM's ties to Clear Channel also bother me. CC has ruined local radio in many a market, mine included.
For $2 more a month, Sirius has NO commercials at all on ANY of the music channels. THAT, to me, is worth it, and the ONLY reason why I'd go with one of these.
Isn't the whole point of getting one of these things to get greater diversity of programming, and get away from having penis enhancment and hair restoration snake oil, plus annoying car dealer ads blasted at you for 6-10 minutes at a time between song sets?
I don't like the idea of paying for music radio, that I can get for "free", when it's also going to have ads. And given XM's financial condition (and ties to Clear Channel) there is no guarantee that the length of the stopsets won't increase to resemble typical commercial FM radio.
Re:XM has satellite problems (Score:2)
If its popular in LA, you bet your ass it will be all over satallite radio.
Of course, Radio isn't worth 10 bucks a month to me anyway so I probably don't count.
I'd rather take 10 bucks a month and toss it into a guitar case of some person doing a decent street performance then pay to hear satallite radio.
Re:XM has satellite problems (Score:3, Interesting)
If its popular in LA, you bet your ass it will be all over satallite radio.
Of course, Radio isn't worth 10 bucks a month to me anyway so I probably don't count.
I'd rather take 10 bucks a month and toss it into a guitar case of some person doing a decent street performance then pay to hear satallite radio."
Actually, I see direct satellite radio as a consequence of what has happened since 1996 in broadcast radio...
Many of these new consolidated broadcasters have turned to voicetrack or satellite automation that leaves out local content and DJ personality to save money.
I see Sirius/XM as the satellite providers willing to dispense with the dishonesty of modern automated broadcast radio, cut out the middle man (and most or all the ads) and sell it direct to you.
Plus there is more variety. We don't even HAVE a Classic Rock or an 80's station (or any station that plays much 70's or 80's) in my area. Owners are too concerned about where they can shoehorn in another country station that will rank 15th in the market...
I run a radio discussion site covering West Virginia regional radio (also covering parts of KY, OH, MD, PA, and VA), and we've had many interesting discussions of Sirius/XM, voicetracking, satellite automation, and how Clear Channel is wrecking radio.
http://www.wvradio.net if you are interested.
National Public Radio (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say hold off (Score:2)
Streams unavailable (Score:2)
Sirius is excellent (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure that's your only question? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not an audiophile.
The little lady and I were recently in the market for trying something new out with our tax refund. So, the option of satellite radio came up. We spend enough time commuting that it was going to be a respectable thing to do for entertainment. What do you do? Well, you go to a store, listen to the samples, and make the best decision you can.
So, we went to websites, read all the selections possible, restricions on buildings, costs, etc. Then, to Best Buy, Circuit City, all the brick and mortar places that would have a sample. Each and every one sounded like VBR MP3s at 96kbps. Sure, some of it was better than FM, but most of it was just different bad quality. I figured, despite any technical hurdles, the stores would have these things put together in the best possible configuration they could to show the gadgets off and drive some sales. Now, if none of their "demos" could get it right, my money is not going anywhere.
I realize, they were in a building, but this was their opportunity to shine! Stick the frickin antenna outside! Or did they? Salespeople didn't know the difference.
Know what you're buying. Make sure that you listen. Don't assume "CD quality" when it says "digital quality". You'd just be telling the digital cable and satellite people their marketting was right. Us Nerds/Geeks have to prove that someone understands.
And remember, you can't spell "geek" without double-e.
Tape recorder (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Local channels are good enough, dangit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Satellite radio is a fad because, bet you dollars to donuts, it's relying on growth to keep the bills paid. However, it will reach a ceiling within a year, and all the people interested in paying for a commercial-free version of the radio they can get for free, will have purchased their equipment and inked their subscription contracts. After that, adoption will slow to a crawl, money will become increasingly tight, royalty payments will go unmade, channels will start dropping, and XM and Sirius satellite radio will die, gone the way of all fads.
Anyone care to take that bet? Satellite radio is going to fail, plain and simple. The vast majority of people will never pay for it, and the relatively small number of adopters will not be enough to support the whole network with its tech upkeep, royalty payments, and all.
Re:Local channels are good enough, dangit... (Score:3, Insightful)
> channels.. There is no comparison.
I have to disagree here. Broadcast radio isn't the same as broadcst TV because there are so many stations in any given market that there's at least as much choice of content as you get with satellite radio. The only difference is commercials and commentary, and while the commercials aren't very welcome, the commentary by local or national radio personalities typically is. So, the only advantage satellite radio offers is that it's commercial-free--don't mention the quality issue, because for most people, the quality of terrestrial radio is "good enough," and we're talking about the masses not the technophiles. Terrestrial radio in most places does, however, offer about as much choice of content as satellite radio does.
So, is being commercial-free enough to get enough average people to pay a monthly fee to keep supporting the network, including tech upkeep and royalty payments that a terrestrial broadcast system doesn't have to pay due to the commercials? I have to seriously doubt it. In addition, believe it or not, there are a lot of people who like hearing the commentary by local DJs, which would be lacking in pure-music service. Pure music with no commercials you can get by either buying CDs, or by downloading songs off WinMX, Gnutella, etc., and either playing them back on a regular CD, or burning them as MP3's and having an MP3 CD player. Even my local Best Buy has a car MP3 CD player in stock.
So, I may be wrong, but I don't see satellite radio surviving. It's strictly a niche product, but it's being marketed as a mainstream product--meaning too much cash is being burned through too quickly.
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:2)
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:2)
Music is fine, and I do have a couple of options for listening to mp3's in my car, but when you spend more hours on the road than you do at the client's site 5 or 6 days a week, music gets kind of boring.
.
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:5, Informative)
check out these:
Alpine 7897 (XM ready) [crutchfield.com]
Kenwood Excelon KDC-X659 (sirius ready) [crutchfield.com]
There's actually a bunch. Check Crutchfield [crutchfield.com]....
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Crutchfield Rocks. (Score:3, Informative)
OTOH, car audio is a major racket and there are lots of shady people in it. Crutchfield doesn't even try to compete on price, they compete on service. You can get some things cheaper elsewhere, but you might be paying someone who definitely doesn't deserve the money.
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll second that... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:2, Interesting)
Combine that with an eMusic subscription (unlimited downloads, fast growing library, no "security measures", 10 bucks a month) and I'm in music heaven. I find myself listening to more kinds of music than I ever would buying conventional cd's. At 20 bucks a pop now, I'm not going to take risks on something I'm not sure about.
The stereo model (Kenwood - KDC-MPV7019) I bought is also Sirius ready if I ever want to make the move to digital radio. Plus, the lcd screen on it changes colors! Mmmm, useless shiny things, ahauuhaaghghggh...
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I got bored.
With your own music (or MP3s), you tend to listen to everything ever released by the bands you know and then little else. You see, the point of radio, for a lot of people, is that it exposes you to new music. Granted, with the Clear Channel monopoly, that's happening less and less, but the concept is still there.
My work hard drive died about two months ago, wiping out everything I'd gone to the trouble of ripping. Since then I've installed Spinner [spinner.com] and ripped maybe two or three albums. I now choose a genre I like so I don't have to listen to a load of junk that I'll never enjoy, yet I also get exposed to a lot of new music.
Re:In Car MP3 Player Still seems like the best bet (Score:2)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Know me not, you do. Much music have I.
No way in hell I can back all that up on CD for my car player...
Re:Local stations? (Score:3, Informative)
There are also XM only tuners, which play through your existing stereo via RF modulation, like a lot of CD Changers use.
I'm looking at the add-ons now, because I don't want to have a crappy, ill-fitting tuner in my dash. (I drive a Dodge Durango, and the Stereo is over sized... I hate the look of spacers, etc.)
Sony makes an Add-on tuner that is dockable, and the you can get an additional dock for use in the home. That way, you can take the XM into the house at night, if you wanted to. You do need an additional antenna though.
Also, keep in mind that the prices you see never seem to include the antennas. Apparently, $199 for the tuner is for the non-working solution. It takes some more money to get a functioning solution.
Re:how about quality music? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I have to drive long distances on a regular basis, I'd definately do satellite radio. Try driving from LA to San Francisco sometime and listening to the Central Coast's crappy religious channels and you'll see what I mean.
Re:how about quality music? (Score:2)
A lot of people seldom leave there local radio broadcast range.
Use (not abuse) of the DMCA (Score:2, Informative)
how do they stop you from using the system?
By slapping a $100,000 fine on you for breaking the DMCA. Looking at the notes on 17 USC 1201, I find that this (preventing freeloaders from eavesdropping on subscription content) is actually what the DMCA's circumvention ban was designed for, not for preventing people from playing what they have already bought.
only the music channels (Score:2)
XM has about 33 commercial-free channels, the rest have an average of 4 minutes of commercials an hour. Not bad.
Re:only the music channels (Score:2)
Which is fewer than originally promised that would be commercial free. Also no guarantee that the spot load won't increase. Remember, Clear Channel has programming influence here. They are the home of the 9 minute commercial stopset. One of our local CC stations here sometimes has 10 minute or LONGER commercial stopsets.
Better to go with Sirius, which is being more honest with you, charging from the outset more what it costs them to provide you with commercial free music.
If you are convinced you are going to go with a satellite radio, what is $24 more a year to have ALL commercial free music channels?
ATTENTION Anonymous Coward (Score:2)
POST: 3680878
The Department of Homeland Security is required by law to notify you that you have been identified as a terrorist threat and your recent post (368078) has been logged in your e-dossier.
The Department of Homeland Security is also required to notify you that you may access your e-dossier through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [usdoj.gov].
Re:Sirius is going the way of the Dodo (Score:2, Interesting)
Certainly both Sirius and XM fit.
Re:i've heard of XM (Score:2)
Re:not quality (Score:2)
No it wasn't, it was marginally better perhaps but there are enough people around who claim, honest to god, that they couldn't perceive a difference for us to treat the whole BetaMax was massively superior arguement as flawed.
Besides which, even market share is not a complete measure of success. Apple have been floating around the 5% mark now for fifteen years, are healthy, profitable, producing a product that is well supported both by themselves and third parties, that is easily obtained, and easily maintained. But they have a 5% market share.
If Sirius caters to a particular type of consumer, it could do very well without ever entering more than 1% of the overall digital satellite market. The key is that it has to be profitable, and potential buyers have to feel they wont be left in the cold.
*sigh* I shouldn't respond to my own trolls, but just this once...
Re:not quality (Score:2)
Betamax was killed because SONY insisted on forcing a liscense fee onto the tape and Recoreder manufacturers. So it became more expensive the VHS.From an uneducated consumer point of view, they where the same thing, so it boiled down to cost.
There is only one key to profitability, making money.
Your point about market share is true, however You will need to have well over 1% of true market share to make money and cover the Satalite maintainence fees.
personally, I'll never buy one, but then I seldom drive out of range of my local stations.
Re:Commercial (Score:2)
Commercial radio: Covers its budget and makes profit by ensuring that x number of people are tuned in at any given point during the day. This way, discrete ad units can be sold on that assumption that those x number of people will be listening... and eventually buying. The best way to maintain that number is by providing content unlikely to offend the demographic -- something that a listener may not really love, but certainly doesn't dislike enough to turn off. As a result, any discernable flavor is slowly leeched from the on-air content and you're left with Farina Cream of Wheat.
Public radio: Covers its budget through corporate underwriting and getting a certain number of people to contribute during fund drives. As long as this happens, it's mostly irrelevant how many people are listening at any given time. Over the years, the stations have found that one of the best ways to do this is through niche marketing -- even if people only listen to one or two programs a week, they'll likely become contributors if they truly value those shows. (Same thing works on cable. Tons of my friends only have HBO for "Sopranos" and "Six Feet Under".) Hence, the proliferation of such niche programs as Car Talk [cars.com], The Splendid Table [mpr.org], or (God help me) Satellite Sisters [wnyc.org]. These multiple viewppoints prove profitable, so they remain a part of public radio. But don't get me wrong, public radio is still capable of selling out just as much as the next station on the dial. (Just check out savewnyc.org [savewnyc.org] for one example of how things can turn ugly.) It just tends to remain more interesting while doing so.
Exaggerate much?