Mike: While Sirius and XM merged into a company called Sirius XM, the two broadcast systems (Sirius and XM) are still separate. The GM car I have is receiving XM. The link you posted is about Sirius. Sirius uses a different and higher quality compression scheme than XM from what I have read. Certainly with my car system, the sound of XM is clearly inferior to FM radio, and vastly inferior to 320kbps MP3 CDs. I would not pay remotely close to what they are asking for it. Just burned a bunch of MP3 CDs yesterday. Days worth of great sounding music on dozen CDs. Now I don’t regret buying those blank CDs that have been sitting around unused for a long time. 
Incidentally, I guess I was overestimating at 64kbps, as Wiki says:
“Channel quality is two flavors, stereo music channels at 39 kbit/s and mono talk channels at 16 kbit/s using proprietary compression. Many subscribers have complained about the low quality of satellite radio sound. But providers have stuck with the plan for more channels instead of better quality. HD terrestrial digital radio, a competitor has always used this difference as a selling point.”
Hmm, interesting. Well when they were once totally different companies I can see how they would have different and incompatible systems, and Sirus XM keeps both going for older cars, I presume. Our Nissan car is just 3 years old now, and came with SirusXM radio. So, obviously one platform sounds better than the other, so believe me when I say our signal in our car sounds very good, and your comments explain why yours doesn’t sound so good.
BTW, you mention HD terrestrial digital radio… We changed our stereo system from having a quality FM tuner to an HD tuner a few years ago, and it really does sound better than FM. We can hear it switch from regular FM to HD when we change a channel and the dif is amazing – background FM noise is gone. Don’r really listen to it much anymore because we are stuck with just local FM stations. Internet programs like TuneIn radio and Slacker, etc when played by our Roku sound almost just as good and of course, we can listen to radio from anywhere in the world. Anyone up for listening to the Swedish Jazz station? It’s out there, along with comments from the Swedish Chef (Muppets) once in a while. Have no idea what they are talking about!
Slinky_McVelvet wrote:
I thought it was friendly until Techflaws joined the band waggon. I guess some people cannot resist the urge to provoke a reaction!
Sorry, but you are not interesting enough for me to try to get a rise out of you so don’t try to turn this around when it’s your reaction that is unexpected and totally uncalled for. I couldn’t care less what time and money you waste on the next industry fad.
Slinky_McVelvet wrote:
P.S. Who [Deleted] is Monty?
So let me get this straight. Not only haven’t you heard of one of the experts in the field but you also did not realize my mentioning of him was actually a link explaining at great length (with actual superior rather than imagined knowledge) why 24/192 files won’t save today’s problems with digital music? Impressive.
Slinky_McVelvet wrote:
Oh how I hate people like that indeed!
Yeah, save your hate for people who care. Just don’t expect the WDTV ever to support newer/even higher bitrate files or containers than FLAC.
Slinky and TechFlaws,
I can see where there was misunderstanding on both your parts, so guys, let it go, shake virtual hands, and DON’T “both come back out fighting”. So, Slinky, if you didn’t get it that MONTY was a link and not just bold letters as it is here, read the link, and TF, be a bit more clear and a little less “creative” when you post a link by using just one word.
I’ll have to confess, I didn’t get all of Monty’s comments, but understood enough that he was suggesting one not chase this elusive butterfly of audio perfection, as it is not what it appears to be. He could be right or wrong, but either way it hasn’t alot of attraction to me, one way or the other. Interesting read, though.
Hello to all,
Let’s keep this friendly.
Must…resist…getting involved…must…resist…getting involved…
mike27oct wrote:
and TF, be a bit more clear and a little less “creative” when you post a link by using just one word.
Well, a link is a link is a link. I wasn’t aware the board’s denotion of these (bold and underlined) wasn’t enough.
ncarver wrote:
Must…resist…getting involved…must…resist…getting involved…
LOL, It was a tough decision, I can tell…
