Radio Road

Which tuner to get and getting the most from it. Thank God, for the radio!

Return to Radio Road


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Dish Network and Sirius Digital radio. Info?

209.86.240.74

Posted on June 13, 2004 at 18:23:26
MarkCR
Audiophile

Posts: 247
Joined: September 25, 2001

I have spent the last few hours listening to several of the "stations" of Sirius radio brought to me via my Dish Network system. I am impressed at both the programming and the sound quality compared to local FM broadcasts here in the San Francisco Bay Area.

For those of you in the know, what is the sound quality. Has it been compressed and then expanded. What is the story. ANy info?

THanks

Mark

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Re: Dish Network and Sirius Digital radio. Info?, posted on June 13, 2004 at 22:47:25
Bulbo


 
Hi fellow imnate:
I live in So. San Francisco and last July I subscribed to MX satellite radio-sirius competitor- and was impressed by the sound quality. I connected the satellite receiver to my stereo system and find it very smooth, which is nice. They do use a form of compression which affects dynamics negatively but other than that I love it.

 

Re: XM Satellite Radio, posted on June 14, 2004 at 17:52:14
SamA
Audiophile

Posts: 2895
Location: Washington, D.C.
Joined: February 12, 2004
I have been an XM subscriber since it was launched. I was very happy, and then, last month, they changed the way the signal was processed and, voila, I became an extremely satisfied customer.

Is it CD quality - close, but not quite. But here in the sticks of Central Pa. where there's nothing but religious broadcasters, it's a real treat in the house and in the car.

BTW, the local NPR translater is a two-watt gizmo that doesn't even make it to my side of town.

 

Re: Dish Network and Sirius Digital radio. Info?, posted on June 15, 2004 at 02:45:00
BaddaBob
Audiophile

Posts: 329
Location: Toronto
Joined: September 12, 2003
Does the output from the Sirius tuner feed into an analogue input on a pre-amp/receiver or is there a digital out you can feed through an outboard DAC?

 

in my system..., posted on June 15, 2004 at 09:01:43
MarkCR
Audiophile

Posts: 247
Joined: September 25, 2001

I go from the digital out (toslink) on the dish box directly into a digital in on my pre-pro. I do not use the digital to audio on my dish box, as I am sure the one in my pre-pro is much better.

The sound is surprising good. The selection of music, even on classical (on 2 real stations) is superb compared to local. There are 5 jazz stations and about 20 rock ones.

I do not want to sound like a shill for them. I am curious, as the sound does not sound as dynamic as a good CD and does not seem to have the bass also, but it is pretty good, better than my memory orf most mp3's or cassettes.

I emailed Dish and Sirius this question and got a hilarious response talking about "Statistical Multiplexing technology" that told me nothing except that the signal is "way better than fm"

I have a decent FM tuner and can get very good reception here in the SF area. Sadly, the program material of local stations (with one exeption 91.1 jazz) is terrible, so who cares about the quality.

I am still curious as to how the technical side of these transmissions compare to high quality fm or to cd. May be a mystery.

Mark

 

ALL of these use data reduced / non-linear encoding IE WAY LESS info. than CD, posted on June 15, 2004 at 18:35:28
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
IF, as you may find, the quality, esp. noise and spuriae, is better than a particular station or stations sound quality on analogue FM, that does NOT mena that they are better in an absolute sense.

It can NOT, by definition in musical infomation and detail sense, be better, than -

"an UN-Eq'd and dynamically uncompressed FM signal through a good directional antenna driving a good sounding tuner into full limiting."

I very much doubt that they are using any higher data rate than 192KBPS.

I actually am in a ppositiion to make these comparisons. Dynamically uncompressed FM all the time from one station. And, I know that you need at least 512 KBPS using non-liner encoding, and adjusted to maximise transient response, to even get close to straight analogue FM, musically.

The national publicly owned ABC runs a national, satellite distributed, and analogue terrestrial transmitted, Classical and Jazz FM network, no dynamic compression is used except for a little peak limiting to avoid overmodulation, their audio eng. people have adapted MPEG2 @ 512 in the way I described for the up and down sat. links. Powerful transmitter.

We also have a local arts and music community station that also cares about its sound and is purely analogue. They have only a small transmitter of less than 10mw. AND, from 'midnight to dawn' they go automated using MP3'd music files.

It is easy to make the comparisons, and I am a reference listenr fo the ABC and the local mob.

When the ABC stopped using analogue upa and down links they did NOT announce it, (?!) I noticed and rang up. Not for the first time, mind you, having complained about the output here, and had fixes started, several times before. One was a soft whine in one channel.

Even on live broadcasts, the ABC is just NOT as clear as the local station, acceptable yes, but noticeable in comparison.

The midnight to dawn sound on the local source is a significant and noticeable down-shift, at changeover.

Lastly, one of the principles of clear thinking I picked up from logic is that if two diametrically opposite propositions are put, there are but three possible real and true 'states of nature', only ONE of which IS the true state.

1. prop/n A is wrong, and B is right.

2. Prop'n B is wrong and A is right.

3. BOTH are wrong.

This really does need to be applied by all 'philes, to the low-rez MP3, ATRAC, camp versus the high sampling, longer word length => high data rate approach, of SACD and DVD-A.

VIZ> they CAN"T both be right, and I am pretty confident that the high data rate approach IS.

and yes I do think digital red-book CD is not good enough, a pretty strong position for a HIP classical fanatic, and micro set-up vinylist, there has been very little or no vinyl for this taste, for a long time now. SO I do listen to CD a lot, and have a handful of comparison possibilities, esp. the Hogwood/ACAM Paris Symphony.

The CD doesn't win, sorry!


Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace

 

Ok. Thanks, but....., posted on June 15, 2004 at 19:55:38
MarkCR
Audiophile

Posts: 247
Joined: September 25, 2001

As someone not that knowledgeable about the various forms of data encription, and also not one to get excited about the cd vs. lp eternal debates, (My sota and et2 are in mothballs - too much hassle, sorry) you are saying....

1. at least 512kbps needed for good quality analog being converted to digital and then converted back.

2. Sirius is probably using no more than 192 kbps, but unless they tell us, there is no way of knowing exactly.

And it appears obvious they are not gonna tell us what they are doing.

So, how does 192 kbps compare to mp3? Or worse?

I must admit, I do not hear the dynamics I can get with a good cd, but then most cd's are not good, well recorded cds.

I also assume that the math is not as direct a correlation in terms of the psychoacoustics of what we here - 192/512 = 2/5, but it sounds more like 80+%, not 40%. Is that a reasonable perception?

Also, I assume that SACD and DVDa transmissions are even more condensed, to meet the 192 (or whatever) standard? IF they bother at all.

Is the Sirius contention, that the level of compression is variable based on the source material, really likely to be valid, or is it PR?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Mark

Thanks again

 

Yes, it is that big a difference., posted on June 15, 2004 at 20:08:45
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
I suggest you temporarily go here and join so you can read from

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FMtuners/

a thread about Sirius from one of our more reliable and level headed couples, living high up in the Rockies.
Tim Britt and Anne Weatherwax.

It is not possible for me to go their, get in and copy the beginning and bring it back here, as part of one web session. I could do a Word copy etc.

but they found they increasingly became irritated and grumpy and got headaches. no depth, good bass but.



Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace

 

the messsage number is 20072., posted on June 15, 2004 at 20:15:08
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
Do read the thread through to the end.

just as Zappa sid that most people wouldn't know good music even if it bit them on the arse, MOST decison makers brain fall out at the mention of digital.

"I mean it's better isn't it!?"

Sighhh!

I can hear and I do care.

OTOH, you may find that a better DAC might help, but you are pushing **** up hill! it will be quieter.

Warmest,


Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace

 

about logic, posted on June 15, 2004 at 22:37:13
ephemere
Audiophile

Posts: 847
Joined: December 31, 2002
Logically speaking, all your story proves is that the ABC did something wrong ("soft whine in one channel"). That does not prove anything about minimum required bitrates.

Gong!

 

about bitrates and such, posted on June 15, 2004 at 23:03:14
ephemere
Audiophile

Posts: 847
Joined: December 31, 2002
XM and Sirius both use PAC (Perceptual Audio Coder), a perception-based compression technique similar to MP3 but optimized for low bitrates. I have read that XM and Sirius both have maximum bitrates per channel of 64 kbps.

In my opinion, none of this matters. All that matters is how good the programming is. I'd much rather listen to a low-quality encoding of good music than an SACD of crap.

 

ping! if at all!, posted on June 16, 2004 at 19:51:18
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
" Not for the first time, mind you, having complained about the output here, and had fixes started, several times before. One was a soft whine in one channel."

"Not for the first time", IE BEFORE the day they went digital for up and down links. And there's a 'before' in the same para, which you also seem to have missed.

Over two decades of listening in the same room to the same tuner, same spkrs, ...... .

And yes, I had complained before when there were problems, and gotten to know the people involved. They respected my hearing, on previous performance.

The faint whine which they hadn't noticed, until I pointed it out, was a decade earlier, than the day of going digital.

Everyone could hear it after I pointed it out at Duratone, a hi-fi shop, that afternoon. Went home and it was there too, and not on any other station, so I rang up. They shut the main transmitter down, went mono on the old one, and had a local announcer play records.

The difference was audible the day they switched over to digital up and down - about which I did not know - it was a much anticipated program of HIP stuff I knew, plus a repeated, heard before, live-tape from a concert at a festival in Yurrup. Demus playing Haydn on a Walter type fortepiano.

I thought 'something's sorta wrong', and I was NOT loving the sound, as I had the previous time it was broadcast.

So, I rang up and they admitted they'd gone digital, for up and down links, they did improve it by adjusting it for transient response and damping, and it IS acceptable now. What I did NOT get, for years after, was that it was non-linear encoding.

I knew less than squat about digital's issues then, and it probably went over my head, but the sound didn't, okay! I did know the Beeb was using 14 bit linear, so I probably assumed it would still be OK. R3 then still being highly regarded.

And JBTW, heaps of people in the BEEB, and in 'radio' as a job in the UK, disliked the sound of DAB from the get go, anyone more sceptical and double blind than John Nelson would be hard to find, no?

My logic about the high rez VS the low-rez camp? is THAT okay? Or have you got a problem with that, too?



Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace

 

Got 'em both, posted on August 2, 2004 at 16:39:10
oofer
Audiophile

Posts: 273
Location: Coastal Oregon
Joined: February 6, 2004
I use a Kenwood Sirius plug and play unit that goes from my car to a dock at my stereo which is then connected to my pre via interconnects. I also have DishTV connected through a fine Sony XBR TV to my preamp by unbalanced interconnects.

Sound is very good. Not CD but better than FM in my area, coastal oregon, by a long shot. Programming is just excellent. I love their classical channels, and their Jazz selection of 'streams' is astoundingly good.

Frankly, my dishTV setup sounds a bit better, though, there is a small delay in the signal over the Sirius unit. I don't really know or care why.

I enjoy Sirius Radio. I think it is a valuable source of music and news. the fact that the music streams of sirius is available on DishTv is just a bonus.

For the extreme audiophool, Sirius or XM may not provide enough fidelity. OTOH, the musical programming is first rate and very enjoyable for listenning. As background music, it is great. As a musical companion in my car, I have it hooked to my head unit via interconnect rather that a FM modulator. I find it sounds much better than the FM modulated signal.

I drive a lot across country. Sirius Rocks. It is an amazing source of entertainment and information, to include traffic and weather. It is worth the price IMO.

 

Page processed in 0.025 seconds.