[BC] HD/2

[Robert Meuser]

Bob:

That is pretty Biased. no one else I know on the planet thinks Sirius 
sounds decent. It is not the fault of your gear, but XM blows Sirius 
away technically. It is just too bad they cant match Sirius programming. 
I much prefer the XM processing. In the beginning it was a little 
inconsistant but has improved greatly over the years. Sirius sounds too 
much like radio.

R



Robert Orban wrote:

> At 06:36 PM 1/20/2006, you wrote:
>
>> From: DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net>
>> Subject: Re: [BC] HD/2 (was: [Fwd: HD2])
>> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>> Message-ID: <150kaTVSa3680S22.1137793440 at cmsweb22.cms.usa.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> That's fine for you Bob - and you're a 60ish man.
>>
>> Will a 20ish woman (with much better HF hearing then all of us) feel 
>> the same
>> way you do?
>>
>> THAT's the question we need to answer!
>
>
> I think that the success (or lack of same) of Sirius and XM with that 
> demographic already points to the answer (although I don't know what 
> those numbers are). XM's codec is roughly equivalent in performance to 
> one 48 kbps HD2 channel, although XM's presentation is held back by 
> lame, inconsistent audio processing, IMO.
>
> Sirius' channels a comparable bit rate (it varies due to their 
> statistical multiplexing), but are limited by the performance of the 
> PAC codec that is part of the Sirius system spec. However, in my 
> biased opinion :-), their audio processing (6200s and 1100s) is better 
> than XM's.
>
>> Although 48 kbps HDC is not "CD-quality" by any stretch of the 
>> imagination,
>> I don't find that the compression artifacts prevent me from enjoying the
>> programming. And that is the bottom line.
>>
>> Bob Orban
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>