Satellite & Retrograde

[[email protected]]

OK, OK, I'm behind the curve on a few things. Today I had the need to
rent a car, and it contained an XM-Sirius satellite radio. Once I got
over the shock of hearing raw language and the pleasure of having many
new selections, I was struck by the sound quality: It blows.

It varies from stream to stream, from type to type (low quality for
talk, higher for music) but overall, it's pleasing on the low end (but
even AM has a decent low end on most car radios) but very lossy and
phase-y on the high end. Yechh.

It used to be that new audio technologies offered improvements in
sound quality, but we are now in a phase where new technologies
actually constitute retrograde, a reduction in sound quality. I-Pods
and MP3s were a backward step in quality; Most internet audio sounds
atrocious (and internet video is even worse - it will NEVER replace TV
for quality, at this rate); now we have satellite radio, which offers
more choice and less interference in return for noticeably reduced
quality. It this what the future holds?

[Flying V]

On 12/14/2010 8:39 AM, wrote:
> OK, OK, I'm behind the curve on a few things. Today I had the need to
> rent a car, and it contained an XM-Sirius satellite radio. Once I got
> over the shock of hearing raw language and the pleasure of having many
> new selections, I was struck by the sound quality: It blows.
>
> It varies from stream to stream, from type to type (low quality for
> talk, higher for music) but overall, it's pleasing on the low end (but
> even AM has a decent low end on most car radios) but very lossy and
> phase-y on the high end. Yechh.
>
> It used to be that new audio technologies offered improvements in
> sound quality, but we are now in a phase where new technologies
> actually constitute retrograde, a reduction in sound quality. I-Pods
> and MP3s were a backward step in quality; Most internet audio sounds
> atrocious (and internet video is even worse - it will NEVER replace TV
> for quality, at this rate); now we have satellite radio, which offers
> more choice and less interference in return for noticeably reduced
> quality. It this what the future holds?


Yup!! Consumers today care more about "convenience", than "quality."
My kids taught me that lesson. And also--the power of marketing is hard
to fight against. Keep telling young buyers that MP3 players are all
you really need....and they'll buy them as fast as they can!

I can't stand the sound of MP3 files....even good ones. But, folks like
me (us) seem to be a dying breed. I can certainly appreciate the better
sound of a CD or original recording....but my kids think my ears are
"too good." They certainly don't mind the sound of MP3's.

(Or, as my oldest says "ipods sound good enough....")

In my teen years, if one was into music, your main goal was to work
enough to save money for a good stereo system. In my crowd, it earned
you braggin' rights if you had the best system!

I had the first quad system in my group of friends....oh, did I think I
was something (grin)!

I still don't own an MP3 player....and have no plans to buy one. I also
hate the sound of satellite radio! My new car came with a one year
subscription. I tried it out....and never used it again.

Yuck!! Why would anyone want to *pay* for that kind of audio???

Obviously, some people think it's "good enough."

Not me......

Mike

[Scott Dorsey]

Flying V > wrote:
>Yup!! Consumers today care more about "convenience", than "quality."
>My kids taught me that lesson. And also--the power of marketing is hard
>to fight against. Keep telling young buyers that MP3 players are all
>you really need....and they'll buy them as fast as they can!

It's not today, it's always been that way. It's the reason why cassettes
won out over quarter-track consumer tape, and why quarter-track won out
over half-track in the consumer market. It's the reason why styrene 45s
exist at all. The market has ALWAYS gone for convenience over sound quality
and I suspect it always will.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> OK, OK, I'm behind the curve on a few things. Today I had the need to
> rent a car, and it contained an XM-Sirius satellite radio. Once I got
> over the shock of hearing raw language and the pleasure of having many
> new selections, I was struck by the sound quality: It blows.
>
> It varies from stream to stream, from type to type (low quality for
> talk, higher for music) but overall, it's pleasing on the low end (but
> even AM has a decent low end on most car radios) but very lossy and
> phase-y on the high end. Yechh.
>
> It used to be that new audio technologies offered improvements in
> sound quality, but we are now in a phase where new technologies
> actually constitute retrograde, a reduction in sound quality. I-Pods
> and MP3s were a backward step in quality; Most internet audio sounds
> atrocious (and internet video is even worse - it will NEVER replace TV
> for quality, at this rate); now we have satellite radio, which offers
> more choice and less interference in return for noticeably reduced
> quality. It this what the future holds?

The sound of all those sucks, and so does Pandora.

The seeds for why the future holds that are contained in this 1969
Playboy mag interview with Marshall McLuhan.

http://tinyurl.com/y9c49le

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

> The dynamic range of everything they carry is pretty
> constricted, too, but they do that deliberately in order to make the data
> compression easier.
>

Decreasing dynamic range does not make lossy compression easier,
if the compression is done smartly.

Doug McDonald

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:13:32 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> I've only heard XM for any significant duration. It was a road trip to and
> from NYC from Detroit. I drove a couple of ca. 6 hour shifts in a GMC
> Arcadia. The only way I can stand to listen to XM is to also be engaging in
> some fairly difficult driving or sleeping or reading. A driving rain storm
> provided that for the desired difficult driving on the way back. IOW, I can
> only enjoy listening to XM by not actually listening to it at all. I'm told
> that the implementation of it that I listened to was among the best around.

It's digital. It must be better!

-Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA