Sirius - XM: 10 Years Late and $3.4 Billion Short!

admin · #1 07-31-2008, 02:56 PM

A merger between Sirius and XM satellite radio was finally approved by the FCC. Sirius then purchased XM for the sum of $3.3 billion after both companies agreed to pay a $19.7 million settlement for various violations. The companies have now combined to become one – the newly minted Sirius-XM Satellite Radio.

Discuss "Sirius - XM: 10 Years Late and $3.4 Billion Short!" here. Read the article.

wnmnkh · #2 07-31-2008, 03:59 PM

The real questions to us audiophiles here are "can satellite radio be another high-def audio source for our audio equipments?" and "will this become competitive against other sources (CDs, DVD-A, Studio Master downloads, etc) we already have enough to lure us to use it?"

I have never heard how satellite radio sounds, so I will wait for some inputs here.

Wayde Robson · #3 07-31-2008, 04:07 PM

I have heard that standard Satellite Radio (XM or Sirius) is the equivalent to a 68bit MP3. It is absolutely horrible on any equipment designed for accurate playback.

That said, there is an HD version from XM, maybe Sirius has an equivalent. I've never heard an high res audio feed from satellite radio but I have hooked up a standard satellite radio receiver to my home stereo and it was shoddy compared to CD. I wouldn't use satellite radio to listen to Jingle Bells on Christmas Day!

Okay, except maybe in the car.

Matt34 · #4 07-31-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh

The real questions to us audiophiles here are "can satellite radio be another high-def audio source for our audio equipments?" and "will this become competitive against other sources (CDs, DVD-A, Studio Master downloads, etc) we already have enough to lure us to use it?"

I have never heard how satellite radio sounds, so I will wait for some inputs here.

It's not all that great but for some of us it's our only option when the selection of FM and AM channels is dismal. I think it's a step about a decent FM reception but currently it's no where near CD quaility.

Having subscribed to XM for three years now so I'm going to follow this closely and see where this merger takes things.

GlocksRock · #5 07-31-2008, 04:49 PM

Mel Karmazin did an interview on the Stern show yesterday and was talking about the merger. Sounds like it was definitely in the best interest of both companies to merge. Hopefully things will start getting better, starting witih the sound quality of satellite radio, as I've never heard any quality audio from it.

Dan · #6 07-31-2008, 05:34 PM

I have XM. The sound isn't very good although the programming is generally good. I usually listen to comedy, sports and old music and don't sweat the sound. You're in a car after all. I get my great sound at home. What I don't like is how the prices will probably go up dramatically after an initial low price incentive. I DO NOT wish to subsidize Howard Stern and his outlandish contract, yet I'm sure I will even if I don't get a package with him on it. It has to float to him one way or another.

gene · #7 07-31-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

The real questions to us audiophiles here are "can satellite radio be another high-def audio source for our audio equipments?" and "will this become competitive against other sources (CDs, DVD-A, Studio Master downloads, etc) we already have enough to lure us to use it?"

I have never heard how satellite radio sounds, so I will wait for some inputs here.

The sound quality of XM sucks IMO, hence one of the reasons why I wrote this article:

Dumbing Down of Audio

It's hard for me to even listen to talk shows on XM b/c the voices sound very metallic and compressed. I also tried Sirius and Howard/Bubba just don't sound like themselves. I guess its ok for casual background listening for most people but I have a hard time tolerating it for long periods of time.

The one redeeming quality of Satellite radio is its an alternative to the croonies at Clear Channel.

hifiman · #8 08-01-2008, 12:40 AM

I DO NOT wish to subsidize Howard Stern and his outlandish contract

You absolutely did subsidize it. You subscribed to XM who had the cavalier attitude that they were the only game in town in the satellite radio market. Stern went to them first. They used that attitude of theirs to drag their butts and stall in signing him. Sirius made the right move to grab him by any means necessary. It worked. XM crumbled.

I think this merger will be great. I see people complaining about sound quality, but the service is not about audiophile sound quality - something only the tinniest portion of the audience cares about - it's about convenience, quantity, and usability. Once these companies can stop fighting each other and this "format war" is done with, this should be a viable medium. Terrestrial radio certainly thinks so.

gene · #9 08-01-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

I think this merger will be great. I see people complaining about sound quality, but the service is not about audiophile sound quality - something only the tinniest portion of the audience cares about - it's about convenience, quantity, and usability.

When XM first came out, it was touted as "CD Audio Quality". I notice they don't claim that anymore. In addition, how convenience also must be portable which Satellite radio currently isn't. Lack of portability, and poor sound quality are two major strikes againt these services IMO.

TLS Guy · #10 08-01-2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlocksRock

Mel Karmazin did an interview on the Stern show yesterday and was talking about the merger. Sounds like it was definitely in the best interest of both companies to merge. Hopefully things will start getting better, starting witih the sound quality of satellite radio, as I've never heard any quality audio from it.

It won't get better, like HD radio it's a technically flawed system. A good FM tuner with a roof antenna is still the way to go. A well set up FM system blows everything else out of the water by a miles.