Originally posted by Cooter:
From an article on eBay:

"According to audiophiles, XM has a better high end signal and better stereo separation than Sirius."

Please discuss....

Originally posted by Murph.:

 Quote:

Originally posted by Cooter:
From an article on eBay:

"According to audiophiles, XM has a better high end signal and better stereo separation than Sirius."

Please discuss....

True but Sirius hs better content.

Originally posted by Cooter:
What makes their content better?

Originally posted by Cooter
From an article on eBay:

"According to audiophiles, XM has a better high end signal and better stereo separation than Sirius."

Please discuss....

I love Sirius. There is more channels. Sirius just bought out xm. So i don't know if they are goin to change their name or what

"According to audiophiles, XM has a better high end signal and better stereo separation than Sirius."

XM has Opie and Anthony who, in my opinion, blow Howard Stern out of the water.

As far as SQ....both are better than most MP3s....and a lot of CDs.

but your opinion doesn't matter just like ours....

Howards numbers say a lot. O and A are doing so great they we suspended. Howard > O&A

but your opinion doesn't matter just like ours....

Howards numbers say a lot. O and A are doing so great they we suspended. Howard > O&A

Sound quality: As we mentioned in the XM section, audiophiles will probably be slightly less disappointed in XM than in Sirius. XM's treble is still cleaner, and its stereo separation is wider than Sirius's. We'd still like to see more improvement; both satellite radio services' "all-digital" sound won't be mistaken for CD quality, that's for sure. And both channels' talk, sports, and news streams approximate AM sound quality.

All of the Sirius channels we listened to exhibited the kind of artifacts compressed-data audio codecs generate when low bit rates are used. Most noticeable was a mid- to high-frequency swirling effect that was most evident on slow to moderately fast music with a clear high end - acoustic guitars, cymbals, and strings were the most problematic.

The sound quality on XM's music channels, on the other hand, was quite good - in fact, surprisingly good considering the low bit rates that both XM and Sirius use to transmit each channel. Response at the top of the audio range was limited, as it was with Sirius. But the "swirling" effects were much more subdued here than they were with Sirius, making them much easier on the ears. For instance, "Eighteen" by the Pat Metheny Group sounded sharp and vivid on XM's Watercolors jazz channel. Given the bit rates involved, it wouldn't be fair to expect CD-quality sound, but XM is a big improvement over what you're used to hearing on FM radio.

Do some more research before you post a mistruth.

Considering I have installed hundreds of both XM and Sirius..from my personal experience XM has better SQ overall. Now as far as reception..that is more of a geographical issue. I notice on the east coast XM is superior..but in the northwest Sirius is better...this has to do with satellite location so not much can be done until a merger...if ever.

Antenna placement is critical as unlike GPS..there are not tons of satellites beaming down for it..so line of sight is easily blocked by the roof,pillars and anything else that blocks the antenna from seeing the sky, especially at angles. This is why the companies are adamant about placing the antenna on the roof..even though many place it on the dash..it might work..but not everywhere if the customer travels, it will cut out eventually.