AronZ28

iTrader: (2)

Which is your favorite? I listen mainly to any type of rock. I listen to anything from Beatles to System of a Down(although I don't like that tattoo parlor **** that all sounds the same with the guy screaming the whole time). I also listen to some rap/hip-hop, but all the crap they play on the top 40 rap stations has gotten pretty lame lately. I also like country, especially the old stuff that nobody plays and I've never heard. Based on this, should I go with Sirius or XM?

Michael55123

iTrader: (3)

I have sirius an love it. Found a great place for the antenna to, right on top of my 12 disc changer. Sirius has all the programming your looking for, plus more. They're both going to have programming you like, I just happen to like sirius better. Look on ebay, you can find a reciever for 30-50 bucks. I got a brand new in box audiovox, it's a nice and small one, for only 45. Just goto sirius.com and you can get a online preview. They stream you all the stations, and you can go through and check them all out for 3 days. Not sure if XM does that though.

Mike

Razzak

XM's rock selection sucks. It really really really sucks. Really. I haven't had Sirius before, but have had Dish network (which gets Sirius radio) and they had quite a few rock stations and a couple top 40's type stations.

JustAnIlluzion

iTrader: (60)

stern, nuff said.

zmokum

i have sirius and like it pretty well. it too just like local stations has its moments of playing the same stuff over and over, but i guess you have alot more to switch to, but no matter what im keeping it just so i can listen to stern in '06......

fastazztruck

sirius...in both my vehicles and i won't switch

Shackelford

Had both, love rock, XM sux, sirius is good, i just listen to cds now.

Bawls

Sirius is good, I've got an issue with their techno/dance channels though. It seems i hear the same **** over and over again. Their heavy metal (hard attack) isnt really that hard either.

Nova5

Yep, enough reason to avoid Sirius

XM here, and mainly due to them being the only ones haveing a Plug'n'Play unit when i got into sat radio. i find their service to be pretty good for me.

Camarokidd24

iTrader: (14)

First of Stern is the man, but if you would rather they will offer Martha Stewart. Second Sirius finally has a Plug'n Play reciever comming out for the 4th quarter. Should even be smaller than the XM's.

methane

iTrader: (1)

i currently have xm, but currently the selection has started to suck, o & a is pretty sweet but the rock slection on siruis is far better. the only downfall to sirius is the receivers are enourmous, unless you get it direct through your stereo.

golddot

well, i bought the xm this week, at 48$ otd at wally world was hard to beat. i guess i am a freak i like salsa music and latin music, it is good, not great, had sirrius on my sat tv, much better. but it was 2x the price. if money was no object i'd say sirrius, but fo r48 bucks and i can switch it bettween my work and own car its easy to answer. xm.

Nova5

its only taken them 4 years to make it smaller.


all their previous ones were bricks or very very poor design. that tall *** JVC one is a perfect example. huge!


They have had PNP units for some time. took about 2 years after their launch to have them.

2MuchRiceMakesMeSick

Ive had both. I like XM better.

BLOW ME FASTR

It is said that XM has better signal, and Sirius has better sound quality.

co.6z28

iTrader: (1)

i just went out and bought sirius

rush7

iTrader: (2)

i've always loved the sirius stations on dishnet, but i've never tried xm either. or a satellite radio in my car for that matter.

Nova5

Sound quality is dependent upon what audio system the user has.

as for signal, XMs birds are over the equator so you have to have a southern sky view. Sirius's are in an elliptical orbit with a 4hour loop over the northern US border. giving it a more straightdown look. with XM an aimable antenna is a viable and solid option. with sirius aimables are a little more of a pain, hard to lock in on a moving target. so you really need to try a few positions before it works well.

WhiteBird00

iTrader: (4)

Sound quality is dependant on many factors - including what audio system the user has. Other critical factors include signal strength, compression factor and method, and even the type of material listened to.

XM uses two satellites in geosynchronous orbits ("Rock" and "Roll") that are in the southern sky over the east and west coasts. Sirius has three satellites that move across the US in orbits that place them more directly above the country. XM antennas need to have a southern view whereas Sirius is more straight overhead. Out on the open road you can lose XM signal just by having a large truck pass on your south side. However, XM has many more repeaters in large cities than Sirius does so the difference is not as great as it might be otherwise.

Experts agree that both satellite services' sound quality degrade rapidly with falling signal strength. This leads to sound quality comparisons that are actually signal strength comparisons.

XM uses AAC compression and assigns equal bandwidth to each of its channels. Sirius uses a proprietary compression algorithm that also dynamically assigns bandwidth based on need. This gives Sirius something of an advantage in music sound quality but makes their talk channels' sound quality really bad (hollow sounding like from a tunnel). Both services have problems with loud, high frequency music reproduction (trumpets, cymbals, etc.) which are bad enough that even a non-audiophile will ask what's wrong with the music.

For the most part, both services are about comparable to 128-bit MP3 recordings - nowhere near CD quality but better than FM radio and without the multipath interference inherent in broadcast FM.

1BADLSS1

Stren...what a joke, old, washed up, drag queen.

OPIE AND ANTHONY on XM is just killing stern, now and even when he goes to the doggy company.

Hoo Hoo I invented radio...Tell em fred. Hoo Hoo

And now Ron and Fez on XM.

Hoo Hoo thats right robbin!

foundrymusic.com