# XM vs Sirius Audio Quality



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm looking for feedback from anybody who has had XM and Sirius in their car. What is your thought re: audio quality (compression ratio) between the two providers?

I have a Saturn w/factory intalled XM. I installed a Sirius receiver (FM Modulator) a long time ago because I personally liked Sirius's content better. I recently dropped my Sirius service and went for XM, believing that I would get better sound quality with a 'direct connection' (as opposed to FM modulator). However, the compression with XM seems very high and I'm considering switching back to Sirius.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

FM modulators suck, especially the wireless ones. I have both XM and Sirius in my truck, both plug and play receivers, used to use the FM modulators, then bought a dual auxiliary input adaptor for my factory radio and have had then hooked up that way ever since. Doing A/B comparisons is very easy, Sirius used to sound better to me, but then when XM updated their processing last summer that changed. I don’t think XM sounds better then Sirius now, while they sound different, but to me neither is ‘better’. At home I have another Sirius plug and play receiver, and I use the built in XM tuner in my Sony home theater receiver, XM sounds more pleasing to my ears, but again, it’s not really better then Sirius. 

To expand this a little, I’ve done A/B comparisons on similar channels. To me, Watercolors on XM sounds better then Jazz Café on Sirius, Classic Rewind on Sirius sounds better then Big Tracks on XM, and so on.


----------



## jjlawyer (Dec 7, 2004)

I had XM in a GM car and Sirius with a direct sportster or something. I also have Sirius in BMW. I had the GM car first and never noticed any sound quality problem. Then when I got the sportster, I noticed that it sounded terrible. A lot of digital compression, like a 64k mp3. Maybe 96k on the bst channels. In the BMW, the sound is not nearly as compressed. It sounds fine. So i think XM gets the nod from me. None of them sound as good as FM.


----------



## Hoxxx (Jun 19, 2004)

tedb3rd said:


> I'm looking for feedback from anybody who has had XM and Sirius in their car. What is your thought re: audio quality (compression ratio) between the two providers?
> 
> I have a Saturn w/factory intalled XM. I installed a Sirius receiver (FM Modulator) a long time ago because I personally liked Sirius's content better. I recently dropped my Sirius service and went for XM, believing that I would get better sound quality with a 'direct connection' (as opposed to FM modulator). However, the compression with XM seems very high and I'm considering switching back to Sirius.
> 
> Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.


My first Sat Radio was XM because it works inside a metal building. Sirius will not work there. So because of that I have been an XM sub .


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I rent cars almost every week. Sometimes it has Sirius, sometimes XM (both are direct input - factory installed). I've never noticed a difference between the two.


----------



## Marriner (Jan 23, 2006)

I have a built in Sirius reciever in an explorer i bought recently. I was disappointed in the sound quality. It sounds like an mp3 incoded at 64k. A lot of compression artifacts.


----------



## ChrisBMoore (Jul 21, 2004)

I know your question was more in regards to sound quality than reception, but I just wanted to share my input on the reception end. I have had both XM and Sirius and I find that with XM the reception is much more spotty than with Sirius. I definitely lost my signal with both services on some occassions, but sometimes I lose XM signal when there seems to be no reason that I should. I also think Sirius's format is better than XM, but thats more of a personal preference than actual facts of how the sound itself is. :hurah: Just my thoughts


----------

