Column

The need to buy a nice stereo system for one’s home is generally sparked by one’s simple, basic desire to listen to music.  No matter what your preference, musical appreciation is a universal element of society.

Those of us who make the leap into full-blown audiophile status possess a counterintuitive instinct, however; we may indeed find ourselves purchasing music in order to listen to our system.  I think a lot of audiophiles can relate to listening intently for the sound integrity of their system, and missing the music on the CD itself.

Given this obsession with sound and accurate musical reproduction, one will likely notice vast differences among audio sources.  Some give you all the presence and musicality that a demanding audiophile could hope for, while others fall flat.

Over the next couple of weeks, I’m going to take a look at some different audio sources in an attempt to help the distinguished consumer find that perfect sound. Let’s face it—we all want to tune into sources that are going to accentuate our system’s potential, while skipping those that won’t.

This week I will be taking a look at satellite radio.

The word digital has taken on a bigger-than-life meaning in today’s world.  More and more aspects of the world have and will become digital.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the world of music.  Digital recordings and equipment, such as CD’s and MP3 players dominate the market.

In my mind, I equate digital with cutting edge sound.  Therefore, when satellite radio came out and offered digital programming, I had great expectations.

With my new stereo system set up, my CD collection was growing smaller and smaller.  I needed some new music, and signing up for XM seemed to offer the perfect solution:  a ton of digital music channels without any commercials.  I expected to have access to a greatly expanded collection of music with audiophile quality.  I could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to own the musical diversity that is offered through a service such as XM, all for $12.95/mo ($9.95 at the time).

While the content of programming did not disappoint, the quality certainly did.  Like I said, a large part of the allure of XM was not just the programs offered, but the fact that they would be high quality audio and take advantage of the stereo I had just spent thousands on.  In reality, XM didn’t offer any better sound quality than regular FM.  In fact, I found it inferior to both regular radio and similar music services provided through cable companies.  The sound was transparent, with no distinct frequency reproduction and very little bass.  Essentially, XM sounds exactly like what it is—a beam of music traveling thousands of miles from a remote locale. A great variety of lousy sounding songs just doesn’t cut it for me.

A quick search of audio forums and websites proved that I was not alone.  Sound quality is a common complaint among XM users.  A succinct answer as to why XM’s sound is so poor is that XM broadcasting is compressed significantly due to limited bandwidth allocation. It seems that the diverse programming of XM is in direct conflict with its sound quality.  The FCC assigns a limited bandwidth to satellite radio providers XM and Sirius.   In essence, the limited bandwidth means that the provider can focus on larger selections of low quality, compressed sound, or a more narrow selection of high quality sound.  With the diverse array of channels, covering all kinds of music genres and sub-genres, it’s not a secret that they chose the former option.

In terms of a business bottom line, satellite radio probably makes a lot more sense—it focuses largely on car audio, where sound is less of an issue.  Furthermore, audiophiles make up a small percentage of music listeners, so there is more to gain by focusing on content over sound.  The average listener probably doesn’t even notice the difference.  On a simple audio device, like a car radio or boom box, I probably wouldn’t notice a difference either.

In addition to broadcast deficiencies, the average XM receiver is very low grade.  When I was shopping for XM, I saw two ways to go—a component-style Polk receiver and a Delphi home/auto receiver.  I went with the Delphi because I liked the idea of being able to use it both at home and in the car, plus it was $100 vs. $300 and much more widely available than the Polk.  While great for road trips, the Delphi lacks the design and quality for home audio applications.  With all the focus on “digital music”, I was surprised to find it is equipped with only analog connections— At least given the benefit of a digital connection, which could help improve XM’s atrocious sound.  The remote control is tiny and often difficult to register.  Basically, what you have is a receiver designed for vehicle use, with home audio as an afterthought.

There is some hope for us audiophiles though.  In doing a little background for this article, I found some very positive reviews of the Polk XRt12 receiver, depicting the sound as excellent, even near-CD quality.  I am kicking myself because that extra $200 might just have been worth it.  The Polk has both optical and coaxial digital outputs and offers a video output, so that tiny display can become full screen on your TV.

In short, the Polk was designed for the audiophile so this would be your best bet for quality XM sound.  Since I haven’t tested it out I can’t vouch for just how good this XM receiver sounds.  I still have my doubts that it will come anywhere close to a CD, given the bandwidth issues of XM broadcasts.  However, Polk offers a 30 day money-back guarantee on the receiver, which allows you to try it out and send it back if it’s not up to par.  So, you can’t go wrong.

One final side note complaint—XM was billed as a commercial-free service.  Beginning last July, I began to notice commercials slipping their way into programming.  To me, no commercials was a huge selling point—all music all the time.  The commercials were the final straw and I discontinued service at this point.  I figured I get no-commercial cable music channels that come as part of a cable package and sound better than XM ever did, why throw away $12.95 every month.  I do miss the programming; cable stations lack some of the depth and diversity offered through XM, but overall it’s just not worth the money.

Maybe things will get better after the recent merger of the two satellite radio providers, XM and Sirius, which will hopefully free up some bandwidth for enhanced sound.  However, as an audiophile I found XM to be devastatingly disappointing.  The great music variety and vastly expanded play lists just don’t offset the empty sound.  Even with the volume and bass jacked to the max, the sound is hollow and uninspired.  Take away the promise of no commercials and you have something that just doesn’t compete with the other options out there.  I had expected something close, if not equitable, to CD quality.  XM fell miles short.

-Chris Weiss