|
Hello Paul,
I love the format and selection too. In the programming
department XM is, basically, delivering on its promise.
It's in the area of sound where, to my ears, XM is falling
short.
To me, the audio quality is not nearly that of CD, and is
not better, overall, than FM -- at least a reasonably well-
behaving FM station.
Sonically, XM is quiet -- the lack of hiss is welcome, bass
is OK and high frequencies seem to be slightly muffled.
So far so good. The big failing, in my opinion is that the
vocal region isn't right. Vocals have either a metallic
sound or siballances ("S") have a nasty sounding quality.
While certain types of music and loudspeakers and their
placement can mask the flaws, listening through a variety
of equipment (inexpensive and expensive) and electrostatic
headphones (as well as cheap earbuds) tells me that there
is something wrong with either or all:
1. My Sky-Fi receiver
2. XM source material
3. Underlying encoding algorithm / bit rate
I don't expect modern quality out of 40's recordings
(althogh they can sound amazingly good) but well made
stereo 50's recordings have loads of fidelity.
For the most part, I'm hearing this vocal problem "across
the board". Old recordings, new recordings, even the "live
at Willie Nelson's July 4th picnic" on XM168 had problems
in the vocal range. To me, neither CD, FM, or even
Minidisc ATRAC, have this issue.
I've have written XM to comment on what I am hearing.
Anyone else hearing what I'm hearing?
Best regards,
Paul Bigelow
|