Too many channels? Hello XM managers?

[Oscar]

Since most agree that the reason sat radio sounds less than ideal is
because of the high number of channels offered, why not just cut down on
the number of channels? I realize the temptation to add as many
channels as possible just to be able to market that fact.

Were I the CEO of XM I would cut down by at least 1/3 the channel line
up then use the resulting higher fidelity as a marketing plus. Who
would miss channels such as Fungus, Raw, Sunny, enlighten, Squizz, etc?
Only a few. Channels such as these are simply redundant.

One of the providers will soon realize this and market their service as
the high fidelity alternative to 180 channels of crappy sounding crap.

Oscar

[Lowdown in Lodi]

> Since most agree that the reason sat radio sounds less than ideal is
> because of the high number of channels offered, why not just cut down on
> the number of channels? I realize the temptation to add as many channels
> as possible just to be able to market that fact.
>
> Were I the CEO of XM I would cut down by at least 1/3 the channel line up
> then use the resulting higher fidelity as a marketing plus. Who would
> miss channels such as Fungus, Raw, Sunny, enlighten, Squizz, etc? Only a
> few. Channels such as these are simply redundant.
>
> One of the providers will soon realize this and market their service as
> the high fidelity alternative to 180 channels of crappy sounding crap.

I think the March 1 decline in sound quality will be mostly short-lived; as
XM' H/M is rolled out I'd expect them to allocate some of the gain to
improving SQ, as well as putting a couple of the streaming channels on the
satellites.

Sirius is obviously planning to use most of its H/M gain for streaming
cartoons to the back seat.

The reality is that the vast majority of people don't appreciate the
difference between today's sound quality and the way it was before. A tiny
portion (maybe 1%, or less) can appreciate it. Most are listening in noisy
cars, through wireless FM modulators, or cheap earbuds. Sound quality just
isn't a factor for the vast majority of people so long as it stays above
some minimum, and it has.

XM will likely always sound better than Sirius because Sirius made a bad
engineering choice of codec.

But it is really hard to see how sound quality will ever return to that of
the early days of satellite radio.

[David]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:44:29 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:




>
>XM will likely always sound better than Sirius because Sirius made a bad
>engineering choice of codec.
>
>But it is really hard to see how sound quality will ever return to that of
>the early days of satellite radio.
>
If Sirius made this alleged bad choice how come XM hasn't published an
objective comparison for over 3 years that backs-up your position?

Do you believe in listener fatigue? It can make you irritable, you
know.

[Coyote]

Change that to reader fatigue brought on by frontmed rantings.

[Timedrifter]

Where do you get this number? I bet its quite a bit higher than that.
Looking at websites that review XM and Sirius, one of the most common
reasons given for potential subs not to subscribe is that they heard
XM/Sirius on their friend's system and the audio quality was terrible
from their perspective. Plus getting somebody to sub and keeping them
a sub are two different things. I don't see how XM is not losing more
subs from bad audio quality then they are gaining from formats such as
Bluegrass, Reggae, Radio Disney, etc

[Dr. Droo]

Timedrifter wrote:
> Where do you get this number? I bet its quite a bit higher than that.
> Looking at websites that review XM and Sirius, one of the most common
> reasons given for potential subs not to subscribe is that they heard
> XM/Sirius on their friend's system and the audio quality was terrible
> from their perspective. Plus getting somebody to sub and keeping them
> a sub are two different things. I don't see how XM is not losing more
> subs from bad audio quality then they are gaining from formats such as
> Bluegrass, Reggae, Radio Disney, etc

The few vocal folk do gripe about sound quality. However, the people
that often buy Satellite Radio also appreciate crappy 96kbit lossy mp3s
that they downloaded off P2P services. The abundance of content
overshadows the quality for the majority of subscribers.

A friend of mine said not too long ago, "I wish they made a service
with like 10 channels in full quality." . That's all well and good,
but the amount of people that would subscribe to such a service are far
fewer. With the current model, with either service, there's something
for just about everyone.

If you recall, Voom tried to do this for Satellite TV. They intended
to offer an abundance of HDTV content compared to everyone else as well
as offer some 'cable favorites'. It failed, largely because of up
front costs (hardware, etc.) as well as their lack of offering packages
that other carriers did and have for years. Even when they were giving
away the hardware, it was still of interest to about 100K customers
after all was said and done.

People don't listen to FM or AM radio for sound quality either. They
listen to it because there's something they want to hear or because
it's built into their car and they forgot their iPod, CD player, etc.
People that taped songs off the radio did so because otherwise they'd
be buying the tapes or CDs later in time.

It's relatively easy to fill a mp3 player with a ton of music from one
particular genre or point in time. However, sometimes I could be on a
Rap mood, a 70s mood, a hard rock mood, etc. It's much easier to turn
the dial than it would be to keep shuffling my music daily, let alone
pay for tracks I might listen to infrequently.

It's all about bang for buck. It's hard to get anything with as much
value as Satellite Radio for 43 cents a day. People who feel otherwise
will simply not subscribe.

By the way, I think Radio Disney is on AM Radio in some markets. I
doubt XM's feed is THAT bad off but I've not heard it.

--D

[J. Fowler]

Dr. Droo wrote:
>
> It's all about bang for buck. It's hard to get anything with as much
> value as Satellite Radio for 43 cents a day. People who feel otherwise
> will simply not subscribe.
>

It's always nice to hear one person's opinion, expressed as the voice of
12 million subscribers. I listen to a handful of stations, but greatly
appreciate the variety. Without that variety, I wouldn't likely
subscribe. Could sound quality be better? Let's see what they do next.

[takeshi.kovachs@gmail.com]

Dr. Droo is correct. If it was all about sound quality people would
be saving up their money to buy 10k cd players.

Could sound quality be better? Sure, I wish it where, but I'm willing
to put up with it for the variety of music genres.

J. Fowler wrote:
> Dr. Droo wrote:
> >
> > It's all about bang for buck. It's hard to get anything with as much
> > value as Satellite Radio for 43 cents a day. People who feel otherwise
> > will simply not subscribe.
> >
>
> It's always nice to hear one person's opinion, expressed as the voice of
> 12 million subscribers. I listen to a handful of stations, but greatly
> appreciate the variety. Without that variety, I wouldn't likely
> subscribe. Could sound quality be better? Let's see what they do next.

[John Smith]

"Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155236451.986844.61790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Timedrifter wrote:
>> Where do you get this number? I bet its quite a bit higher than that.
>> Looking at websites that review XM and Sirius, one of the most common
>> reasons given for potential subs not to subscribe is that they heard
>> XM/Sirius on their friend's system and the audio quality was terrible
>> from their perspective. Plus getting somebody to sub and keeping them
>> a sub are two different things. I don't see how XM is not losing more
>> subs from bad audio quality then they are gaining from formats such as
>> Bluegrass, Reggae, Radio Disney, etc
>
> The few vocal folk do gripe about sound quality. However, the people
> that often buy Satellite Radio also appreciate crappy 96kbit lossy mp3s
> that they downloaded off P2P services. The abundance of content
> overshadows the quality for the majority of subscribers.
>
> A friend of mine said not too long ago, "I wish they made a service
> with like 10 channels in full quality." . That's all well and good,
> but the amount of people that would subscribe to such a service are far
> fewer. With the current model, with either service, there's something
> for just about everyone.
>
> If you recall, Voom tried to do this for Satellite TV. They intended
> to offer an abundance of HDTV content compared to everyone else as well
> as offer some 'cable favorites'. It failed, largely because of up
> front costs (hardware, etc.) as well as their lack of offering packages
> that other carriers did and have for years. Even when they were giving
> away the hardware, it was still of interest to about 100K customers
> after all was said and done.
>
> People don't listen to FM or AM radio for sound quality either. They
> listen to it because there's something they want to hear or because
> it's built into their car and they forgot their iPod, CD player, etc.
> People that taped songs off the radio did so because otherwise they'd
> be buying the tapes or CDs later in time.
>
> It's relatively easy to fill a mp3 player with a ton of music from one
> particular genre or point in time. However, sometimes I could be on a
> Rap mood, a 70s mood, a hard rock mood, etc. It's much easier to turn
> the dial than it would be to keep shuffling my music daily, let alone
> pay for tracks I might listen to infrequently.
>
> It's all about bang for buck. It's hard to get anything with as much
> value as Satellite Radio for 43 cents a day. People who feel otherwise
> will simply not subscribe.
>
> By the way, I think Radio Disney is on AM Radio in some markets. I
> doubt XM's feed is THAT bad off but I've not heard it.
>
> --D
>


Everything gets blown out of proportion on usenet. Sound quality isn't
great on XM or Sirus, but it isn't that bad either. I, too, wish they would
cut the number of channels down and improve the quality. I would also like
more talk channels and fewer music channels, but that is just me.


--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson

[Lowdown in Lodi]

> Where do you get this number? I bet its quite a bit higher than that.
> Looking at websites that review XM and Sirius, one of the most common
> reasons given for potential subs not to subscribe is that they heard
> XM/Sirius on their friend's system and the audio quality was terrible
> from their perspective. Plus getting somebody to sub and keeping them
> a sub are two different things. I don't see how XM is not losing more
> subs from bad audio quality then they are gaining from formats such as
> Bluegrass, Reggae, Radio Disney, etc

I bet it isn't. Get real -- very few people give a ---- -- and those who do
can't reliably tell the difference when their listening driving down the
road at 70 through a wireless FM modulator or with earbuds. Furthermore,
many are tuned to news/sports/talk channels, for which it is even less
important. When you boil it down, nobody gives a ----.

Go to XMFAN and XM411 and count the number of individual people posting
about sound quality issues. Then divide that by their memberships. You'll
see just how many care enough to post about it.

I've discussed this with someone who is personally responsible for 170
subscribers -- most of whom he continues to be in touch with. He tells me
he has heard NOT ONE complaint from any of them, and certainly no
cancellations. While I haven't enrolled anywhere near 170, I've discussed
with others and nobody but me has even been aware of it.

Aside from that, the SQ was really, really bad on March 1 but has steadily
improved since -- presumably due to tweaking but also probably due to some
other factors.

Again, it isn't wonderful but it is adequate, in all cases better than
AM/FM/Sirius, so that's about all someone can ask for.

If you're competing against IPods and Sirius, the most important thing you
can offer is diversity, which neither of those can provide.

[Lowdown in Lodi]

>
> Everything gets blown out of proportion on usenet. Sound quality isn't
> great on XM or Sirus, but it isn't that bad either. I, too, wish they
> would cut the number of channels down and improve the quality. I would
> also like more talk channels and fewer music channels, but that is just
> me.

I don't think it was. One guy expressed his opinion, and while I agree the
SQ isn't great anymore, I consistently prefer XM to my IPod because a 2.2
Million track library is better than 15,000 tracks.

[David]

On 10 Aug 2006 12:00:52 -0700, "Dr. Droo" <drdroo@gmail.com> wrote:


>

>
>People don't listen to FM or AM radio for sound quality either. They
>listen to it because there's something they want to hear or because
>it's built into their car and they forgot their iPod, CD player, etc.
>People that taped songs off the radio did so because otherwise they'd
>be buying the tapes or CDs later in time.
>
You ignore the concept of listener fatigue and the fact that artifacts
reduce customer satisfaction subliminally.

Also, XM's artifacts seem to turn a lot of people into flaming
-------s.

[David]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:10:05 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:

>
>I don't think it was. One guy expressed his opinion, and while I agree the
>SQ isn't great anymore, I consistently prefer XM to my IPod because a 2.2
>Million track library is better than 15,000 tracks.
>
XM plays 210,000 unique tracks.

[John Smith]

"Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com> wrote in message
news:NgNCg.6131$kO3.3928@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
>> Everything gets blown out of proportion on usenet. Sound quality isn't
>> great on XM or Sirus, but it isn't that bad either. I, too, wish they
>> would cut the number of channels down and improve the quality. I would
>> also like more talk channels and fewer music channels, but that is just
>> me.
>
> I don't think it was. One guy expressed his opinion, and while I agree
> the SQ isn't great anymore, I consistently prefer XM to my IPod because a
> 2.2 Million track library is better than 15,000 tracks.
>

Well if we are compairing what I get on XM to an mp3 player - I'll take XM
anyday. I can't tell you how much I enjoy listening to my Airware on trips
and while working outside. There are about 6 music channels I listen to,
and of course MLB, but most of the time I listen to the talk shows (old time
radio & Sonic theater). The sports ticker is very nice also. I almost
bought a little mp3 player the other day. They had them at Home Depot (of
all places). It came with 512megs of internal memory, and an sd slot. Only
about $40. Nice little unit, but I really coundn't think of any reason I
needed it.

--
If I could not go to heaven but with a [political] party, I would not go
there at all.
--Thomas Jefferson

[Lowdown in Lodi]

> XM plays 210,000 unique tracks.

In any given month there are only so many you can cram in.

[Lowdown in Lodi]

> Also, XM's artifacts seem to turn a lot of people into flaming
> -------s.

The artifacts are coming from that POS amp you're using. Get a real stereo
and it won't be nearly so bad.

[David]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:29:49 GMT, "Lowdown in Lodi" <Lodi@lowdown.com>
wrote:

>
>> Also, XM's artifacts seem to turn a lot of people into flaming
>> -------s.
>
>The artifacts are coming from that POS amp you're using. Get a real stereo
>and it won't be nearly so bad.
>
I rest my case...

[Rastis P. Buttsnort]

"Oscar" <oscar@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KYFCg.5260$o27.4164@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Since most agree that the reason sat radio sounds less than ideal is
> because of the high number of channels offered, why not just cut down on
> the number of channels? I realize the temptation to add as many channels
> as possible just to be able to market that fact.
>
> Were I the CEO of XM I would cut down by at least 1/3 the channel line up
> then use the resulting higher fidelity as a marketing plus. Who would
> miss channels such as Fungus, Raw, Sunny, enlighten, Squizz, etc? Only a
> few. Channels such as these are simply redundant.
>
> One of the providers will soon realize this and market their service as
> the high fidelity alternative to 180 channels of crappy sounding crap.
>
> Oscar

Yep...like we NEED multiple channels of "Knuckle-Dragging" nigger hip-hop
and channels for the illegal Beaners....

XM needs to wake up! It's sounding worse and worse......