Analogue Radio Vs. Digital Radio (Sirius/XM)

[O'Shag]

Hi everybody - hope everyone is doing well.

Just wanted to post my thoughts on Analog radio vs. digital radio. I receive my digital radio via Dishnetwork, and due to the recent aquisition, it is now Sirius/XM. I have mixed feelings about digital radio. The big problem for me is that generally the broadcast is somewhat compressed sounding.

A few weeks ago, as the union between Sirius and XM became official, I turned to the radio channels and was surprised at the quality. I heard what digital radio can sound like at its best and it is very good. But after a few days the sound reverted back to the slightly harsh and compressed sound that is off-putting after a short while. I guessed this might be the end of the honeymoon period to celebrate the Sirius/XM thing, but I also feel the quality of the broadcast may be limited by the carrier, in this case Dishnetwork. Perhaps they are compressing the signal? I'd like some feedback on that from anyone who has experience with this.

I like listening to analog radio. The main challenge I've found with analog radio is that unless a large outdoor antenna is used, it is difficult to get reception without some degree of noise. But, when a station comes in clearly it can sound very good on the right station. For instance here in Los Angeles, KUSC out of University So Cal is a wonderful Classical station, and then there is a wonderful jazz station KJAZZ operating out of Cal State Long Beach, or KPFK for example.

I've tried some of the older tuners and have not been overly impressed. DXing is not something that is vital for me, and my main concern is audio sound quality for the 'local ' stations (although LA is a very big region). On the other hand I've been very impressed with the tuner built into my Yami RX-Z9. Actually the Yami has gotten better and better with age - truly excellent m/c processor. It took a while to break in but since has been excellent. Also, with the old tuners forget about remote control to channel surf.

Given clear reception, what I notice about a good quality fm station broadcast, is a sense of continuousness that sat/dig radio fails to convey. While the digital radio has the upper hand in edge definition (analog radio can sound a little less focused in comparison) it does not have that continuous sound. In the area of high frequency reproduction, the analoge broadcast generally sounds much righter and more open. I find quality broadcasts on analog radio easy to listen to for hours - not so with digital/satellite radio.

I'd be interested to know what others may think on this subject.

Cheers all

[Mr Peabody]

Good to see you back Shaggy. I agree with your assessment. Actually Dish's own music stations sound better than the Sirius stations. The music stations vary in quality and some are even mono. A good analog tuner, minus noise, does seem to be more musical. Most of the so called digital music sound artificial some how. I had a portable satelite radio to try before getting into mp3, I returned it because reception was bad in my area, but when I did get a signal I was pretty disappointed at the quality. I started a thread here a way back because my mom's car came with satelite radio and a temporary free subscription, not only did the satelite sound worse than the analog the highs had something I couldn't quite put my finger on, it was a type of noise like AM would have.

Unfortunately, regular radio is going to mp3 or some type of computer file more and more, and their sound is going down from the old days. Sometimes I hear a song and it is so compressed it sounds like a different version of the song.

[O'Shag]

Howdy Mr P.

Thanks mate for the greeting. I see you've dabbled with sat radio via Sirius' own in-car receiver in addition to DishNetwork's. So then it would suggest that DishNet is not the culprit of the compressed sound. If the sound is worse on the Sirius receiver then it must not be very good.

I think your right about many stations on FM sounding less than stellar - made worse by the constant bombardment of advertising. But the public stations can sound very different. I just came in after a night out on the town and am listening to KJazz, which sounds excellent with a surprisingingly low noise floor and a sense of harmonic completeness... I admit to becoming addicted of late to the local Classical station. What began as routine listening the other night while I finished up some work turned into something different. Handel's Messiah as per the original release in Dublin Ireland in 1642 went from passage to passage, and I became lost in the music -' How beautiful are the Feet of T..hem that preach the Gospel of Peace' - I Know that My Redeemer Liveth', made more moving given the season of glad tidings and all. Then some works by Mozart, or Edvard Grieg, Britten, Elgar. Dang, one is reminded how much trancendent beauty there can be in Classical music. I guess that says a lot for what FM can be at its best.

Adding to my initial comments, I find that the tone/timbres are very good with analog FM broadcasts, and the overall image is more cohesive, although perhaps a little less focused. Quality FM Broadcasts seem more accurately scaled in height and the correct scale of the music is conveyed in a more natural fashion - so it seems to my ears. Perhaps I need to try a really good tuner like a Day Sequerra FM Reference...Chance would be a fine thing! Mummy, I want one for Christmas!

How about HD Radio - is it any good?

[Mr Peabody]

I have my first HD tuner built into my AV8003. I hate to comment much because I haven't sat down to figure out how to go back and forth between the analog and digital version if possible, I'd think it would be. I haven't listened a great deal either. I put it on sometimes in the background while on the computer. My initial impression is the HD is better due to the lack of noise. Sometimes though I wonder if it wasn't for the noise if it would actually be better. It's like getting a remastered CD, it almost always is quieter but sometimes it just has an artificial or not as natural sound. I often wonder if my impression is such because I've grown accustom to the original sound or if the "artificial" character is really there.

Believe it or not some of Kenwood's tuners are excellent and real giant killers. The trick is finding out which models are like that and which were just made for rack systems or entry level. I had a KT-3300 that was one of their best, if not the best they built. It was an FM only. I compared it to an Arcam tuner one time, the Arcam was not better on sound quality, they were actually pretty close, but the Kenwood killed the Arcam in reception. Just using the same antenna connection from one to the other the Kenwood pulled in at least twice as many stations. The KT-3300 was built in the late 80's, it was a digital tuner that featured an analog knob in addition to the seek/scan. It was a cool tuner. I sold it though to make room in my rack and i don't listen to FM if I get a chance to sit between the speakers.

[emorphien]

I've never been that impressed by the satellite radio systems I've listened to. You can often hear the result of the compression even in a car. I've found in the past that Sirius was usually worse than XM but neither were great. It's the worst if you're listening to the more obscure or less popular channels because I've been told they are given even less bandwidth to work with.

Even with the FM tuner in my car, nevermind the basic FM/AM/HD tuner I have at home, I often find that standard FM sounds better than the satellite units.

[O'Shag]

That confirms what I've been hearing. Probably explains why satellite radio has been suffering from a lack of subcribers (hence the merger). Don't they get it that most people, including non-audiophiles care about sound quality? Maybe the bandwidth limitation is something they can't overcome? I may consider picking up a used HD tuner (sangean?) just to try it out.

[O'Shag]

I'm not enamoured of the Sirius / XM simply becuase they compress the signal too much and this is a pity, because it can sound very good when less compressed. I heard an example of this some weeks back as the merger of Sirius and XM was finalized.

But, FM broadcasts in large part have their shortcomings. Noise is the biggest problem. But it is fun to listen to music on the radio.

[Kevio]

A general problem with commercial radio is that broadcasters feel the need to apply heavy compression and other processing.

A general problem with digital radio is the ability to trade off number of channels offered for sound quality. Broadcasters generally sacrifice quality for quantity.

This trade off is not available for analog stations and so if it weren't for my first point, things could be good there (and they are generally good on non-commercial radio stations). Good but not great. FM transmissions have built-in bandwidth and S/N limitations.

I find, in many cases, I get my best radio reception over the internet.

[blackraven]

I'll take a vintage tube tuner over the current SS tuners and HD/SAT tuners any day. Growing up we had a home built Heath Kit or Lafayette (I can't remember which one) vacuum tube amp and preamp with a wonderful tuner that my father built (including the speakers). I used to spend hours listening to FM radio back then as FM was coming of age in NYC.