Tuner vs Satellite Radio


I always intended to add a tuner to my system and the logical choice seems to be one of the Magnum Dynalab models. However, the recent introduction of satellite radio (Sirius and XM) offer an interesting alternative. Digital quality, no commercials, and a wide array of music to choose from. Then of course, there's the other option of adding digital cable with its music stations playing through my system. Can anyone make an argument for choosing one over the other? Which will deliver the best sound quality?
tonyp54

Showing 1 response by elevick

After learning what I have, I wouldn't spend the money on an MD in my area (pittsburgh). Very few radio stations use high enought quality equipment to justify a $1000 tuner. Everyone here thought that WQED was superb. Well, I got the "grand tour" and found out that the source was a pair of sony 200 disc changers-not even ES models just basic 1 bit units. Virtually no albums either. Their goal was to download 10-20,000 discs to hard drive for further ease of use. Wow was I bummed out to find that they were going to kill quality even more by compressing single bit data.
On a better note, I love the quality of my Dishnetwork audio for background music. It still isn't audiophile quality. You may get better selection from satellite radio but still won't have even cd quality sound.
I would recommend getting a vintage tube tuner (with mulitplexer built in) and letting the tubes "warm-up" the radio sound very nicely. You should spend about $100 to $150 for a nice Pilot, Fisher, Heath or similar and spend the rest on either satellite or dish.