XM or Sirius

This is from WikiPedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xm_radio

"Audio channels on XM are digitally compressed using the aacPlus codec from Coding Technologies for most channels, and the AMBE codec from Digital Voice Systems for some voice channels. Due to bandwidth restrictions and a large channel load, the maximum bitrate XM broadcast from its satellite per music channel is limited to 64kbit/s."

Keep in mind that the 64kbit/s is maximum, so it is unclear from reading this what the actual bitrate is in real-world situations.

Any audiophile who has spent some time learning about digital compression will understand that no matter how good the algorithm, 64kbit/s will have major and unforgivable sonic comprises for serious listening.

Though this data is only for XM, it is pretty clear from reading various peoples' opinions that there is no "clear winner" XM vs Sirius in sound quality, so my assumption is that Sirius is probably as bad with the compression.

So while I have no opinion as to whether or not someone "should" get satellite radio, I will say that if you do decide to go for it, do it for the content, with full knowledge that sound quality will be far less than desirable.

I love Wikipedia. I often go there intent on doing a specific search and end up spending hours getting sidetracked and branching off into completely unrelated topics. A great place to get a primer on something before investigating it further.

Has anyone tried the new Directed/ Polk Audio SIRIUS tuner (SRH-1000)? Ive got the older SRH-500 and wonder if it's worth upgrading.

Both are glutinous examples of aural wallpaper sorry to mix metaphors). Give your central nervous system a break and give your brian something to do - try "Books on Tape" (CD, iPod). Your local library probably has hundreds of them.