XM vs. SIRIUS
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Howard Stern is going to Sirius January, 2006.
Like him or hate him, you can't ignore the drawing power of the King of All Media. Imagine the potential for subscribers if just 5% of his fans follow him to Sirius. That would exceed the current XM subscriber base.
Technically, Sirius is better due to helical orbits, etc. Then again, so was the Betamax and the Apple Computer [still is.]
Like him or hate him, you can't ignore the drawing power of the King of All Media. Imagine the potential for subscribers if just 5% of his fans follow him to Sirius. That would exceed the current XM subscriber base.
Technically, Sirius is better due to helical orbits, etc. Then again, so was the Betamax and the Apple Computer [still is.]
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
From: Alexandria
It is debatable whether betamax or apple were superior products. Beta had very short recording time for too long. Apple's advantages over windows are not worth the $$$$ to most.
However, it is not really debatable that sirius's orbits cause increased dropouts, difficulty with reception in a fixed location, and too-hot, too-large hardware. advantage: xm.
As for howard... if you like him, and that's more important than good tunes, go get the doggie service. he is a talented personality, like him or not he is a proven entertainer and he will help them get some subs, but the way this business works, it is primarily about OEM relationships, hardware cost and quality, and brand. to the extent content influences brand preferences, music is and will always remain the "killer app." As many listeners as stern, rush, or whoever has, the primary use of radio by most people is and always will remain music. Adding a 55 year old man who tells fart jokes isn't going to change all that. will he help the dogsters? sure. is he going to alter the basics of the satellite radio industry? nope.
However, it is not really debatable that sirius's orbits cause increased dropouts, difficulty with reception in a fixed location, and too-hot, too-large hardware. advantage: xm.
As for howard... if you like him, and that's more important than good tunes, go get the doggie service. he is a talented personality, like him or not he is a proven entertainer and he will help them get some subs, but the way this business works, it is primarily about OEM relationships, hardware cost and quality, and brand. to the extent content influences brand preferences, music is and will always remain the "killer app." As many listeners as stern, rush, or whoever has, the primary use of radio by most people is and always will remain music. Adding a 55 year old man who tells fart jokes isn't going to change all that. will he help the dogsters? sure. is he going to alter the basics of the satellite radio industry? nope.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,358
Likes: 1
From: It's a secret!
Originally Posted by Willie Gee,Jan 10 2005, 10:15 PM
c'mon i know someone's got the dock.
help out j-girl, just 'cause she's rad.
help out j-girl, just 'cause she's rad.
Yeah, somebody help me out! I've got to get this puppy put in the car.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas
Go with Sirius. I have had Sirius for about a month and love it ! I think it has the following advantages.
1. Better sports broadcasting. If you want to listen to more than music, Sirius is the way to go.
2. Talk/Entertainment channels are more diverse.
3. Sirius has better sattelite location. XM satellites and the future satellites are in poor positions. You will get better reception with Sirus. This was important to me because I live in Las Vegas with mountains that can block XM signals. To over simplify my point and the facts...Sirus made sure their satellites were in a more "overhead" position to allow for better reception when obstacles may cause a problem. (local newspaper actually did a test to confirm this situation and it is what really swayed my decision).
4. If you like to listen at work or on a home network, Sirus allows its users to access the system by computer with no additional cost. XM charges extra for this service ! This is something to really keep in mind if you plan on using it at home. You could easily hook your computer up to your Home theatre/stereo system and not have to purchase a second unit or worry about always having to drag the receiver in and out of your car. It also makes it so that you don't have to worry about reception at home. No antennae needed to get coverage from your computer !
5. Howard is moving too Sirius !
Contrary to what others have posted, neither company will disappear in the near future. It is more likely that another company will join the fight and make things even more competitive.
1. Better sports broadcasting. If you want to listen to more than music, Sirius is the way to go.
2. Talk/Entertainment channels are more diverse.
3. Sirius has better sattelite location. XM satellites and the future satellites are in poor positions. You will get better reception with Sirus. This was important to me because I live in Las Vegas with mountains that can block XM signals. To over simplify my point and the facts...Sirus made sure their satellites were in a more "overhead" position to allow for better reception when obstacles may cause a problem. (local newspaper actually did a test to confirm this situation and it is what really swayed my decision).
4. If you like to listen at work or on a home network, Sirus allows its users to access the system by computer with no additional cost. XM charges extra for this service ! This is something to really keep in mind if you plan on using it at home. You could easily hook your computer up to your Home theatre/stereo system and not have to purchase a second unit or worry about always having to drag the receiver in and out of your car. It also makes it so that you don't have to worry about reception at home. No antennae needed to get coverage from your computer !
5. Howard is moving too Sirius !
Contrary to what others have posted, neither company will disappear in the near future. It is more likely that another company will join the fight and make things even more competitive.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,892
Likes: 0
From: Tiffin, Ohio
Sirius may have Howard, but after a month of listening to Opie and Anthony, I'd say I prefer them over Howard.
As for the doggie having better satellites. They're probably better in your situation, but in many situations their orbits are at a disadvantage. They take helical orbits around the planet, constantly changing position, so if you setup it in your home or office, where you get antenna reception one minute could be a virtual dead zone the next minute. And if you're not near a ground based repeater, then you're out of luck.
XM satellites maintain a geo-synchronous orbit around the planet, so they're always in a fixed location.
In a car, it may not be as big of an issue, but he may at some point wish to expand. Either way, one satellite orbit isn't any better than the other.
As for the doggie having better satellites. They're probably better in your situation, but in many situations their orbits are at a disadvantage. They take helical orbits around the planet, constantly changing position, so if you setup it in your home or office, where you get antenna reception one minute could be a virtual dead zone the next minute. And if you're not near a ground based repeater, then you're out of luck.
XM satellites maintain a geo-synchronous orbit around the planet, so they're always in a fixed location.
In a car, it may not be as big of an issue, but he may at some point wish to expand. Either way, one satellite orbit isn't any better than the other.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
From: Las Vegas
Originally Posted by Chadwick,Jan 10 2005, 10:43 PM
Sirius may have Howard, but after a month of listening to Opie and Anthony, I'd say I prefer them over Howard.
As for the doggie having better satellites. They're probably better in your situation, but in many situations their orbits are at a disadvantage. They take helical orbits around the planet, constantly changing position, so if you setup it in your home or office, where you get antenna reception one minute could be a virtual dead zone the next minute. And if you're not near a ground based repeater, then you're out of luck.
XM satellites maintain a geo-synchronous orbit around the planet, so they're always in a fixed location.
In a car, it may not be as big of an issue, but he may at some point wish to expand. Either way, one satellite orbit isn't any better than the other.
As for the doggie having better satellites. They're probably better in your situation, but in many situations their orbits are at a disadvantage. They take helical orbits around the planet, constantly changing position, so if you setup it in your home or office, where you get antenna reception one minute could be a virtual dead zone the next minute. And if you're not near a ground based repeater, then you're out of luck.
XM satellites maintain a geo-synchronous orbit around the planet, so they're always in a fixed location.
In a car, it may not be as big of an issue, but he may at some point wish to expand. Either way, one satellite orbit isn't any better than the other.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
From: Alexandria
Folks --
"Geosynchronous" means they are synchronized with the Earth's rotation in some fashion. Both XM and SIRI are geosynchronous. Their orbits are steadily related to the Earth's rotation.
However, only XM is "geostationary," meaning they are synchronized in such a way as to always appear in the same spot in the sky. At the proper altitude, about 23k miles up, the satellite keeps pace with the Earth's rotation, so it looks "fixed." SIRI is synchronized in a polar orbit, to make a figure-8 over the western hemisphere.
All satellites have an "expiration date," they gradually lose power over their life time and then they get below the point at which they produce enough power to deliver a sufficient signal, and they must be replaced.
XM is replacing its satellites because of a design defect common to all 6 of the first Boeing-702's, which cause them to last only 8 years instead of the original 15.
The SIRI orbit gives a higher angle, but the satellites are somewhat weaker. XM's satellites sit lower in the sky but are more powerful. XM also has a much larger terrestrial repeater network.
The XM constellation is more reliable. If one satellite goes out, you will still have coverage of all of North America from the other one. If SIRI loses one of its three satellites, half the country would be without a signal one third of the time. XM is also more reliable in fixed locations, because the satellites don't "move." Outdoors, they're both about the same. The trade off between high angle and higher power/more repeaters is roughly even.
As for internet coverage....
XM does charge its subs an additional 3.99 for this service, but the service is $3 less a month than SIRI to start with, and is streamed at a much higher quality. For those who don't want it, they don't pay for it. XM also offers an internet only subscription for $7.99 a month. Sirius does not.
"Geosynchronous" means they are synchronized with the Earth's rotation in some fashion. Both XM and SIRI are geosynchronous. Their orbits are steadily related to the Earth's rotation.
However, only XM is "geostationary," meaning they are synchronized in such a way as to always appear in the same spot in the sky. At the proper altitude, about 23k miles up, the satellite keeps pace with the Earth's rotation, so it looks "fixed." SIRI is synchronized in a polar orbit, to make a figure-8 over the western hemisphere.
All satellites have an "expiration date," they gradually lose power over their life time and then they get below the point at which they produce enough power to deliver a sufficient signal, and they must be replaced.
XM is replacing its satellites because of a design defect common to all 6 of the first Boeing-702's, which cause them to last only 8 years instead of the original 15.
The SIRI orbit gives a higher angle, but the satellites are somewhat weaker. XM's satellites sit lower in the sky but are more powerful. XM also has a much larger terrestrial repeater network.
The XM constellation is more reliable. If one satellite goes out, you will still have coverage of all of North America from the other one. If SIRI loses one of its three satellites, half the country would be without a signal one third of the time. XM is also more reliable in fixed locations, because the satellites don't "move." Outdoors, they're both about the same. The trade off between high angle and higher power/more repeaters is roughly even.
As for internet coverage....
XM does charge its subs an additional 3.99 for this service, but the service is $3 less a month than SIRI to start with, and is streamed at a much higher quality. For those who don't want it, they don't pay for it. XM also offers an internet only subscription for $7.99 a month. Sirius does not.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
From: Valdosta, GA
That's interesting about the satellite positioning, I just learned something new.
That may account for the fact that my SkyFi antenna picks up beautifully in my house- aimed at a wall! I have a friend with a Sirius boombox, it will not pick up any signal at all inside of his house. Other than that, he really likes his Kenwood Sirius setup in his truck.
I have had XM now for almost two years. I have four subscriptions, one in each car and my SkiFi boombox/home kit deal. Each additional receiver is $7 so it's still a lot cheaper than cable, which I now regularly turn off to listen to XM in my living room.
That may account for the fact that my SkyFi antenna picks up beautifully in my house- aimed at a wall! I have a friend with a Sirius boombox, it will not pick up any signal at all inside of his house. Other than that, he really likes his Kenwood Sirius setup in his truck.
I have had XM now for almost two years. I have four subscriptions, one in each car and my SkiFi boombox/home kit deal. Each additional receiver is $7 so it's still a lot cheaper than cable, which I now regularly turn off to listen to XM in my living room.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post