within the hallowed halls ,
Paul (Erie) employed much wit to add:
What do you think is better, Sirius or XM radio?

Sirius now has a plan that it costs $399 for the life of your
receiver. So if my receiver lasts for over 2 1/2 years, I would
get the service free of charge from that pouint on. I've had
receivers...not satelite, for 5 to 12 years. no receiver I have has
ever died before 5 ywears. Is it a good deal? What do you think.

My pessimism alarm just went off, me thinks Sirius knows the end is near.

In terms of Quality, Sirius or XM...any comments suggestions you can
give would be great!

I've heard both and think XM has the advantage in terms of audio quality.
Sirius sounded a little sloppier and, after all, is using the old PAC codec.

However, as always YMMV.

lid inquired:

What do you think is better, Sirius or XM radio?

....
In terms of Quality, Sirius or XM...any comments suggestions you can give
would be great!

thanks

I chose XM Radio about a month ago, partly from the advice received
in this n/group, and partly after
looking at both outfits' list of channels.
I wanted drama, audio book readings, BBC World Service, and certain
kinds of music (50s, 60s, classical etc). XM had these and the
layout of the channels seemed
more specific - or do I mean thematic? - than that of Sirius.
So, I can't give any opinion on what Sirius is like, but I can tell
you I'm delighted with most of what I get on XM.
Haven't had the FM/AM radio on for more than a few minutes since getting the
satellite receiver connected!
I use the equipment only in the house, not in a vehicle;
the sound quality is good enough for my undemanding needs, but I
do notice the volume level is only about 60 per cent of the FM radio's; not
a problem as I just turn up the volume. I don't know if this is
something peculiar to my particular setup or not, though.
--
Ian Ft Worth, TX, USA
change m to r to Reply by email