# Sirius XM to file for bankruptcy this week



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Well, this presents a few problems for me. One, I have three of the radio's and count on it for the main music supply at the salon. Secondly I am sitting on about 400 shares of Sirius, which is currently at $0.11 USD. I wont even go into what I paid for it.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Well, this presents a few problems for me. One, I have three of the radio's and count on it for the main music supply at the salon. Secondly I am sitting on about 400 shares of Sirius, which is currently at $0.11 USD. I wont even go into what I paid for it.


Yeah us too, drove my husband crazy evertime they gave Stern more and diluted them......


----------



## demon (Feb 20, 2006)

they wont stop broadcasting I hope.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I honestly don't get satellite radio. I go to the dollar store. I plunk down $1 and tax. I get a radio. I can use it pretty much anywhere I go, except for the really remote areas where I am unlikely to be in the first place. Reception isn't fabulous, but then the news is no more depressing in 5.1 than it is in mono with crackles added, and quite frankly the sound in 98% of automobiles is up against so many competing noise sources that fidelity doesn't matter. True, there are some interesting shows only available on satellite, but if I don't have the time to hear them anyway they could be the voices of John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix from beyond the grave for all I care, and I still wouldn't listen. 

It's not like people are going from 2 local rabbit-ears TV channels to a 500-channel universe. Most listener markets are already saturated with stations, and often another $10-20 will get you a radio able to tap into other regions, so where is the advantage in terms of the amount one has access to via satellite (unless you're desperate for that Serbian country and western station, or the Urdu talk show from back home)? Hell, I already have some favourite shows on CBC that I can never get to (Age of Persuasion, Afghanada). I don't need more of them piling up.

Moreover, radio has traditionally been subsidized either by taxes (CBC, NPR), tuition (student radio) or by advertising. When it is subsidized by advertising, the advertising is principally (though not exclusively) local. I suppose it's local because radio has traditionally been bound within a narrow broadcast area, so digital satellite transmission ought to, in theory, break open those boundaries. But which major advertiser would sink their dollars into radio advertising unless they knew a huge audience would be glued to the set at the same time? The only viable alternative is for satellite radio to be perceived of as indispensable by millions of subscribers. And that isn't about to happen.

So, while I don't mean to be callous about your own financial hit, the news of Sirius XM potentially tanking is one of those things that makes me go "Well, DUH!". Call me old-fashioned, but I just never understood the business case for it.


----------



## Luke98 (Mar 4, 2007)

That sucks about the shares. I have no experience with Sirius, But for the music don't you sign a contract for service? If so don't they have to still provide or is it tough luck?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

demon said:


> they wont stop broadcasting I hope.


There is a possibility that a takeover will occur. the owner of Dish Network wants it but he wants it for nothing. he might just get it. has to assume all the debt though. I imagine that if this does happen that Stern will get the boot or at least that $500 million contract will have to be re-worked. They paid a lot of cash for Martha Stewart and Oprah as well.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Luke98 said:


> That sucks about the shares. I have no experience with Sirius, But for the music don't you sign a contract for service? If so don't they have to still provide or is it tough luck?


If they go bankrupt it would be tough luck, unless someone comes in.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> I honestly don't get satellite radio. I go to the dollar store. I plunk down $1 and tax. I get a radio. I can use it pretty much anywhere I go, except for the really remote areas where I am unlikely to be in the first place. Reception isn't fabulous, but then the news is no more depressing in 5.1 than it is in mono with crackles added, and quite frankly the sound in 98% of automobiles is up against so many competing noise sources that fidelity doesn't matter. True, there are some interesting shows only available on satellite, but if I don't have the time to hear them anyway they could be the voices of John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix from beyond the grave for all I care, and I still wouldn't listen.
> 
> It's not like people are going from 2 local rabbit-ears TV channels to a 500-channel universe. Most listener markets are already saturated with stations, and often another $10-20 will get you a radio able to tap into other regions, so where is the advantage in terms of the amount one has access to via satellite (unless you're desperate for that Serbian country and western station, or the Urdu talk show from back home)? Hell, I already have some favourite shows on CBC that I can never get to (Age of Persuasion, Afghanada). I don't need more of them piling up.
> 
> ...


You make a lot of good points and many are sound. the reason I got into it way back when it first came out was for my travel. I used to drive to Michigan every week. About a 4.5 hr drive. I used to listen to CD's because I got sick and tired of losing signals along the way and having to search for stuff on the radio. Sirius has some really cool channels. Among the good things is NO COMMERCIALS !!!! also they have fabulous talk shows and tons of news channels. I am a news junky so I love it. They also have this channel that plays all the old radio classics like Superman, The Shadow, Bob Hope, etc etc. I used to listen to those all the time.

Now that I am not doing the drive anymore I still listen to it locally. But for the salon it's great. you have the specific channels you can tune. Blues, hard rock, dance, top 40, 60's 70's 80' and etc etc etc. All commercial free.

Sirius and XM is hugely popular with truckers, for the reasons mentioned. You never lose a channel anywhere. You can listen to the same program for 5000 km's

i think they paid too much for some talent and programs and Mel Karmazin should not have bought XM. That is why they are in the mess they are right now.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Another piece of technology that never reached my house. I feel better.


----------



## 4321 (Nov 25, 2008)

With over 11000 songs & podcasts on my ipod, who needs satellite radio ??


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You make a lot of good points and many are sound. the reason I got into it way back when it first came out was for my travel. I used to drive to Michigan every week. About a 4.5 hr drive. I used to listen to CD's because I got sick and tired of losing signals along the way and having to search for stuff on the radio. Sirius has some really cool channels. Among the good things is NO COMMERCIALS !!!! also they have fabulous talk shows and tons of news channels. I am a news junky so I love it. They also have this channel that plays all the old radio classics like Superman, The Shadow, Bob Hope, etc etc. I used to listen to those all the time.
> 
> Now that I am not doing the drive anymore I still listen to it locally. But for the salon it's great. you have the specific channels you can tune. Blues, hard rock, dance, top 40, 60's 70's 80' and etc etc etc. All commercial free.
> 
> ...


You make a sound case yourself.:bow: I can recall a number of times driving the stretch between Riviere-du-loup and Edmonston that was cursed with radio silence. And I can also recall other times driving across the prairies when the limited fare of what WAS available off-air was not exactly my tastes.

The bigger question, though, is whether the market you describe is one which ultimately makes satellite radio sustainable, given the current operating costs. My gut sense, and I may be way off here, is that the costs vastly outstrip the potential market. Satellite radio may go the way of those telecomm companies that misjudged the market for their product too.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You make a lot of good points and many are sound. the reason I got into it way back when it first came out was for my travel. I used to drive to Michigan every week. About a 4.5 hr drive. I used to listen to CD's because I got sick and tired of losing signals along the way and having to search for stuff on the radio. Sirius has some really cool channels. Among the good things is NO COMMERCIALS !!!! also they have fabulous talk shows and tons of news channels. I am a news junky so I love it. They also have this channel that plays all the old radio classics like Superman, The Shadow, Bob Hope, etc etc. I used to listen to those all the time.
> 
> Now that I am not doing the drive anymore I still listen to it locally. But for the salon it's great. you have the specific channels you can tune. Blues, hard rock, dance, top 40, 60's 70's 80' and etc etc etc. All commercial free.
> 
> ...


I agree. I love Satellite radio. Most of my friends do as well. It's the only really good option for hearing new music nowadays. For someone with my music tastes, normal radio is absolutely horrible. Beyond the CBC, I haven't listened to it in years. Satellite appeals to a certain demographic. Also there are a lot of people who just 'don't get it', which is understandable. When you hate modern radio as much as I do, paying for a commercial free service with no commercials is a viable option.

Good point about the talent.

One point about all the Stern knocking. Yes he has a huge contract, but he actually brought listeners with him when he switched to Satellite. Sirious basically had no listeners, and then completely overtook XM when he was hired. Sirious probably wouldn't even has lasted without him. He's a radio personality with a loyal audience, and a lot of them followed him to Satellite. As far as I know, that contract also pays for the show itself as well, not just his salary.

The problem is both companies paid ridiculous amounts of cash for a ton of OTHER personalities though, and with no real payoff. Most of them aren't radio hosts, and the shows are horrible because of that. Oprah doesn't even appear on her own channel. They just paid her a ton of money for her name. The shows are all hosted by other people. It's cool to have some music personality hosting a show, but that doesn't make it a good show. The fact that David Lee Roth lasted about 6 months with a show on normal radio is a demonstration of that. Hosting a radio show, and being good at it, is not something everyone can do. And both companies gave TONS of money to people would could not deliver.




> Moreover, radio has traditionally been subsidized either by taxes (CBC, NPR), tuition (student radio) or by advertising. When it is subsidized by advertising, the advertising is principally (though not exclusively) local. I suppose it's local because radio has traditionally been bound within a narrow broadcast area, so digital satellite transmission ought to, in theory, break open those boundaries. But which major advertiser would sink their dollars into radio advertising unless they knew a huge audience would be glued to the set at the same time? The only viable alternative is for satellite radio to be perceived of as indispensable by millions of subscribers. And that isn't about to happen.



Advertising is not a factor when people pay subscription fees. Which is why it's actually enjoyable to listen to. And both companies have somewhere around 6 millions subscribers. So obviously a lot of people disagree. Again, the main reason they are doing poorly is because of bad management, and spending WAY too much money initially. It's not the content, which is fantastic.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> You make a sound case yourself.:bow: I can recall a number of times driving the stretch between Riviere-du-loup and Edmonston that was cursed with radio silence. And I can also recall other times driving across the prairies when the limited fare of what WAS available off-air was not exactly my tastes.
> 
> The bigger question, though, is whether the market you describe is one which ultimately makes satellite radio sustainable, given the current operating costs. My gut sense, and I may be way off here, is that the costs vastly outstrip the potential market. Satellite radio may go the way of those telecomm companies that misjudged the market for their product too.


You may be right. But as mentioned here there are several million subscribers to Sirius XM and I beleive that given the right direction and eliminating some of the huge contracts that were handed out that it could be profitable. It really is a pleasure to listen to in many aspects. Radio shows, sports coverage is outstanding and commercial free music cannot be beat. 

The merger with XM costs them huge sums of money and coming when it did, in the midst of this economic crisis they now find themselves short on the bills.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I thought it was bad when they dropped the All AC/DC channel.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Robert1950 said:


> I thought it was bad when they dropped the All AC/DC channel.


I think that channel was always meant to be temparary. most likely tied to the tour.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I think that channel was always meant to be temparary. most likely tied to the tour.


Oddly, it was dropped the same week Sirius and XM merged (I think).


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Robert1950 said:


> Oddly, it was dropped the same week Sirius and XM merged (I think).


HHmm, that is interesting. Maybe some conflict on channels. I dug it though. Listened to it a fair bit


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

Huh. I'm currently vehicle shopping and was specifically looking for a trim level with XM/Sirius, might have to reconsider that.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

happydude said:


> Huh. I'm currently vehicle shopping and was specifically looking for a trim level with XM/Sirius, might have to reconsider that.


Hold off if you can for a week or so. by then it should be settled one way or the other


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Thank God for 8-tracks! kkjuw


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Ripper said:


> Thank God for 8-tracks! kkjuw


And my shortwave radio - the world at my fingertips and free! kkjuw


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Geek said:


> And my shortwave radio - the world at my fingertips and free! kkjuw


My shortwave radio is a bugger to carry around on my back though.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Geek said:


> And my shortwave radio - the world at my fingertips and free! kkjuw


_Old guy alert_

Or AM skip on one of those old pocket transistor radio's from the 60's. Trying to pick up Chum 1050 at the cottage. :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## happydude (Oct 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Hold off if you can for a week or so. by then it should be settled one way or the other


I planned on holding off about 6 months. I'm going to take my time shopping and just started last week. Let's hope half tons stay this cheap until I'm ready.


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

Hah....CHUM 1050...........
I heard that the problem ties back to the auto industry lack of sales???????


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...for me, satelite radio is (was?) the perfect antidote to mainstream radio, which has been playing the same six songs, over and over and over, since 1966.

-dh




mhammer said:


> I honestly don't get satellite radio. I go to the dollar store. I plunk down $1 and tax. I get a radio. I can use it pretty much anywhere I go, except for the really remote areas where I am unlikely to be in the first place. Reception isn't fabulous, but then the news is no more depressing in 5.1 than it is in mono with crackles added, and quite frankly the sound in 98% of automobiles is up against so many competing noise sources that fidelity doesn't matter. True, there are some interesting shows only available on satellite, but if I don't have the time to hear them anyway they could be the voices of John Lennon and Jimi Hendrix from beyond the grave for all I care, and I still wouldn't listen.
> 
> It's not like people are going from 2 local rabbit-ears TV channels to a 500-channel universe. Most listener markets are already saturated with stations, and often another $10-20 will get you a radio able to tap into other regions, so where is the advantage in terms of the amount one has access to via satellite (unless you're desperate for that Serbian country and western station, or the Urdu talk show from back home)? Hell, I already have some favourite shows on CBC that I can never get to (Age of Persuasion, Afghanada). I don't need more of them piling up.
> 
> ...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Mr. Rock & Roll said:


> With over 11000 songs & podcasts on my ipod, who needs satellite radio ??




...folks like me, who neither need nor want an ipod.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...howard stern, of course, will get to hang on to his billions. that should offer _some_ comfort to those of us who are threatened with losing our satelite broadcasts, no?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

RIFF WRATH said:


> Hah....CHUM 1050...........
> I heard that the problem ties back to the auto industry lack of sales???????


They'd like us to think that, but more like the obscene amounts they pay the talent. $100 Million to the Stern show? Then there's Oprah, Martha Stweart and MLB.

I love the concept and hope they figure it out, but I don't listen for the talk radio.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I hope they don't go off the air. I just renewed my subscriptions in January.
It's pretty much all the wife & I listen to these days.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...howard stern, of course, will get to hang on to his billions. that should offer _some_ comfort to those of us who are threatened with losing our satelite broadcasts, no?


Again, I disagree that Howard Stern is the reason for anything. The companies were both run horribly. The only reason Sirius was even able to keep running is because Stern was responsible (by estimates) for over 2 million subscribers signing up with months of him going there. And something like 4 million total. Which makes him one of the only big investments they made that paid off. Not to mention his 'salary' (600 million over something like 4 years) also pays the operating and production costs of the show itself. They also have an on demand channel and advertising that Sirius get a cut of.

According to Sirius they needed him to bring over 1 millions subscribers to pay his salary. He has brought over WAY more subscribers than that. And because of that Sirius ended up being the dominant company. So you might not want to pay Stern's salary... but a couple of million of his fans already did.

One example to show the size of the subscriber base he has created, one of the co-hosts Artie Lang's book went to #1 on the New York Times best seller list. Lang was on Mad TV and in a couple of movies way back, but he basically just worked on Stern for years now. He is not very well known outside of that. But it's a good example of the power his show still has, and the size of the listener base.

Both both stations have paid millions of dollars to other personalities who have not had even a fraction of the effect on subscriptions. Oprah alone gets paid $55 Million a year for her channel. And she rarely even appears on it! It's just a general interest channel. And that is one of dozens of big name personalities they have given huge contracts to.

Anyway sorry to ramble. I just think people's anger should be directed at the companies themselves since they are both HORRIBLE at managing their product.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

Excellent points. I don't listen to Stern any more but I think he's earned his money.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

J S Moore said:


> Excellent points. I don't listen to Stern any more but I think he's earned his money.


I am not a big listener, I more just follow the Satellite radio story fairly closely. It has so much potential, but it's just been such a mess. I just find it interesting when people place a lot of the blame on Stern, when in reality he's one of the few things keeping the business going. If it weren't for Stern and NASCAR, both companies would have gone bankrupt awhile ago.

Another REALLY important point is the hassle the 2 companies had to go through to merge is likely the the thing that finally did them in. It took almost a year for that merger to go through, and they bled money the whole time. Meanwhile, the government were allowing giant banks and corporations to merge like crazy all over the States. For some reason they really had it in for Satellite radio.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Lincoln said:


> I hope they don't go off the air. I just renewed my subscriptions in January.
> It's pretty much all the wife & I listen to these days.


There is a very good chance that DirectTV will take control of Sirius XM and it will remain on the air. They are currently in talks and I think they will reach a deal before any bankruptcy will take place. I assume that many of the contracts with talent will have to be re-negotiated though. 

it is viable and will make money. They just need to get out of the debt created by the merger with XM.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

torndownunit said:


> Again, I disagree that Howard Stern is the reason for anything. The companies were both run horribly. The only reason Sirius was even able to keep running is because Stern was responsible (by estimates) for over 2 million subscribers signing up with months of him going there. And something like 4 million total. Which makes him one of the only big investments they made that paid off. Not to mention his 'salary' (600 million over something like 4 years) also pays the operating and production costs of the show itself. They also have an on demand channel and advertising that Sirius get a cut of.
> 
> According to Sirius they needed him to bring over 1 millions subscribers to pay his salary. He has brought over WAY more subscribers than that. And because of that Sirius ended up being the dominant company. So you might not want to pay Stern's salary... but a couple of million of his fans already did.
> 
> ...


You are 100% correct on the Stern effect. Sirius XM has over 20 million subcribers. There is no question whatsoever that Howard Stern had a major effect on Sirius in terms of subcribers when he came in. What they paid him, like it or not paid off ten fold for Sirius. I think you are also correct that the Martha Stewart and Oprah channels are way over paid. Neither appears on the show as a regular.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I have no use for talk radio. I'm just interested in the music. Personally, I have less use for Howard Stern than for pre-used a**wipe, but if he keeps it afloat, hey...


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You are 100% correct on the Stern effect. Sirius XM has over 20 million subcribers. There is no question whatsoever that Howard Stern had a major effect on Sirius in terms of subcribers when he came in. What they paid him, like it or not paid off ten fold for Sirius. I think you are also correct that the Martha Stewart and Oprah channels are way over paid. Neither appears on the show as a regular.


It's hard to believe that they could take an idea like Satellite radio and bring it to the point where it has 20 million subscribers this quickly.... and still manage to screw it up so badly overall.

The problem with the shows like Oprah and Martha Stewart is they are doomed to fail. They are basically just a version of their TV shows... on the radio. But neither of them really taking part. How long will that hold people interested? But they are paying them probably close to $100 million combined. 

Like Stern or not, at least he is a RADIO personality with a proven track record. If they are going to invest cash it should be in people who can put on good radio shows.

... Except in the case of NASCAR who fans will pay for anything with the NASCAR name on it lol. I will admit I am not the biggest NASCAR fan, but how could listening to car racing on the radio be even remotely interesting?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

torndownunit said:


> It's hard to believe that they could take an idea like Satellite radio and bring it to the point where it has 20 million subscribers this quickly.... and still manage to screw it up so badly overall.
> 
> The problem with the shows like Oprah and Martha Stewart is they are doomed to fail. They are basically just a version of their TV shows... on the radio. But neither of them really taking part. How long will that hold people interested? But they are paying them probably close to $100 million combined.
> 
> ...


In terms of the NASCAR it's not the actual racing that attracts people its the endless, and I mean endless talk shows that provide an avenue for the rabid fans to call in and jab about the sport. It's the same for the NFL channel. For a major fan it can't be beat. They cover the offseason in every respect. training camps, every team gets visited at least 3-4 times during training camp and drafts. The sports coverage is really great IMO.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

1. I LOVE my iPod. It has re-awakened my love of my own music collection. I simply wasn't listening to music. Now I do, every day.

2. I'm not a Satellite radio user, but I regret that any company would go under. It's a tough old world out there and many are losing jobs right now. It's like working in a battle zone these days. I saw three more co-workers clean out their desks today.


Courage.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> 1. I LOVE my iPod. It has re-awakened my love of my own music collection. I simply wasn't listening to music. Now I do, every day.
> 
> 2. I'm not a Satellite radio user, but I regret that any company would go under. It's a tough old world out there and many are losing jobs right now. It's like working in a battle zone these days. I saw three more co-workers clean out their desks today.
> 
> ...


I agree on the iPod thing. But Satellite serves a different purpose. 

The thing is, Satellite is what radio once was, or what a few rare stations like the CBC still are. A chance to hear new bands. Radio has been absolutely horrible for at least 10 years and that is only getting worse. If you want to hear the same 10 hits 4 times a day, or only want to listen to Classic Rock ...and don't mind dealing with hours of commercials to do so, then it's fine. But there needs to be something like Satellite around to actually play new music. Satellite has been my saviour in that regard. 

The other thing I heard is that in Canada they are going to allow radio stations to play even more commercials per hour. Which will make radio even more unlistenable.

As for the question about converting your CD collection. My person recommendation it to convert to something like Flac or Apple Lossless to archive your collection. But then you can also convert those lossless tracks to a nice bitrate mp3 or AAC file for use on your personal players, where the high quality isn't as big of an issue. Basically keep 2 libraries. I call them my 'home stereo' library and my 'iPod" library.


----------



## martyb1 (Aug 5, 2007)

Sure hasn't stopped them from sending emails trying to get you to upgrade
I must get an email from them every 3 days


----------



## 4321 (Nov 25, 2008)

Paul said:


> How'd you transfer your collection? Jeff Flowerday wrote a series of posts about putting his CD collection onto a ZUNE in WMA lossless. Did you go with the Apple lossless codec?


I use CDex to convert my CD's to MP3, its a free DL

http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/

Since I'm very particular about the quality of my MP3's and how the MP3 info is tagged I find this program easier and faster than iTunes. Even moreso if you have a "gapless" album (say Side 2 of Abbey road) you can combine all tracks into 1 mp3 file, just an example of only one of the many features of the app.

Check it out


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Mr. Rock & Roll said:


> I use CDex to convert my CD's to MP3, its a free DL
> 
> http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/
> 
> ...


Ya, iTunes is great for the convenience and it's organizing features. There are better ripping programs though.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> My shortwave radio is a bugger to carry around on my back though.


I love boatanchors! What'cha got?

I got an Eton E5 last June and it's spectacular for sensitivity and selectivity.




shoretyus said:


> _Old guy alert_
> 
> Or AM skip on one of those old pocket transistor radio's from the 60's. Trying to pick up Chum 1050 at the cottage. :smilie_flagge17:


AM skip is fun! CBC Calgary on 1010 comes in 7 S-units better than CBC Vancouver on 690, which is supposed to be a local station 


Nice to see people here that actually knows what SW and the term "skip" is :smilie_flagge17:

Cheers!


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

Geek said:


> I love boatanchors! What'cha got?
> 
> I got an Eton E5 last June and it's spectacular for sensitivity and selectivity.
> 
> ...


I still help maintain one of the local repeaters for a local ham club here.


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

Ripper said:


> I still help maintain one of the local repeaters for a local ham club here.


I had fun on CB back in the early 70's and also noodled with ham . Actually I would like to get a general coverage transceiver again someday , maybe a Kenwood TS-530 or the like . Is there much activity on ham anymore ? I know they have done away with the code requirement for the license but from what I understand the DOC doesn't even monitor the bands any more......pretty much open to anyone now ?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> 1. I LOVE my iPod. It has re-awakened my love of my own music collection. I simply wasn't listening to music. Now I do, every day.
> 
> 2. I'm not a Satellite radio user, but I regret that any company would go under. It's a tough old world out there and many are losing jobs right now. It's like working in a battle zone these days. I saw three more co-workers clean out their desks today.
> 
> ...


+1! I too have re-discovered some music that I haven't listened to in many, many years. I listen daily here at work and it's been a lifesaver. It's also fabulous for gatherings and dinner parties (when sound quality isn't really in issue) to get some great playlists going.

DH loves his sattelite as he is on the road all day long and loathes commercials + he is a Stern fan..


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> DH loves his sattelite as he is on the road all day long and loathes commercials + he is a Stern fan..



...not quite, luv.

i listen to xm on my computer at the office, and in my studio at night. i love satelite radio because they play something other than the six songs that mainstream radio has been playing for the past fifty years.

and howard has been an enormous disapointment. i chose xm partly because he is on sirius.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...if you re-read my post, you'll see that i did not accuse howard stern of causing the demise of sirius.

-dh




torndownunit said:


> Again, I disagree that Howard Stern is the reason for anything. The companies were both run horribly. The only reason Sirius was even able to keep running is because Stern was responsible (by estimates) for over 2 million subscribers signing up with months of him going there. And something like 4 million total. Which makes him one of the only big investments they made that paid off. Not to mention his 'salary' (600 million over something like 4 years) also pays the operating and production costs of the show itself. They also have an on demand channel and advertising that Sirius get a cut of.
> 
> According to Sirius they needed him to bring over 1 millions subscribers to pay his salary. He has brought over WAY more subscribers than that. And because of that Sirius ended up being the dominant company. So you might not want to pay Stern's salary... but a couple of million of his fans already did.
> 
> ...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...just curious, since ipods are part of this discussion: how are composers compensated for the gazillons of downloads?

-dh


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

There is a fee paid by Apple and other legitimate download sites. Downloading from p2p is a loss.

I never really got into the p2p thing. It's hard to find the stuff I want to listen to. Amazon is great for obscure back catalogue recordings.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...not quite, luv.
> 
> i listen to xm on my computer at the office, and in my studio at night. i love satelite radio because they play something other than the six songs that mainstream radio has been playing for the past fifty years.
> 
> ...


Wasn't talking about you. DH is Dear Husband. And MY itunes Library was painstakingly ripped from cd's I paid for and downloads from Apple.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Wasn't talking about you. DH is Dear Husband. And MY itunes Library was painstakingly ripped from cd's I paid for and downloads from Apple.


I always figured that DH was going to conflict one day. :smile:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...uh! oh!...should i leave town?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Paul said:


> That's my trick, asking a question to which you already know the answer!:smile:
> 
> I'm not an iPod guy, and while I deplore the lousy sound quality of downloads from iTunes, I occasionally buy songs from iTunes if I need a recording for a specific purpose, usually to lift it and arrange for a horn band.


I said if iTunes ever started offering better quality downloads with no DRM, I would use the service. They are now offering high bitrate files with no DRM. Most of the songs on the service are now offered in 256 Kbps DRM free AAC. Every track they sell will soon be available in the same specs. That is high enough quality for me. I would prefer a lossless codec, but 256 kbps is good enough for most of my uses. And worth paying for.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> I said if iTunes ever started offering better quality downloads, I would use the service. They are now offering high bitrate files, so I have been buying from them.


The higher bit rate stuff they offer is still CBR (Constant Bit Rate), so it can easily get choked off on more complex/busy parts of a song(s).

If it was 320kbps VBR, iTunes users would definately have something to rejoice about.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2009)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> The higher bit rate stuff they offer is still CBR (Constant Bit Rate), so it can easily get choked off on more complex/busy parts of a song(s).
> 
> If it was 320kbps VBR, iTunes users would definately have something to rejoice about.


Check it: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#AAC.E2.80.99s_improvements_over_MP3

Saying constant == bad, variable == good is naive I'm afraid. The "constant" bitrate scheme in AAC is not the same "constant" bitrate scheme in the mpeg layer-3 codec. AAC is, by all technical accounts, a better encoding algorithm than mpeg layer-3. Smaller files for similar audio transparency.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Check it: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/itunes_256_vs_128_bit


Check what? They used a crappy sounding iPod to do a shoot out on lossy formats. The results are to be expected.

The whole point of higher bit rate DRM free music was so purchasers could use these downloads throughout their environment. At least do the shootout on a system capable of showing the differences.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2009)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Check what? They used a crappy sounding iPod to do a shoot out on lossy formats. The results are to be expected.
> 
> The whole point of higher bit rate DRM free music was so purchasers could use these downloads throughout their environment. At least do the shootout on a system capable of showing the differences.


The point of my post was to point out that for the vast majority of casual listening experiences for lossy audio the bit rate differences are indistinguishable.

And that saying things like:


> The higher bit rate stuff they offer is still CBR (Constant Bit Rate), so it can easily get choked off on more complex/busy parts of a song(s).
> 
> If it was 320kbps VBR, iTunes users would definately have something to rejoice about.


Are technically inaccurate. A constant bit rate AAC file is not the same as a constant bit rate MP3 file. You do not need to go to 320kbps/VBR using AAC to get close-to-CD-sound-on-your-fancy-system sound quality out of AAC. You do with MP3, not with AAC. 256 kbps is a very good sweet spot for AAC, between size and fidelity, slightly more would be indistinguishable by the vast majority from CD.

256 kbps AAC files in iTunes is a fairly impressive move on Apple's behalf.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

256 AAC is better than what a lot of other services are offering. And again, for a lot of us it's now a to a point where it's 'good enough' for our uses. I just wanted a higher bit rate file that wouldn't be just limited to sounding 'decent' on my iPod like the 128 kbps AAC files where. I am content with 256 kbps for my car and my computer, and I can burn better sounding CD's with better quality source files. So for my needs, iTunes has developed to the point where I will pay for the product.

I bought a couple of Blue Rodeo albums for $7.99 each off there. I am happy with the quality I received for the price. And the artist will get some of the money. So I am content.

Back to the Satellite discussion. I had heard they were working on a system for the portable satellite players like the Stilleto (like the Satellite iPod) where you could purchase songs. EG if you were listening to a track and you liked it, you could hit a button and download that song for a fee on to the Stiletto. Does anyone own one of those players, or know if they developed that service?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Saying constant == bad, variable == good is naive I'm afraid. The "constant" bitrate scheme in AAC is not the same "constant" bitrate scheme in the mpeg layer-3 codec. AAC is, by all technical accounts, a better encoding algorithm than mpeg layer-3. Smaller files for similar audio transparency.


Ian the only problem with you calling me naive in this situation is that I never mentioned mp3. I assume the aac was 320, but torndownunit later updated his post indicating 256.

There is a distinguishable difference between CBR AAC and VBR AAC if you have the equipment to show it.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> 256 AAC is better than what a lot of other services are offering. And again, for a lot of us it's now a to a point where it's 'good enough' for our uses. I just wanted a higher bit rate file that wouldn't be just limited to sounding 'decent' on my iPod like the 128 kbps AAC files where. I am content with 256 kbps for my car and my computer, and I can burn better sounding CD's with better quality source files. So for my needs, iTunes has developed to the point where I will pay for the product.
> 
> I bought a couple of Blue Rodeo albums for $7.99 each off there. I am happy with the quality I received for the price. And the artist will get some of the money. So I am content.


No need to justify your decision. It works for you.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2009)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> Ian the only problem with you calling me naive in this situation is that I never mentioned mp3. I assume the aac was 320, but torndownunit later updated his post indicating 256.
> 
> There is a distinguishable difference between CBR AAC and VBR AAC if you have the equipment to show it.


Ahh, look at that. I apologize. I had thought you were talking MP3 to AAC.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Ahh, look at that. I apologize. I had thought you were talking MP3 to AAC.


:food-smiley-004:


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I wonder how they decided on 256 CBR as the new standard?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> I wonder how they decided on 256 CBR as the new standard?


I have to presume the record labels really make the decision and provide the files. They decide what quality to provide to make the CD still worth purchasing to some because ultimately selling the CD brings in more income? Having a reason to buy the CD even after buying it on iTunes would be double dip revenue for the label.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Selling through iTunes, they get rid of any of the distribution of CD's though. And they still make a $1 a track average. Considering a lot of younger people mainly buy hit singles nowadays, I think the benefit there as well. Buying a whole album on iTunes you get a cheaper price sometimes. individual tracks are still a $1 each.

I think the record companies are starting to figure out they can make some money out of all of this. Which I think is why they are allowing these companies to use higher quality files. 

Just my theory on things anyway.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> I wonder how they decided on 256 CBR as the new standard?


Being badwidth cheap I guess. "320K or the Highway" and be darned if I'll pay for anything besides lossless.

I know anything other than V0 or 320K are flamed on the Jazz & Classical Usenet groups.

As a sidepoint, the format of Sirus is 48KB/s AAC3 (straight from a Sirus tech).

Cheers!


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Well, it's the end of the week. Has anyone heard???


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Robert1950 said:


> Well, it's the end of the week. Has anyone heard???


The last word is that they have two parties interested in taking over Sirius Xm and they have until the 17th to get something in place. After that it would be Chapter 11. But it would seem that something will get worked out and even if they go Chapter 11 they will most likely continue to broadcast while they re-organize.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

They've been saved!

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/17/liberty-media-rescues-sirius-xm-from-bankruptcy/


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I figured someone would step up to save it from collapse. Now if they can turn it around like I know they can, thin gs will be great for everyone. I still have a long way to make up my losses on the stock I own.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

Mr. Rock & Roll said:


> With over 11000 songs & podcasts on my ipod, who needs satellite radio ??


exactly....so the interesting channels become the comedy / special interest etc....but they had those really really frikkin annoying credit consolidation or sexual enhancement drug or weight loss commercials that repeats their 800 number like 800 frikkin times.....I had XM in a new GM vehichle ast year.....I hated it.....it came with my new Jeep.....I never ever tune it in.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Just looking for updates. For those of you using either service, how are they working? 

I am still considering satellite for my car, but I have been reading that they are having a lot of technical issues. (from poor stream quality, to stations constantly be removed).

Does anyone know when they plan to release some new equipment? They are still selling "XM" and "Sirius" radios at the stores. I'd like to wait (if they are still around) until they start combining their efforts to make one product line.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Sorta like Chevrolet and Pontiac. For example, channel 17 on Sirius is channel 56 on XM.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Not sure on any new equipment that is coming out but in terms of service and reception I have had no issues at all. I have been with Sirius for several years now. The only thing you will find with any of the new recievers is that you will need to have them connected directly to the car radio for sigal boost. The original units picked up the signal very well, too well to be exact. The next generation units were modified so that they would not interfere with reception of other channels. Only thing is it caused a bad degredation of the signal quality for any unit not directly connected to the car radio. I have the Stiletto and love it. I gave my original unit to Marnie and she used it for a few years with no issue. She went out recently and got another one, now her reception sucks. 

So you need to have them directly connected to the car radio. in portable mode mine workes fine as well as the boom box. Just the car signal.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Not sure on any new equipment that is coming out but in terms of service and reception I have had no issues at all. I have been with Sirius for several years now. T*he only thing you will find with any of the new recievers is that you will need to have them connected directly to the car radio for sigal boost*. The original units picked up the signal very well, too well to be exact. The next generation units were modified so that they would not interfere with reception of other channels. Only thing is it caused a bad degredation of the signal quality for any unit not directly connected to the car radio. I have the Stiletto and love it. I gave my original unit to Marnie and she used it for a few years with no issue. She went out recently and got another one, now her reception sucks.
> 
> So you need to have them directly connected to the car radio. in portable mode mine workes fine as well as the boom box. Just the car signal.


As in an AUX input?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

torndownunit said:


> As in an AUX input?


I'ts basically a signal booster. it runs from your sirius/xm car holder to a little booster box and then from there into your car radio antenna input. So this allows you to still get regular radio as well as sends the Sirius signal direct into the antenna input vs the old way which was a signal eminating from the unit itself. the signal that was being sent by the original units was too strong. I remember being able to tune in Sirius inside my house if my car was in the driveway, prolly half the hood could get it too. So they had to tune down that signal greatly with all the new units.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i'm an xm subscriber, but i hate the fact that it is getting so watered down. the mexican channel is gone - what a hoot that was! the dylan and petty shows are now very difficult to find. the folk channel is strictly for disney/sunburban types. thankfully, there is still a ton of great music on xm, but the more they try to cater to mainstream taste (now there's an oxymoron!), the more they lose my interest.

-dh


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I feel the same as David. What used to be great listening with obscure songs that were a pleasant surprise, I'm finding it starting to sound mainstream, songs that you hear on regular FM, stuff repeating way too often.

The Blues Channel is my favorite, but I also like to listen to the political talk shows (US politics), but oddly, all those talk shows do have the really crappy commercials. So, I'm paying for those AND having to listen to commercials?

I did just renew, after this year, maybe not.


----------

