Skip navigation
advertisement
sponsored by 

New radio formats
sacrifice sound quality

End of radio? Banish bad radio instead!

F.Birchman / AP
  Tech Holiday Gift Guide  
  More
Holiday Retail
10 best Xbox 360 games of 2009
With all the incredible games that have been released for Microsoft’s Xbox 360 this year, trying to write a “Best of 2009” list feels an awful lot like trying to stick 20 pounds of sand into a 2-pound sack.

  Real Women’s Guide to Technology

An MSN special that focuses on consumer technologies that can benefit women.

Tech and gadgets videos
Tool lets insurance firms monitor driver habits
Insurance company monitors driver habits with special device. WKYC's Michael O'Mara reports.

Video
Tech Watch
The latest in technology and entertainment news.
  Auto Tech

A better economy may lure buyers, but these trends could seal the deal.

Go to Auto Tech

Gary Krakow
Columnist

E-mail
COMMENTARY
By Gary Krakow
Columnist
msnbc.com
updated 6:41 p.m. ET March 17, 2005

The headline on the March issue of Wired proclaims “The End of Radio (As We Know It).” Inside are stories on the satellite radio wars, the coming digital radio boom plus radio recording devices and even podcasting. I disagree with the whole premise. Radio isn't ending -- all that's happening is we're getting more of it. And while the options may be better, sound quality is being sacrificed.

Let me explain. As I think we can all agree, commercial broadcast radio in the United States, for the most part, sucks. AM radio has been relegated to talk and FM stations play music — of sorts. Stations are Xerox copies of similar stations, playing the same songs over and over again.

Satellite radio partially solves this by giving you a huge choice of stations: Songs from every decade, genre, style and persuasion are available on both XM and Sirius services. Your choices are amazing, but what about the audio quality?

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Satellite radio sound is, at best, barely passable. That’s because your satellite service provider sends only one digital signal to your receiver. The receiver then splits that signal into hundreds of audio streams: some, for voice, very narrow; others, for music, a little wider. I’ve been told these streams run from a few kbps for voice to something like 30 to 60kbps for music.

A typical music satellite radio station is thus compressed and expanded at a much lower rate than many MP3s. A reader will write me to defend the sound of a 128kpbs ripped music file (it’s not near-CD quality despite what anyone tells you) but I can’t believe anyone can defend the sound quality of a 36kbps satellite radio music stream.

Compare that to the way a good FM station can and does sound.  It’s not even close.  It’s like the difference between hearing a symphony in a recital hall versus listening outdoors on a transistor radio. These days, a low-end satellite receiver will set you back $100. For the same price you can get a Tivoli table radio which sounds 1,000 percent better than any music stream from either of the two satellite companies.

There are probably at least one or two FM stations in your area which transmit a great signal and music you want to hear. They’re worth seeking out. Public radio, college and classical stations sound best here in New York City. 


Resource guide