Talk:Satellite radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Please help ensure that external links on this page lead to quality references related to this article
- spoonbender
I have added a section called Satellite radio vs. other formats - I am certain that it could be improved!
- The Machine
Bokbsy - excellent expansion by you of the "other formats" section - great detail. As indicated, only change was changing STR to DTR.
- The Machine 18:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I changed bait and switch to loss leader. Bait and switch refers to the unethical practice of advertising one thing and then substituting another claiming that the original item has "run out" when the intent was never to offer the lesser cost item in the first place. A loss leader, on the other hand, is the sales tactic of offering a reduced price or free item with the hopes of the recipient choosing to purchase a higher priced item.:Es330td 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Sound
Shouldn't this page state that FM radio has higher sound quality and frequency fidelity than Satellite Radio? It seems to state the opposite right now. Stettlerj 21:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Its only better than the portable satellite subscription radio systems in the US, I fail to see how FM, even at peak quality, can exceed the 192-256Kbits/sec musicam streams that most fixed-dish services have. --Kiand 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, since the satellite radio companies tend to keep their technical details private, discussions about sound quality can only be subjective. I find that the sound quality of Sirius music channels definitively beats the best FM broadcasts (the voice channels other than 100/101 have obviously lower bitrates with audible compression artifacts). It's also worth noting that it is difficult to get perfect FM reception, while with satellite radio you either get the full signal or you get none of it. --Bk0 (Talk) 19:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've listened on several receivers, and some channels are definitely better than FM. The XM Pops station is an HD audio station and sounds as good as CD. Yes, it's subjective, but I'll take even the low-quality XM stations over broadcast FM. -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be worth noting that Sirius does charge a one time set up fee, even though the article claims it doesn't.
[edit] Footprint
The footprint for Sirius is much larger than stated. The graphics at
http://www.freewebs.com/vo1one/sirius%20directional%20antenna.JPG and http://www.freewebs.com/vo1one/sirius%20standard%20antenna.JPG
show the Sirius footprint into Central and South America. MexiCanuck 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] XM/Sirius comparisons
Does it seem like there's a lot of XM/Sirius content on this page that ought to be on their respective pages? It seems to me that this article ought to be an abstract, leaving the specifics of each operator to their respective articles. -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redundancy?
SR functions any place there is line of sight between the antenna and the satellite, as long as there are no major obstructions, such as tunnels or buildings. SR audiences can follow a single channel regardless of location within a given range.
The sentence is weird, because the existance of a line of sight between the antenna and the satellite implies that there are no obstructions... Jorge Peixoto 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request to rename the article "Satellite Audio"
I think this article should be renamed to "Satellite Audio", as it's not really radio at all. It would be easy enough to do. Just change all references to "Satellite Radio" to say "Satellite Audio" instead. Somewhere in the article, it should say that Satellite Audio is commonly referred to as Satellite Radio.
I know that this usage is uncommon, and that Satellite Radio is very common, but that doesn't mean that the article shouldn't use the correct term.
In addition, I think that "Satellite Radio" should redirect to "Satellite Audio".
This would be a major change, so I'm seeing if anyone has any complaints before I do it. Any comments on this would be appriciated. 75.129.169.49 06:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, it is radio, since it involves wireless transmission, which is the original meaning of radio. And since the majority have chosen to refer to it that way, the current title is the "correct term". Slowmover (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comparison table
The table titled "Satellite radio vs. other formats" has become so muddied and complex that I believe it should be removed or split into a separate article. Partisans from all sides have changed every point such that it no longer is informative to the naive reader.
Example (emphasis mine):
"Sound quality:
AM: Usually very low, but can be the highest
FM: Usually Moderate, but can be very high".
The other two columns are listed as "Varies" (how does this illustrate the differences?).
Similarly, the footnotes are numerous and long with lots of qualifiers and apologetics. It all appears to be unsourced. This needs work. --Bk0 (Talk) 17:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
