Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Satellite Radio - anyone try it? (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Satellite Radio - anyone try it?
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-30-2003 08:50 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
William: You can go several ways...Delphi makes a separate display unit that sits on a "cradle" anywhere you can fit it. You can either wire this through your existing FM antenna, or you can use a cassette adaptor to play it through an existing cassette deck.

OR, you can get a new stereo (or a new car [Smile] )that has XM built in.

OR, you can add an FM-modulated unit to an existing car stereo -- this type has a small 1x3" display that attaches to the dashboard. With this option (and with the "new stereo" option) you'll get a small tuner box about the size of a book that fits into the trunk or wherever.

The plus feature of the the Delphi unit is that you can add additional car hookup kits to move the tuner to more than one vehicle. You can also add-on a "home kit" that allows you to play the same tuner through a home stereo; and a "boombox kit" that turns the tuner into a boombox.

You can see pictures of all this stuff at www.xmradio.com. I'm sure Sirius has many of the same types of units, although they don't have one like the Delphi that I'm aware of.

Bobby - XM has the stick-on antennas too. Terk (and probably other companies) makes them.

 |  IP: Logged

William Leland III
Master Film Handler

Posts: 336
From: Charleston, SC,
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 07-01-2003 02:52 PM      Profile for William Leland III   Author's Homepage   Email William Leland III   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Mike for the info. [beer]

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-02-2003 12:43 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Together they cover the USA and parts of Canada with a 70 megawatt signal
Those satellites must have quite the nuclear reactor to generate that kind of power. [Roll Eyes] Methinks the power is somewhat lower.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-02-2003 01:55 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes....10 megawatts, actually.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-02-2003 02:00 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Doing a web search, it's only 3 kilowatts:

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/9600.html

quote:
Broadcasting at 3,000 Watts

XM Roll will operate in geosynchronous orbit at 85 degrees west longitude over the United States. Like Rock, which is stationed at 115 degrees west longitude, it carries a digital audio radio payload built by Alcatel Space Industries (NYSE: ALA) that features two active transponders, each with 16 active (and 6 spare) 228-watt amplifiers generating some 3,000 watts of radio frequency (RF) signal power, making them the most powerful commercial transponders ever built, XM said.

Rock and Roll each have two wings with five panels of solar cells to generate power in space. When fully deployed, the wings span 132.5 feet. The satellites, with a 15-year expected lifespan, were manufactured by BSS, a unit of The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA). XM said its third satellite, a spare, is undergoing final testing.


http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/zenit_launch_010508.html

quote:
The company's XM-2 satellite, dubbed "Rock," was sent into orbit by Sea Launch on March 18.

Each of the XM satellites weighs 10,322 pounds (4,682 kilograms) and are designed to operate 15 years. When fully deployed, the satellites' electricity-generating solar arrays stretch more than 134 feet (40 meters), which is longer than the wingspan of a Boeing 757.

The satellites are equipped with two transponders and each of those are capable of broadcasting 3,000 watts of radio frequency signal power, making them the highest power commercial transponders ever built, according to Boeing. That means that on the ground the receiving antennas can be very small.



 |  IP: Logged

John Hawkinson
Film God

Posts: 2273
From: Cambridge, MA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 07-02-2003 02:28 PM      Profile for John Hawkinson   Email John Hawkinson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Presumably this is a difference between ERP and PEP?

According to the FCC's Experimental Database entry for WB2XCA, they seem to have 3 licensed transmitters with 30kW ERP in 2300 MHz.

Hmm...but looking further (they're listed under both "XM RADIO" and "XM SATELLITE RADIO"), in the IBFS database, callsign E000158 has an EIRP limit of 78dbW, which I assume is 78 dB over 1W, or 10**7.8W, aka 63MW.

"Your milage may vary."
--jhawk

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 07-02-2003 03:17 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
IMHO, if they are saying 70 megawatts, it is unnecessary HYPE. The marketers have taken over the world. Dilbert lives!

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/index.html

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 07-02-2003 05:29 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One thing greatly concerns me about both XM and Sirius. They are deep in debt. Sirius is quite a bit farther in the hole than XM and its future is not certain. XM is doing a good job in getting its brand established toward "houseold name" levels of recognition. Their commericals with performers like David Bowie and Snoop Dogg dropping out of the sky through ceilings and into your car, living room or office space is a very good angle on advertising. Sirius has a good product too, but they are not doing nearly as good a job in advertising as XM.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 07-03-2003 01:37 AM      Profile for Mike Olpin   Email Mike Olpin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry. My source says 70 megawatts. But thats probably wrong.

AAC compression, eh? That's actually a pretty good format.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002


 - posted 07-03-2003 01:49 AM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Their commercials with performers like David Bowie and Snoop Dogg
That is probably why they are so deep in debt.

 |  IP: Logged

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004


 - posted 02-04-2007 09:36 AM      Profile for System Notices         Edit/Delete Post 

It has been 1312 days since the last post.


 |  IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 02-04-2007 09:36 AM      Profile for Pravin Ratnam   Email Pravin Ratnam   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I was going car shopping and I was amazed at how bad the sound quality is for both Sirius and XM. I have listened to them on Airtran(XM) and on rental cars . I attributed the bad sound quality to cheap radio installations. However, Acuras have decent sound systems(though not as good as a decent after market non OEM system) and the XM channels still sound lifeless.

I would gladly trade half of the channels for better sound quality in the music channels. They could still give us the same variety with more creative playlists with less stations.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-04-2007 01:43 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The best way to get the best sound is to not use an FM-modulated radio. Using one that's wired directly into the car stereo gives the best sound (although it is still not "CD quality" as they love to advertise).

 |  IP: Logged

Richard Greco
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1180
From: Plant City, FL
Registered: Nov 2003


 - posted 02-04-2007 08:38 PM      Profile for Richard Greco   Email Richard Greco   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I have mine through a hard wire to my head unit. I have used both the FM and hard wire and hear just great sound either way

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 02-04-2007 10:51 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Pravin Ratnam
I was going car shopping and I was amazed at how bad the sound quality is for both Sirius and XM.
Both XM and Sirius run all of their satellite radio channels at bit rates of merely a puny 96 kilobits per second. Pretty bad.

HD Digital Radio is even worse. The "HD" in the brand name is an extreme insult to anyone with any level of intelligence at all. At best, a HD Digital Radio station will be broadcast at 96kb/s. But very often the bitrate is dumped down to a mere 64kb/s. On top of that, thanks to some nice greedy, typical corporate politics, HD Digital Radio uses an inferior "PAC" codec that is not as efficent as the codecs used by XM and Sirius.

Sit back and relax in the swirling, metallic, brazzy and harsh quality of ultra-compressed digital radio! Yay!
[Roll Eyes]

I am very confident in my predictions the Internet will eventually lay waste to standard paradigms of television broadcasting. When Internet bandwidths achieve average connection speeds of 30Mb/s to 100Mb/s (which will happen in just a few years) you will see the state of over the air broadcasts, cable and satellite all change very radically.

The same is now going to happen to radio. That's because standard over the air radio and satellite radio cannot step up to the demand of improving. The guys currently running the business all subscribe to the bankrupt "lets do as little as possible" ethic when delivering the product to the customer. Those very very low bit rates are going to end up costing them dearly.

Lots of different radio stations already make it possible to listen to them via an Internet connection. When high bandwidth broadband Internet is common, what is it going to hurt to allow people to listen to the music in full LPCM quality or a great deal better (like 5.1 24/96)?

Technologies like WiMax will soon be rolled out and start covering the entire nation (and much of the rest of the world) with very fast broadband capability. Currently our telecoms are in a lethargic state of comfort, not quick to do anything to make American customers benefit from much higher quality service. They won't be able to do that much longer.

In the long run, your car, your phone, your notebook and perhaps some other digital devices will be able to get online anywhere anytime at very high data rates. That will make any form of video or radio possible. And the low bit rate stuff is just not going to last.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.