I read this article on MSNBC yesterday, and I gotta say that it's the biggest crock of shit I've read in a looong time. In the article (if you can even call it that), MSNBC columnist Gary Krakow babbles on about how he disagrees with the latest issue of Wired: The End of Radio As We Know It. He then defends his bold disagreement with the opinion that satellite radio has such poor sound quality that it's not even worth switching to. Here's the paragraph that initially struck me as bizaar:

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 KB for voice to something like 30 to 50KB for music.

Dear Mr. Krakow, satellite radio isn't streaming MP3 (gasp!). So whatever the compression rate, it doesn't matter because it's different technology buddy.

But he continues:

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 128KB 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 36KB satellite radio music stream.

Somehow these bold and assuming statements amaze me. I'm sure it's hard to imagine that companies that have hoards of geeks coordinating the signals from different sources nationwide up to geosynchronous or geostationary satellites, supported by hundreds of repeater towers broadcasting continuously to millions of units, could even possibly think of using something other than MP3. Oh my, could it be that companies who have spent millions of dollars to get these systems to work could some how be using broadcast and compression technology that is proprietary?

But then he writes:

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.

At first wonder if he's actually never heard satellite radio before. But when he brought up Tivoli, something clicked. Tivoli, Krakow, Tivoli, Krakow - why is this so familiar? Ah! I remembered now... I've actually pointed to one of Gary Krakow's articles recently, in which he lovingly writes about the MyFi, Polk XRt12, and the Tivoli tabletop AM/FM/SIRIUS receiver:

"I?ve tested MyFi in Las Vegas and New York -- and had absolutely no problem receiving a good-sounding signal via XM?s terrestrial antennas."

"As for sound -- the Polk [XRt12] is the best sounding component tuner that I?ve ever heard in my system."

"As good as their [Tivoli] other table radios sound -- the Satellite just takes it one step further."

And that wasn't written too long ago (less than a month in fact). So I don't get it. Why the flip-flop? Did signal in NYC suddenly go sour or... is it just too fun to be the guy to contradict Wired?

You decide.
[/END RANT]