1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sonic Tap (DMX) is here! What do you think?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ThomasM, Feb 12, 2010.

  1. MikeW

    MikeW Hall Of Fame

    2,565
    4
    May 16, 2002
    There definitely are some channels that sound good.

    837 has good bass, but the high end sounds very tinny.
    833/880 is soft with no bass and a reverberating effect to it.
    804/816/819 are good

    Hope this helps whoever get this ironed out.
     
  2. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,057
    153
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    I had the same gut reaction as you. Why would D* expend any effort to further compress what are probably at best 128kbps tracks to begin with? Unless my math is wrong, 32-128kbps audio channels would only consume the bandwidth of half an MPEG-4 TV channel.
     
  3. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    You are getting two different "compressions" mixed up. This thread is talking about dynamic range compression, not bitrate compression. The two are completely unrelated.
     
  4. mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    It's more than dynamic range. The frequency range sucks as well. No highs, no lows, clipping. I don't know what sonic crap has done to the data, but it's certainly screwed up in more ways than one, technically speaking.
     
  5. wilbur_the_goose

    wilbur_the_goose Hall Of Fame

    4,493
    52
    Aug 16, 2006
    My fear is that these channels are targeted to mono store speakers where people aren't really listening. Oh yeah - it's Muzak.
     
  6. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I know, I was just referring to the term "compression," not giving a full overview of all of the complaints in this thread.
     
  7. Avder

    Avder Hall Of Fame

    1,395
    0
    Feb 6, 2010
    It could easily be both types. Overcompressing the dynamic range makes it sound like total crap, and then bitstarving it would make it even worse by distorting it.
     
  8. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    I haven't heard any dramatic evidence of bitstarving on the music channels. But anyone with experience in this area can easily tell the difference between the different ways the audio is destroyed.
     
  9. Avder

    Avder Hall Of Fame

    1,395
    0
    Feb 6, 2010
    For me on the alternative channels, Ive heard a lot of percussion distortion characteristic of a low bitrate CBR mp3's in addition to the dynamic range distortion present there and the buttload of clipping. Everything is wrong. I wouldn't be suprised if D* took the master feed from Sonic Tap, upped the volume a few dB, compressed the dynamic range, and then supersquished it with a very limited bitrate stream.

    Maybe its all processed entirely differently channel to channel. That would explain the hit or miss audio quality so far.
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,057
    153
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Transcoding to a lower bit rate is considered compression as well. Unfortunately, these audio feeds suffer from both bit starvation and dynamic range compression.
     
  11. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    It definitely is. Like I said, channel 816, which is the one I listen to the most, sounds just fine.
     
  12. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Yep, which is why I said
     
  13. Avder

    Avder Hall Of Fame

    1,395
    0
    Feb 6, 2010
    Hm, listened to that one, and it sounded at least adequate. Some clipping, small bits of distortion. Cant comment on dynamic range because that genre is typically compressed naturally to begin with.

    Tune to 838 if you want to hear what I am referencing, The compression is horrible, theres more than a little clipping despite the fact that its a bit lower in overall volume, and if you listen to the highs you should be able to hear some evidence of bitstarving.
     
  14. Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    That's just painful to listen to. Wow. Whoever is allowing the audio to go out in that condition must be deaf.
     
  15. jackten

    jackten Mentor

    33
    0
    Jul 7, 2009
    yeah... 838 is horrible now. Used to love it.. can't stand the audio quality anymore.
     
  16. wilbur_the_goose

    wilbur_the_goose Hall Of Fame

    4,493
    52
    Aug 16, 2006
    I'm not even getting song information now.
     
  17. Avder

    Avder Hall Of Fame

    1,395
    0
    Feb 6, 2010
    Well, now you can see why I think D* should just drop it entirely :)
     
  18. mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    If they'd drop their price along with it, I'd agree with you. But that will never happen. So I'd prefer to have some decent music channels if I have to pay for them anyway.
     
  19. cousinofjah

    cousinofjah AllStar

    75
    0
    Feb 16, 2010
    wow so does that mean that one cannot complain about a product one is paying for especially when the person providing the product changes the product? Is the answer always to go buy something else/something additional? that just doesn't make financial sense - especially in a recession.
     
  20. cousinofjah

    cousinofjah AllStar

    75
    0
    Feb 16, 2010
    for me the track info seems to not come across as fast as with XM
     

Share This Page