You are using 2002 "XM Press Release" propaganda to support your thesis.
No, I'm using the commonly available numbers comparing the efficiency of PAC with AACPlus. These data are readily available to you if you will seek it out. There is a reason that NOBODY but SIRI is using PAC.
What about the improvements using HM at SIRI. Is XM still 30% more effcient?
You do understand that both services have HM at their disposal, right? XM's gain is apt to be more than SIRI's, just because of the sheer inability of SIRI's sats to generate sufficient power to increase the symbol rate. When SIRI tested HM late last year reception of their current channels was a mess. Add to that the fact that XM's gains, if they use them for music, will be further magnified by the use of a better codec. And SIRI is stuck with PAC from now on.
I don't know what XM's plans to use it are, however, they will benefit substantially more from HM than SIRI will.
Is this the same constellation that requires 300% more terrestrial repeaters than SIRI's??
It is as designed. So freaking what? SIRI's constellation requires twice as many satellites to provide adequate signal, even WITH their repeaters.
Hell, XM is using half as many repeaters today as they were when they went live, so their space segment is obviously performing better than expected.
This is one more example of your general view that if you shout more loudly you are correct. For many of those posting here, they probably believe your BS. Some of us aren't so gullible.
Your argument, while loud, is untenable. |
