[1134] in Noontime Service Coverage
1.95% No Obligation Quote
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Villa)
Sat Jul 24 03:31:14 2004
Reply-To: "Alan Villa" <etbbbcm@msn.com>
From: "Alan Villa" <etbbbcm@msn.com>
To: "Luna" <luna@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 14:15:43 +0400
----2495895967357217
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-3966-0"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Think getting a 1.95% rate is impossible?
THINK AGAIN!
We can offer you the absolute rock-bottom lowest rate, guaranteed.
We work with all credit types. Visit our site now, for your rate quote.
<a href=3D"http://www.bestin40yearsnow.net/b6/index.php">Click here now!</=
a>
http://www.bestin40yearsnow.biz/b6/index.php
Now that I have had both services, and having noticed that a google search=
yields no definitive answers for people, I wanted to post my personal revi=
ew
of the two systems.
I have an Alpine CDA-7878 and an Alpine XM unit and a Panasonic Sirius uni=
t,
both with Terk antennas. The Alpine unit was connected to the head unit v=
ia
an AiNet cable and the Sirius unit was connected with an auxiliary RCA
adapter available from Alpine (KCA-121B). I had XM since it debuted and
Sirius for a few months in the Pacific Northwest.
The bottom line, for those needing a quick answer, is Sirius is superior i=
n
sound quality, features(free streaming from their website!), and channel
quality(better music, no commercials, better talk). XM has a few more
channels that make very little difference to the end result (read on).
After careful review of both systems, Sirius came out the winnner, as I ha=
ve
said. The channels are laid out well, lack commercials, sound great, and
are streamed on the internet. The only disadvantage of Sirius was its
oft-sited lack of Nascar, which they seem to be trying to remedy. Also, X=
M
has an extra comedy channel (it's boring, and features older, censored
comedy), and a few more "experimental" music channels which most will find=
totally useless. Surfing XM for music is often like surfing the regular
(terrestrial) radio in a large city-you get nothing but frustration. It's=
no wonder XM doesn't stream live on the net so that you can try before you=
buy. Also, XM's channel layout was unfriendly, in my opinion.
The greatest and most dizzying drawback in comparing the two, however, are=
the staggeringly stupid and annoying XM commercials. Not necessarily the
corporate commercials that come from outside companies (which are annoying=
in an expected way), but the ridiculous and loud in-house XM stuff that
makes you have to turn down your radio really quick when you've had it up
loud-especially with the windows open (yes, they are that embarrassing).
This, and the better performance of Sirius, was the deciding factor in my
cancelling XM.
XM, however, holds their own and can satisfy a customer with some decent
music and a fair selection of Talk. If not for Sirius, I would have kept
XM, I think; probably because it IS nice to listen to the same station no
matter where you go. Yet, as is the way of competition, Sirius has offere=
d
everything good that XM does and DONE IT RIGHT. Sirius outshines in the
talk category, with a variety of Right and Left-wing shows, all of the
useful talk channels XM has, and NPR, PRI, and a well laid-out channel pla=
n.
XM does a bit better in the design of their customer care website. Sirius=
also has a customer care website, but it is not as robust (less detail).
However, XM doesn't have streaming audio on its website-apparently we all
have to pay XM $6.99 extra in additon to buying another $200 receiver for
the house. In addition to the crappy commercials, this is probably where
the corporate influence of XM being part-owned by ClearChannel and GM show=
s.
----2495895967357217--
