I just read about this in a magazine I received, but if it sounds as good as a 96 kbps MP3, I don't know if that's going to convince me to try out digital radio.
I've only had Sirius for a short time, but I might have been too generous when I said 96 kbps MP3. It's probably worse than that. I was disappointed at just how easily I was able to hear the effects of the compression. The compression codec is definitely not transparent and adds colorizations to the music. I listen to plenty of MP3s on my iPod or on MP3-CDs, and I find them quite acceptable in the car when using bit rates of 192 or even 128 MP3, so I'm not hating on compressed music just because I'm an audio snob or whatever. I just assumed it would sound equivalent to maybe 128 or 192 MP3---it's not. In my opinion, the actual sound quality of Sirius isn't much better, if any, than the sound of the Sirius 3-day internet stream trial that is at a measly 34 kpbs WMA. I'm disappointed at the free ride many publications have given the sound quality of satellite radio.
I recently had the opportunity to hear XM Radio in a friends car and also on a setup at a local store, and it appears to show fewer signs of colorization due to the compression (when compared to Sirius). However, it still sounds worse than a strong FM station. But my experience is still fairly limited with XM.
All this negativity aside, though, and I'll admit that the playlist programming is pretty good---at least on Sirius. The signal is always strong. And I get a much better selection of music than FM, though I still hear mostly hit songs. Moreover, I get to hear a little more variety than even my thousands of songs on the iPod can provide. So as long as the price remains at $12.95, I guess it can be another music option for me when I'm in the car.
So I don't want to tell anyone not to get satellite radio. It still has benefits, afterall. And, I think, it probably has a decent future.