Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding

As indicated by iTunes, an increasing proportion of mp3s are being
encoded in "joint" stereo. Does it actually "save storage" and
"improve performance" as it is touted to?

-CC
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
isw isw is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding

In article
,
ChrisCoaster wrote:

As indicated by iTunes, an increasing proportion of mp3s are being
encoded in "joint" stereo. Does it actually "save storage" and
"improve performance" as it is touted to?


IIRC, it's a "sum and difference" process (L+R, L-R), which results in a
lower bitrate for the same quality as compared to encoding the two
channels individually -- the L+R channel is just as easy/difficult to
encode as either L or R alone, while the L-R channel contains a whole
lot less information *in most cases* and so takes a smaller bitrate to
encode. If well done, there's no reason why there should be a reduction
in quality; no information is lost by that process.

Isaac
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Dave Platt Dave Platt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 169
Default Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding

In article ],
isw wrote:

As indicated by iTunes, an increasing proportion of mp3s are being
encoded in "joint" stereo. Does it actually "save storage" and
"improve performance" as it is touted to?


IIRC, it's a "sum and difference" process (L+R, L-R), which results in a
lower bitrate for the same quality as compared to encoding the two
channels individually -- the L+R channel is just as easy/difficult to
encode as either L or R alone, while the L-R channel contains a whole
lot less information *in most cases* and so takes a smaller bitrate to
encode. If well done, there's no reason why there should be a reduction
in quality; no information is lost by that process.


It's perhaps worth noting that LP records used what amounts to a
"joint stereo" encoding. The L+R signal is encoded as a horizontal
motion of the stylus, and an L-R difference signal is encoded as
vertical motion.

There were several reasons for doing this - compatibility with older
and less-expensive monaural playback turntables, improved
trackability, etc.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:43:08 -0700, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

In article ],
isw wrote:

As indicated by iTunes, an increasing proportion of mp3s are being
encoded in "joint" stereo. Does it actually "save storage" and
"improve performance" as it is touted to?


IIRC, it's a "sum and difference" process (L+R, L-R), which results in a
lower bitrate for the same quality as compared to encoding the two
channels individually -- the L+R channel is just as easy/difficult to
encode as either L or R alone, while the L-R channel contains a whole
lot less information *in most cases* and so takes a smaller bitrate to
encode. If well done, there's no reason why there should be a reduction
in quality; no information is lost by that process.


It's perhaps worth noting that LP records used what amounts to a
"joint stereo" encoding. The L+R signal is encoded as a horizontal
motion of the stylus, and an L-R difference signal is encoded as
vertical motion.

There were several reasons for doing this - compatibility with older
and less-expensive monaural playback turntables, improved
trackability, etc.


This form of joint stereo coding - called mid-side - is really for the
convenience of mono compatibility. It does not cause any information
loss and permits no compression.

The kind we are talking about here is intensity coding. in which the
high frequencies are combined into a single channel, with just a
little bit of side information and some panning instructions for the
codec. Low frequencies are pretty much left alone.

This does give a once-useful data reduction, but doesn't sound
particularly convincing for critical listening. It can also go
horribly wrong with some audio cues.

d
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding

On Nov 1, 4:20*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:


This form of joint stereo coding - called mid-side - is really for the
convenience of mono compatibility. It does not cause any information
loss and permits no compression.

The kind we are talking about here is intensity coding. in which the
high frequencies are combined into a single channel, with just a
little bit of side information and some panning instructions for the
codec. Low frequencies are pretty much left alone.

This does give a once-useful data reduction, but doesn't sound
particularly convincing for critical listening. It can also go
horribly wrong with some audio cues.

d- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

________________________

That's some of the stupidest stuff I've ever heard!! (No, not you Don
- I mean the concept!)

"Mono compatibility"? Here in the 21st century???

And summing the tops to mono vs the bottoms? Totally ASSinine if you
akse me.
Better to sum low, where directionality is less critical(except with
the ping-pong bass track on "Welcome To The Machine").

Both concepts are the OPPOSITE of what we need now. How about
"surroundstereo" compatibility. Stereo is the new mono, right? And
that HF vs LF thing is a joke.

-ChrisCoaster



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding


"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
As indicated by iTunes, an increasing proportion of mp3s are being
encoded in "joint" stereo.


Increasing? It's always been the most popular format, and usually the best
choice other than mono!
Use Flac or Wave if you want high quality stereo.

Trevor.


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding

ChrisCoaster wrote:

As indicated by iTunes, an increasing proportion of mp3s are being
encoded in "joint" stereo. Does it actually "save storage" and
"improve performance" as it is touted to?


Mid-Side encoding is OK and a wise default, intensity-stereo encoding in the
treble range is not and would be an idiotic default.

-CC


Kind regards

Peter Larsen



  #8   Report Post  
frulfinnalO frulfinnalO is offline
Banned
 
Location: Pakistan
Posts: 3
Send a message via ICQ to frulfinnalO Send a message via Skype™ to frulfinnalO
Default

Sorry Panavision but I too would agreee that this is a true masterpiece, but can anyone tell me if the UK R2 is the same as the Criterion edition?
  #9   Report Post  
mameluk mameluk is offline
Banned
 
Location: Iran
Posts: 6
Default

www.audiobanter.com is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. You know so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great!
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
trend del momento nahum Car Audio 0 January 23rd 08 10:58 PM
My tube amp sound. . Disappointing Lost'n Found Vacuum Tubes 34 November 25th 06 09:59 PM
CD players seem to be very disappointing Richard Allen High End Audio 17 April 29th 05 01:01 AM
Why is DP4 disappointing gary Pro Audio 35 October 7th 04 04:59 PM
Why is DP4 disappointing gary Pro Audio 0 October 1st 04 04:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"