Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Disappointing Trend in Mp3 Encoding
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
trend del momento | Car Audio | |||
My tube amp sound. . Disappointing | Vacuum Tubes | |||
CD players seem to be very disappointing | High End Audio | |||
Why is DP4 disappointing | Pro Audio | |||
Why is DP4 disappointing | Pro Audio |