| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 52463 | 2004-12-19 22:32:00 | stereo vs joint stereo | Mirddes (10) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 305761 | 2004-12-19 22:32:00 | what are the advantages of one over the other with mp3s this is |
Mirddes (10) | ||
| 305762 | 2004-12-19 23:21:00 | Well you answered your own question in your sig. Check Google | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 305763 | 2004-12-20 00:03:00 | as regards to MP3's Mono = Crap 2 Channel = gettting better Stereo = Starting to talk Joint Stereo = can't beat it If your hard drive supports it with enough room, go for as high a bit rate as you can find and Joint Stereo encodes, your ears will notice the difference. |
EX-WESTY (221) | ||
| 305764 | 2004-12-20 09:47:00 | I can't figure out why you think joint stereo is so good. It's the same principle as is used to get stereo radio reception - one channel is L+R, the other is L-R (or so I've been told). You listen in mono or stereo, it's really not that hard. However, the only possible benefit of using joint stereo in audio encoding (that I can think of, anyway) would be a tiny bit of space saving. Which doesn't fit with your suggestion that you would need a lot more hard drive space for joint stereo encoding. Also, one would think some audio players wouldn't be capable of handling joint stereo files. And according to Wikipedia, "there is no significant difference in file size or subjective sound quality between the two methods". |
agent (30) | ||
| 305765 | 2004-12-20 10:06:00 | My comment re Higher bit rate just means less data is stripped during the encode, hence a larger file size regardless of whether it is stereo or joint stereo. As regards to the stereo Vs joint stereo I have MP3's that you can well hear the difference between the same song, although this could also be true of the codec used to create the file as it's not always apparent what program or codec was used. :2cents: |
EX-WESTY (221) | ||
| 1 | |||||