Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Joint Stereo Vs. Stereo

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    33

    Smile Joint Stereo Vs. Stereo

    Just a quick question guys... what is everyones personally preference between recording in stereo or joint stereo as a mode for their mp3s? Its a curiousity thing... I just read a little into it and wondered what everyone who practically did it thought. Ta guys!

    -Alex

  2. #2
    FLAC
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    1,436

    Re: Joint Stereo Vs. Stereo

    ALWAYS stereo, NEVER joint-stereo. Why? Joint-stereo works by using the difference between the left and right channels to its advantage to increase compression, but you suffer by lowering the seperation between channels. For example if you had a source recording with a vocal on totally the left channel, after joint-stereo encoding you would most likey find some of that vocal has crepped into the right channel... therefore you are really loosing that sense of relisim and definition in the music which sterophonic recording provides. Of course the type of source audio will have a bearing on how noticible this is......

    if your really trying to save space with 128kps or lower mp3's then maybe give it a shot, but for 192kps or higher, using joint-stereo sort of defeats the purpose....
    Project - GAME OVER :(

  3. #3
    Low Bitrate
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    68
    Joint stereo mode was created for a reason. 128kbps and below just doesn't contain enough information to reproduce the full stereo effect very well.

    There are 2 main issues here

    1) The amount of "stereo effect"

    2) Minimising annoying sound artifacts

    As magnetik pointed out, Joint stereo sacrafices the original full stereo effect for a narrower effect. It does this so more of the bitrate can be assigned to reproducing the music with more accuracy.

    It is best to use joint stereo with bitrates below 192kbps to minimise annoying sound artifacts despite the narrower stereo effect. Better a narrow OK sound than a nasty wide sound.

    Above 192kbps there is sufficient bitrate to give both good quality AND the full original stereo effect. With high bitrates you can "have your cake and eat it too"

    Personally I have always used 256kbps "Stereo" after a lot of comparison testing I did 5 years ago. It always sounds awesome and with the size of hard drives rocketing, I see no reason to use a lower bitrate. I currently use the Lame encoder which is excellent.
    Honda CRX. Custom enclosure.
    Supermicro SED MB (Onboard sound and TV-out). Celeron 700. 64mb ram.
    40 GB Seagate HDD on vented foam mount.
    Keypower DC-DC KP-DX 250H ATX 250W.
    Delvcam 5.6" TFT LCD Monitor.
    Old headunit (ripped out tape mechanism added audio inputs on back).
    X10 RF mouseremote.
    "Wired Ride" web site

    The Australia/New Zealand mp3car Portal. Join now!

  4. #4
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    33
    Thanks guys! Much appreciated... you have given me a little more understanding of the bigger picture and helped my curiousity. Ta!

    -Alex

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •