|
Posted by Curtis on 02/07/06 20:07
'twas 06 Feb 2006 17:21:01 GMT, when "fred-bloggs"
<fred-bloggs@hahahotmail.com> was compelled by mysterious forces of
nature to write:
>Curtis <sir_stimpyJAM@JAMhotmail.com> wrote in
>news:85heu1dnv2v4qjgu8hnmngrdaks0q1m4rs@4ax.com:
>
>> 'twas 05 Feb 2006 08:58:41 GMT, when "fred-bloggs"
>> <fred-bloggs@hahahotmail.com> was compelled by mysterious forces of
>> nature to write:
>>
>> Curtis <sir_stimpyJAM@JAMhotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:bd5au153h3suqnn9bf9s2fefpt2o5p6cig@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>> Except that mono only has to be half the size for the same quality.
>> 64kbps mono = 128kbps stereo
>>
>
>No, I'm afraid you got that wrong too. mp3 encoding uses mid/side
>encoding so that encoding a stereo signal does NOT need twice the bitrate
>of a mono encode.
>http://www.mp3-tech.org/tech.html#joint
>http://harmsy.freeuk.com/mostync/
>
>But anyway the discussion was about filesize and it still remains that a
>128 kbps stereo mp3 is the same *size* as a 128 kbps mono mp3.
Did I say anything about joint stereo? No.
--
It's a small world but I wouldn't want to paint it.
kick out the JAMS to reply
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|