Posted by NRen2k5 on 03/31/07 15:09

Broadway Blue wrote:
> NRen2k5 wrote:
>> "����������ï..> wrote:
>>> MP3 is a relatively high quality compression system (if you use
>>> 320 and NOT Joint Stereo)
>>
>> Actually, in MP3, a properly implemented Joint Stereo will be
>> better than pure L-R Stereo. (See LAME.)
>
> What?!! Encoding an MP3 file @ 320kbps, - which is what was
> mentioned - means there obviously isn't a space constraint, (as
> 320kbps is overkill for most scenarios). So why would anyone use
> Joint Stereo to save a few KBs, if they're encoding as high as
> 320kbps?

In CBR, instead of saving a few kbs it will improve the sound quality
slightly.

> If the original source was true stereo, Joint Stereo couldn't
> actually be "better".

Yes, it can and will be better. This is because LR and MS are just two
different ways of interpreting the stereo signal. Pure LR stereo uses
(of course) only LR frames. Joint Stereo switches between LR and MS on a
frame-by-frame basis, determining which is better for each frame encoded.

> It might not sound any different and might use less space, so I would
> accept "more efficient", but "better" than the original source?
> Methinks not.

Of course nothing can be better than the original source. But one
encoding method is better than another.

[Back to original message]