TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- help a n00b
help a n00b
Are vinyls still read with a needle these days?
yes.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Boomer187 yes. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CyberneticAngel So is Heroin |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Mr. Pink you and your heroin. listen buddy.......keep that shit for www.drugaddict.com that shit dont fly around hurr |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Boomer187 Of course heroin doesn' fly...do pigs.....cows....shemales....no. |
the first time i laid vinyl onto the tt, which was at the Satellite Records store, i was playing all of them from the inside-out ;p
ok.... onto the next stupid question/s
wtf is "Joint Stereo" and why do so many people encode to it?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by meneedit ok.... onto the next stupid question/s wtf is "Joint Stereo" and why do so many people encode to it? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Boomer187 Joint Stereo is a neat mathematical technique which is used to enhance the quality of compressed digital audio. It generally tends to be associated with the most popular format of audio compression - mp3, but it has also been incorporated into several other formats, for example: in the other "layers" of MPEG audio (mp3 = MPEG1 layer III) and in Advanced Audio Coding (AAC). The Ogg developers have (wisely, perhaps) avoided using the expression "Joint Stereo", but their "channel interleaving" and "lossless stereo image coupling" is essentially a kind of Joint Stereo Plus GT. JS is also used by some lossless audio compression techniques, for example: Monkey's Audio (ape) and Lossless Predictive Audio Compression (LPAC). (The mere fact that Joint Stereo is used in lossless compression ought to be enough to destroy - in one stroke - the myth that JS "destroys stereo separation"). My particular interest is in the mp3 format, but the basic principles behind Joint Stereo - what it is, and how it works - are universally true, regardless of the particular application. For a good introduction to the basic principles of MPEG Audio compression, I recommend the MPEG Audio FAQ at the Hannover University site. The vast majority of mp3 enthusiasts - the millions of people who transfer mp3 files around the Internet via Napster-style file sharing software, or via IRC, or Usenet, or whatever - are probably blissfully unaware of all the arguments which take place concerning lame v Fraunhofer, 128k v 192k, CBR v VBR, stereo v joint stereo - and good luck to them! However, once people start to acquire a basic level of knowledge concerning the mechanics of audio compression, they almost inevitably gravitate towards the opinion that "Joint Stereo Is BAD". Here is a selection of some my "favourite" quotes about JS which I've seen posted onto Usenet during recent years: [JS] is evil IMHO. It's a waste of good music, d/l time, and upload time too. Sure the files are smaller but what's the use if it's not true stereo! Why on earth would you want to alter what the engineer had in mind just to save a few dozen KB in file size? It just doesn't make sense to me. FUCK ALL YOU ASSHOLES WHO RIP IN JOINT STEREO, YOU'RE JUST DESTROYING GOOD MUSIC I have always thought that joint stereo was the worst option, and only used to save space or by those that did not know any better. if its so much better quality why dont record companies use it or something similar on commercialy released cd's your ears are broke fag....go see a fucking doctor uhm ... yes, well, thanks for all the well-reasoned expert advice, folks ... and if you were to seek a more learned opinion by searching the Web, well, some of the seemingly "authoritative" advice out there is also pretty garbled, to say the least: Probably the worst "explanation" I've ever seen is at cdrinfo.com : "I'll try to explain Joint Stereo very briefly. Basically it looks for signals that are identical in the left and right channel and if it finds any they are encoded as mono. This means that 50% bits are saved for the mono encoded signals and these bits are used to improve the encoding accuracy (very simplified explanation)" Very SIMPLIFIED explanation? Very INCORRECT explanation, more like! And it's somewhat ironic that one of the best explanations of JS that I've come across is in the documentation for the Xing encoder. ( Xing Guide in .pdf format) Ironic? Well, should you be unaware, the Xing mp3 encoder is widely considered to be the worst available, but clearly, they have a good understanding of what they're trying to do! "Don't confuse Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1) with the Joint Stereo coding used for MPEG layer 2 encoding - it is not the same. Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1) encoding for MPEG layer3 allows the XingMP3 Encoder to use additional methods of encoding, specifically - MS Stereo (Middle/Side Stereo), and for lower bitrates only, Intensity Stereo, in addition to the Independent Channel coding used for Stereo mode 0. MS Stereo uses one channel to encode information that is identical on the left and right channels and the other channel to encode the differences between the two channels. Intensity Stereo encodes only bits that are perceived to be important to the stereophonic image. The XingMP3 Encoder uses Intensity Stereo only in low bitrate files, (96kbps or less) where file size is critical to the user. In Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1), the encoder dynamically (frame by frame) chooses the method of encoding that produces the best quality for each individual frame. Dynamic encoding improves compression efficiency which results in a higher quality file using less bits. Stereo mode 0 encodes the left and right channels independently. The total bitrate remains constant, but the split between the channels can vary. The XingMP3 Encoder uses this flexibility to improve quality by allocating more bits to the channel with the more dynamic signal. For MPEG layer 3 encoding, Stereo mode 0 limits the encoder to only one method of encoding - Independent Channels. Because Stereo mode 0 is limited to one method of encoding, Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1) in most cases produces higher quality. In the exceptions, the Stereo mode 0 quality will be essentially equivalent to Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1)." Even the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (FhG) - the people who originally devised mp3 compression - provide a definition of Joint Stereo which, I think, does more to confuse than explain: "Joint stereo coding takes advantage of the fact that both channels of a stereo channel pair contain far the same information. These stereophonic irrelevancies and redundancies are exploited to reduce the total bitrate. Joint stereo is used in cases where only low bitrates are available but stereo signals are desired." Now, whilst I wouldn't like to imply in any way that Fraunhofer don't know what they're talking about(!), I think that their emphasis on "reducing the bitrate" does tend to confuse people. Of course, FhG are looking at ... to use a clich� I loathe ... the bigger picture. The aim of all audio compression techniques is to reduce bitrates whilst minimising any deterioration in sound quality. The use of Joint Stereo enhances sound quality such that smaller bitrates are more likely to be considered acceptable. But, the idea that JS simply discards stereo information in an attempt to trim a few kBytes off the file size (as our chums above seem to think) is completely erroneous, and in this case, it is one myth which we ought to (easily) destroy before we go any further: Whenever you encode a .wav file at a specified Constant Bit Rate, this bitrate defines the size of the compressed mp3, regardless of what stereo mode you choose, and in fact, regardless of which encoder you select. For example, if you encode at 128k (that is, 128 kilo bits per second), then each second of music will be represented by 128 000 bits. And for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with bits, Bytes, MegaBytes, etc.: 1 second = 128 000 bits = 16 000 Bytes (8 bits = 1 Byte) = 15.625 kBytes (1024 Bytes = 1 kByte) or alternatively, 1 minute = 0.9155 MBytes (1024 kBytes = 1 MByte) If you are in any doubt whatsoever about this, please do a simple test for yourself, with any .wav file, any encoder, and any bitrate. Joint Stereo does not "discard" a single bit; it simply makes better use of the number of bits which you have specified. Before I go any further in describing how it does this, let's remind ourselves of the basic principles of mp3 compression. all of this was stolen from http://harmsy.freeuk.com/mostync/ |
... kidding ..
umm.. okkkk. I guess now I understand.
so, what you're saying is that Joint Stereo is not bad? What about this:
<--that's Joint stereo, ainit?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Boomer187 Joint Stereo is a neat mathematical technique which is used to enhance the quality of compressed digital audio. It generally tends to be associated with the most popular format of audio compression - mp3, but it has also been incorporated into several other formats, for example: in the other "layers" of MPEG audio (mp3 = MPEG1 layer III) and in Advanced Audio Coding (AAC). The Ogg developers have (wisely, perhaps) avoided using the expression "Joint Stereo", but their "channel interleaving" and "lossless stereo image coupling" is essentially a kind of Joint Stereo Plus GT. JS is also used by some lossless audio compression techniques, for example: Monkey's Audio (ape) and Lossless Predictive Audio Compression (LPAC). (The mere fact that Joint Stereo is used in lossless compression ought to be enough to destroy - in one stroke - the myth that JS "destroys stereo separation"). My particular interest is in the mp3 format, but the basic principles behind Joint Stereo - what it is, and how it works - are universally true, regardless of the particular application. For a good introduction to the basic principles of MPEG Audio compression, I recommend the MPEG Audio FAQ at the Hannover University site. The vast majority of mp3 enthusiasts - the millions of people who transfer mp3 files around the Internet via Napster-style file sharing software, or via IRC, or Usenet, or whatever - are probably blissfully unaware of all the arguments which take place concerning lame v Fraunhofer, 128k v 192k, CBR v VBR, stereo v joint stereo - and good luck to them! However, once people start to acquire a basic level of knowledge concerning the mechanics of audio compression, they almost inevitably gravitate towards the opinion that "Joint Stereo Is BAD". Here is a selection of some my "favourite" quotes about JS which I've seen posted onto Usenet during recent years: [JS] is evil IMHO. It's a waste of good music, d/l time, and upload time too. Sure the files are smaller but what's the use if it's not true stereo! Why on earth would you want to alter what the engineer had in mind just to save a few dozen KB in file size? It just doesn't make sense to me. FUCK ALL YOU ASSHOLES WHO RIP IN JOINT STEREO, YOU'RE JUST DESTROYING GOOD MUSIC I have always thought that joint stereo was the worst option, and only used to save space or by those that did not know any better. if its so much better quality why dont record companies use it or something similar on commercialy released cd's your ears are broke fag....go see a fucking doctor uhm ... yes, well, thanks for all the well-reasoned expert advice, folks ... and if you were to seek a more learned opinion by searching the Web, well, some of the seemingly "authoritative" advice out there is also pretty garbled, to say the least: Probably the worst "explanation" I've ever seen is at cdrinfo.com : "I'll try to explain Joint Stereo very briefly. Basically it looks for signals that are identical in the left and right channel and if it finds any they are encoded as mono. This means that 50% bits are saved for the mono encoded signals and these bits are used to improve the encoding accuracy (very simplified explanation)" Very SIMPLIFIED explanation? Very INCORRECT explanation, more like! And it's somewhat ironic that one of the best explanations of JS that I've come across is in the documentation for the Xing encoder. ( Xing Guide in .pdf format) Ironic? Well, should you be unaware, the Xing mp3 encoder is widely considered to be the worst available, but clearly, they have a good understanding of what they're trying to do! "Don't confuse Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1) with the Joint Stereo coding used for MPEG layer 2 encoding - it is not the same. Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1) encoding for MPEG layer3 allows the XingMP3 Encoder to use additional methods of encoding, specifically - MS Stereo (Middle/Side Stereo), and for lower bitrates only, Intensity Stereo, in addition to the Independent Channel coding used for Stereo mode 0. MS Stereo uses one channel to encode information that is identical on the left and right channels and the other channel to encode the differences between the two channels. Intensity Stereo encodes only bits that are perceived to be important to the stereophonic image. The XingMP3 Encoder uses Intensity Stereo only in low bitrate files, (96kbps or less) where file size is critical to the user. In Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1), the encoder dynamically (frame by frame) chooses the method of encoding that produces the best quality for each individual frame. Dynamic encoding improves compression efficiency which results in a higher quality file using less bits. Stereo mode 0 encodes the left and right channels independently. The total bitrate remains constant, but the split between the channels can vary. The XingMP3 Encoder uses this flexibility to improve quality by allocating more bits to the channel with the more dynamic signal. For MPEG layer 3 encoding, Stereo mode 0 limits the encoder to only one method of encoding - Independent Channels. Because Stereo mode 0 is limited to one method of encoding, Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1) in most cases produces higher quality. In the exceptions, the Stereo mode 0 quality will be essentially equivalent to Joint Stereo (Stereo mode 1)." Even the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (FhG) - the people who originally devised mp3 compression - provide a definition of Joint Stereo which, I think, does more to confuse than explain: "Joint stereo coding takes advantage of the fact that both channels of a stereo channel pair contain far the same information. These stereophonic irrelevancies and redundancies are exploited to reduce the total bitrate. Joint stereo is used in cases where only low bitrates are available but stereo signals are desired." Now, whilst I wouldn't like to imply in any way that Fraunhofer don't know what they're talking about(!), I think that their emphasis on "reducing the bitrate" does tend to confuse people. Of course, FhG are looking at ... to use a clich� I loathe ... the bigger picture. The aim of all audio compression techniques is to reduce bitrates whilst minimising any deterioration in sound quality. The use of Joint Stereo enhances sound quality such that smaller bitrates are more likely to be considered acceptable. But, the idea that JS simply discards stereo information in an attempt to trim a few kBytes off the file size (as our chums above seem to think) is completely erroneous, and in this case, it is one myth which we ought to (easily) destroy before we go any further: Whenever you encode a .wav file at a specified Constant Bit Rate, this bitrate defines the size of the compressed mp3, regardless of what stereo mode you choose, and in fact, regardless of which encoder you select. For example, if you encode at 128k (that is, 128 kilo bits per second), then each second of music will be represented by 128 000 bits. And for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with bits, Bytes, MegaBytes, etc.: 1 second = 128 000 bits = 16 000 Bytes (8 bits = 1 Byte) = 15.625 kBytes (1024 Bytes = 1 kByte) or alternatively, 1 minute = 0.9155 MBytes (1024 kBytes = 1 MByte) If you are in any doubt whatsoever about this, please do a simple test for yourself, with any .wav file, any encoder, and any bitrate. Joint Stereo does not "discard" a single bit; it simply makes better use of the number of bits which you have specified. Before I go any further in describing how it does this, let's remind ourselves of the basic principles of mp3 compression. all of this was stolen from http://harmsy.freeuk.com/mostync/ |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by emc^2 <--that's Joint stereo, ainit? |
god fuckin damn
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.