> > I agree in that encoding in CBR opposed to VBR gives me a feeling of being
> > more safe :)
> I wonder where the myth that joint stereo would somehow adversely affect
> quality comes from. Was it the web pages from the BladeEnc guy?
Actually, it was this mailinglist. I think Mark Taylor (correct me if I'm dead
wrong!) said something like:
"at high bitrates, joint stereo can do more evil than good, because the algorithm
[of detecting similarities in the left/right channels] is not perfect".
> I don't know. Anyway, joint stereo does not make the signal and worse, it
> just allows for a better bandwidth use because on most signals the bulk
> of the sound is equal on both channels. With joint stereo, this part is
> only encoded once for both channels, so this is a good thing.
So if there's a part where just the left channel features sound, joint stereo
will never mess up the right channel (or the left)?
> There is no reason at all to feel more safe with CBR. CBR is meant for
> transmissions over a leased line where you don't get money back if you
> don't use the whole space. VBR is meant for archival. Use it.
Sound interesting enough, especially with all the good noise I hear about
the quality of lame's VBR. One minor issue, though, I've found that some (most?)
players don't tell you that the MP3 is VBR, but simply print the bitrate of the
first frame or something (I'm not sure), resulting in a situation where it seems
the MP3 is coded with a CBR of for instance 64kbit/s or 92kbit/s or whatever. This
is pretty deceiving :( I've seen this with mpg123 and xmms.
Ivo
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
