Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: LAME 192 CBR vs LAME aps (Read 8639 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LAME 192 CBR vs LAME aps

Reply #25
Quote
Full stereo...what a waste of bits.


Well, I have to admit that I am a bit confused now. At the beginning of the article he writes that Joint Stereo will reproduce exactly the same signal. Then he sais that Joint Stereo will have a loss of 1%.
Is Joint Stereo lossy or not?

 

LAME 192 CBR vs LAME aps

Reply #26
what do you mean "lossy"?

there will be no corruption of the stereo image if that's what you're referring to. joint stereo is just a more efficient compression method. i can understand why some people will hesistate to use joint stereo because of old flaws in fhg and xing codecs which caused a mess on many files. but LAME is different and we've discussed it here many times

i can abx --APS from 192CBR "full stereo" very easily, but i can do it less well when 192CBR is encoded with joint stereo. when abx-ing --APE and 192CBR full or joint stereo, however, for me the difference is like black and white

[begin rant]

i also don't understand why so many people on the internet, usenet, IRC, p2p, etc. don't embrace VBR as far as mp3s are concerned. encoding your music files using VBR instead of CBR makes so much sense. besides, many other audio compressors  (musepack, ogg vorbis, monkey's, FLAC, to name a few) are VBR native. just because you can use CBR in mp3 format doesn't mean it's the most logical approach. in fact most of the time it's the most stupid approach, especially if you want high quality results

[/end rant]
Be healthy, be kind, grow rich and prosper