right there you are agreeing with my view that the sound quality is not noticeable unless you use specialized equipment
regular listeners will not listen on monitor headphones
-
Welcome to AH.FM
Join the Biggest EDM Community, engage in discussions, share music, and connect with fellow electronic music enthusiasts!
-
Stream Live Player Pop Up | Winamp | Premium
Stereo vs. Joint Stereo
- Thread starter Lite
- Start date
- Status
right there you are agreeing with my view that the sound quality is not noticeable unless you use specialized equipment
regular listeners will not listen on monitor headphones
has nothing to do with having perfect hearing, most people have normal hearing
you just made a statement saying that you must listen in monitor headphones to hear the difference...if that's the only way to hear the difference the experiment is useless
you just made a statement saying that you must listen in monitor headphones to hear the difference...if that's the only way to hear the difference the experiment is useless
t4e I looked up his headphones and their specs..they're not that out of the ordinary. The frequency ranges are a bit bigger than the standard 20-20k (his are 10–28,000 Hz) , but the sensitivity rests at 106db ...of course, his own hearing is a factor, and I cant really judge based on specs, but the capacity to notice the difference is higher (deeper basses / rounded highs)
My point is, more and more headphones will surpass the 20-20k mark once you hit over an average of 40 $ on headphones for personal listening. DJ headphones are even more likely to have a wider sound spectrum than general consumer headphones dubbed "hi-fi".
Also, at the risk of pushing a stereotype forward and potentially offending people, older people tend to care more about sound quality than younger people (I happen to be an exception, and man..am I glad to be one)..therefore the chances of people on this forum having decent headphones (judging by what I am assuming are the people's average age groups) is fairly good.
What I think would happen if we switched to Joint Stereo is that no one would notice..but if someone like Dan announces its upcoming, and maybe is able to give a demo on the air , many people will see the difference and appreciate it, even if it seems minimal a change..after all, this IS a free service...
Why I say that DJ headphones do not fit all, because they mainly focus on the beats and monitor headphones is another matter.
By the way I took these headphones on these tests:
Testing the monitor 23 Hi-Fi-headphones on hardnsoft
As the next model SHP8900/00 worse on the tests. Much better SHP9000/00. But they are much more expensive in cost.
And SHP8500/00 are much better than many of KOSS, AKG, Sennheiser etc... in this and even higher price range
By the way I took these headphones on these tests:
Testing the monitor 23 Hi-Fi-headphones on hardnsoft
As the next model SHP8900/00 worse on the tests. Much better SHP9000/00. But they are much more expensive in cost.
And SHP8500/00 are much better than many of KOSS, AKG, Sennheiser etc... in this and even higher price range
The DJs focus on the beats, but the headphones still do their job with the full spectrum..even though they may be EQ'd from the manufacturer, it does not shut out monitoring potential whatsoever.
The website you link to seems to compare headphones they pulled out of a hat, with no regard to age, price range, or intended consumer..
The website you link to seems to compare headphones they pulled out of a hat, with no regard to age, price range, or intended consumer..
Price range can be seen at the top of page text of each model of headphones, a distinction of age, I have never seen anywhere else.
For example on that page
Here another specialized website http://doctorhead.ru/
An interesting article on another specialized site Headphones and human hearing - stereohead.ru
English such sites do not know.
For example on that page
Here another specialized website http://doctorhead.ru/
An interesting article on another specialized site Headphones and human hearing - stereohead.ru
English such sites do not know.
Last edited:
you missed the point i was making....regular listeners don't sit around with headphones, at least not all the time, let alone monitor headphones, they chillout some place in their home with music playing out of the speakers
i tell you what would happen if Dan announced he introduces Join Stereo, the same as it happened when some station switched from 192 to 256,
everyone claimed the sound was better....that's BS, human ear at normal listening can not detect the difference, however the human brain will try to "hear" a better sound because we've been told that higher bitrates have higher quality
Well, everything went demagoguery. Well not really the same! Audio speakers is also a sound system, and the difference can be heared on it too. If you think so, would not exist different bitrate, and would be one fixed.
If you think this way, there would be no different bitrates, and would be one a low fixed bit rate. But many specially listening to lossless quality, and you are reasoning that there was no difference at such low bitrates. It is strange.
But Ok. Here are another problems.
At 48k you uses AAC+v2 or v1. Although this is a sufficient bitrate for AAC, but there could only hear whistle of high frequencies and much lost of detail because signal is restoration from low frequencies with the use of SBR technology, or even sooner Parametric Stereo (PS) on very small bitrate. AAC+ is the only way to use such low bitrate. This is a good choise.
The following is 96k which is more than enough for truly high-quality playback when using the AAC+. But there you are using MP3, which at this bitrate even with the use of Joint Stereo simply can not provide any quality at all. Quality awful in itself, and distortions are so high that their presence does quality absolutely bad. And it already turns out quality lower, than at AAC+ on 48k.
But you call quality at this bitrate average, than more ordinary users keep misconception that the quality depends on the bit rate, although in reality it is not. On such bitrate it is necessary to use at least OGG Vorbis, but nevertheless it is better AAC+.
The following is 192k on which you are using MP3. But even here you have worsened the options of refusing to use Joint Stereo.
You have not selected the correct settings on two of three bitrate. I thought that this progressive community. Why AAC+ puts severe limitations such as the use of only 48k. Why use 96k stream MP3, not AAC+? As that crookedly you have distributed formats. You have decided to follow an example my useless country, where all upside down? Oh, don't do this, please.
By the way, if you suddenly turn on Joint Stereo on a 192k stream and will make poll about sound quality on 192k channel not specifying the reasons, it will be interesting to look at results.
And here that I still wished to tell about Joint Stereo. Speaking easier... Why it's worth that to include even 320k? Because 320k is 4.5 times less than 1411k. Even what heights has now reached the best MP3 codec Lame, it still lacks the bitrate in order to portray the source material without distinguishable from hearing loss. Setting codec to Joint Stereo mode, we are helping to achieve a higher quality, because we increasing the virtual bitrate.
If you think this way, there would be no different bitrates, and would be one a low fixed bit rate. But many specially listening to lossless quality, and you are reasoning that there was no difference at such low bitrates. It is strange.
But Ok. Here are another problems.
At 48k you uses AAC+v2 or v1. Although this is a sufficient bitrate for AAC, but there could only hear whistle of high frequencies and much lost of detail because signal is restoration from low frequencies with the use of SBR technology, or even sooner Parametric Stereo (PS) on very small bitrate. AAC+ is the only way to use such low bitrate. This is a good choise.
The following is 96k which is more than enough for truly high-quality playback when using the AAC+. But there you are using MP3, which at this bitrate even with the use of Joint Stereo simply can not provide any quality at all. Quality awful in itself, and distortions are so high that their presence does quality absolutely bad. And it already turns out quality lower, than at AAC+ on 48k.
But you call quality at this bitrate average, than more ordinary users keep misconception that the quality depends on the bit rate, although in reality it is not. On such bitrate it is necessary to use at least OGG Vorbis, but nevertheless it is better AAC+.
The following is 192k on which you are using MP3. But even here you have worsened the options of refusing to use Joint Stereo.
You have not selected the correct settings on two of three bitrate. I thought that this progressive community. Why AAC+ puts severe limitations such as the use of only 48k. Why use 96k stream MP3, not AAC+? As that crookedly you have distributed formats. You have decided to follow an example my useless country, where all upside down? Oh, don't do this, please.
By the way, if you suddenly turn on Joint Stereo on a 192k stream and will make poll about sound quality on 192k channel not specifying the reasons, it will be interesting to look at results.
And here that I still wished to tell about Joint Stereo. Speaking easier... Why it's worth that to include even 320k? Because 320k is 4.5 times less than 1411k. Even what heights has now reached the best MP3 codec Lame, it still lacks the bitrate in order to portray the source material without distinguishable from hearing loss. Setting codec to Joint Stereo mode, we are helping to achieve a higher quality, because we increasing the virtual bitrate.
Last edited:
But, now what if a DJ's set that was compressed to Stereo mp3 is broadcasted on a Joint-Stereo stream, would you still hear any difference between broadcasted stereo or joint-stereo.
Or the other way around? Broadcasting a Joint-Stereo mp3 on a Stereo stream? What does that do to sound quality?
Just reminding you that there's two stages of mp3 compression at work here, or in most cases actually 3 (since most DJ's play mp3s). Quality loss is everywhere.
Or the other way around? Broadcasting a Joint-Stereo mp3 on a Stereo stream? What does that do to sound quality?
Just reminding you that there's two stages of mp3 compression at work here, or in most cases actually 3 (since most DJ's play mp3s). Quality loss is everywhere.
Yes it so. But files used by them have much higher bitrate. In this case losses is much smaller. Plus there is usually used the qualitative codec - Lame with quite good options of quality. And such system is not adhered to real time, therefore it is possible to expose though the highest quality, and thus coding consumes many resources. And when the announcement strongly good options of quality is carried out will not put because of a binding to real time. Also it is absolutely not known what codec you use. Therefore tracks coded on standard, instead of the broadcasting codec will be more qualitative, in the absence of restrictions on consumed processor resources. Plus even if to take an ideal case when the sound takes from lossless source the last stage will be solving. As and at us. It some kind of a bottle neck.
Still such example. If on an average on quality of a sound of audio the equipment in the end to include cheap ear-phones the sound will be awful. And if to connect expensive ear-phones the sound will be much better in any case! Therefore always it is necessary to try to keep the greatest possible quality at any stage.
Still such example. If on an average on quality of a sound of audio the equipment in the end to include cheap ear-phones the sound will be awful. And if to connect expensive ear-phones the sound will be much better in any case! Therefore always it is necessary to try to keep the greatest possible quality at any stage.
Well only it is not necessary so to exaggerate. Speaking about attempts of preservation of quality I had in view of reasonable decisions and compromises. As an example besides I will result obligatory use Joint Stereo and a reasonable choice of the used codec. That is at bitrates lower than 128 it is obligatory to use AAC+ etc. The head is needed not only to carry the cap and eat...
I stake on progressive technologies their correct application and adjustment! Knowledge of features of formats and their realisations. Knowledge of quality of decoders eventually (Snibatch, MAD, MP3 Decoder of Apollo Player. Last one is most precise of existing decoders).
I stake on progressive technologies their correct application and adjustment! Knowledge of features of formats and their realisations. Knowledge of quality of decoders eventually (Snibatch, MAD, MP3 Decoder of Apollo Player. Last one is most precise of existing decoders).
Last edited:
well tbh, i think it's you who's exaggerating about how much of a difference it all makes.
care to participate in a single-blind listening test?
no, you need to read more carefully what people say, i said there is no audible difference between 192 and 256
are you implying that using joint stereo increases the bitrate?
i'm sorry, but most times i have a hard time following what you're trying to say
Well I also do not know that else it is possible to tell. If after all explanations you and have not understood importance of all of it... I Can add only what to experiment and study I all it has begun when for the first time has got acquainted with Lame. It then was on version 3.93.1, that is it was somewhere in 2002. I much experimenting. Traced each subsequent version Lame and well heard differences in sounding of these versions. Also I can describe it. It differed very strongly, believe me! And always used and will use the best option, that is "-q0". The unique version which I have passed it 3.95.
There was also a period when I could not be defined that better Stereo silt Joint Stereo. But as a result all the same has understood that Joint Stereo it is much better. Then I began to always use "-mj" setting.
There was also a period when I could not be defined that better Stereo silt Joint Stereo. But as a result all the same has understood that Joint Stereo it is much better. Then I began to always use "-mj" setting.
- Status