Uh......I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I know that with most software you can export to stereo interleaved or two channel stereo but the two channel stereo is only good if you plan on importing back into your DAW another DAW or mastering software for editing. Even then Stereo interleaved is just fine. Two channel stereo is fine if there needs to be some fine tuning with the levels on each channel but you should be able to fix that before mixdown. Am I missing something here? Somebody clue me in.

As far as i'm concerned, imports in ProTools are easier when using 2 channel stereo. But it doesn't really makes much difference since every DAW (i guess) can import or export both of those.

Last week, I had a problem while trying to import a Stereo mix from a quite long movie (over 2 hours). They send me a stereo interleaved file as the TV mix, but Protools (Mac AND PC) wouldn't read it when Quicktime would.... And i realized that it was because the file was too big (over 2GB), So i had to cut it in half via quicktime to be able to import it. (and i thought it was only back in the OS9 days...)
So, i guess if you dealing with really big files, you should use two files for the left and right channels.

Yeah Hueseph don't overthink it, it's just a convo thread. The fact that 2 Channel stereo uses two isolated channels and joint/interleaved sums everything panned center into a separate mono track it offers a slightly different sound palate. I was just curious what you guys thought.

Stereo interleaved does not pan everything center. It takes the pan according to your mix and applies it to the track. Same with two channel stereo. If you listen to each individual track it will sound mono but together you will be able to hear the panning (given that you've panned the tracks hard left and right of course).

hueseph, post: 298037 wrote: Stereo interleaved does not pan everything center.

I never implied that it did. Although my wording could have been a bit clearer.

Guitarfreak, post: 297966 wrote: Where do you stand on the debate? Standard two channel stereo codec or joint stereo codec?

OK, I'll bite!
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Joint_stereo

I like regular ole stereo....
Where would one find this type of encoding?
Is this at the MP3 level?
I would be interested in hearing some examples

Yes they are different MP3 encoding codecs. Samples? I'll make some, give me ten minutes.

hueseph, post: 298037 wrote: Stereo interleaved does not pan everything center. It takes the pan according to your mix and applies it to the track. Same with two channel stereo. If you listen to each individual track it will sound mono but together you will be able to hear the panning (given that you've panned the tracks hard left and right of course).

Stereo Interleave:
A stereo sound file or digital recording where the data making up the left and right channels are mixed together as one contiguous block of data. Interleaved stereo files are common in the DAW world, but are also utilized in R-DAT recorders, and other digital tape machines.

So it's not a stereo method it is merely interleaving data from 2 separate channels into a data block...it's seems more of a data compression technique rather some method of deriving a stereo field......I don't think that's the same thing as "Joint" though?
Call me crazy, but I think I bit this one hook line and sinker!
Crazy! LOL

dj, I think that source is wrong. It seems there is some debate as to what it actually is lol. My understanding is that the encoder isolates everything that has equal strength L and R (panned center) and removes it from both L and R tracks and puts it in a separate mono track that plays at the same time that the L and R tracks play. Joint. lol

Your clips are in. The files were encoded using highest quality that Soundclick will accept. I have a thought that maybe the difference would be easier to detect at lower quality settings, who knows. I actually haven't gotten the chance yet to listen myself so off we go.

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8640325
http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8640326

I got the "stereo interleaved" definition from the Sweetwater glossary...
I had no problem with that...I've always understood "stereo interleave" as interleaving or "multiplexing" the two separate L/R channels into a single combined file in order to compress it to MP3 bit rates.
It is not True Stereo because there is loss in the compression technique used in the MP3 conversion.
The "joint" stereo which is something I had never heard of before...."ya learn something new everyday" right...
The explanation of "joint stereo" from that HydrogenAudio made sense to me as a "derived" stereo mix....but not the same as interleaved...now maybe joint is a better sounding stereo than the interleaved??
In terms of a DAW recording, which isn't really part of this debate...you can import files as separate mono tracks mono1L mono2R or you can import 1 interleaved stereo track. 1L/R
You can pan the separate mono tracks full L and full R they will be stereo....right (dual mono). You don't have to pan full L/R. You could pan anywhere in between which is why they are more flexible when mixing.
You wouldn't typically pan a single stereo track you would typically leave it centered. And this is why some people like to keep them that way, like a synth sample in stereo or reverb effect for example.
Some people prefer stereo tracks and some people like to work strictly with mono tracks....
Joint stereo appears to be merely MP3 post conversion technique.
Is this something to do with iTunes per chance?

I listened to them but really couldn't tell any difference.
I listened to my own version of "Peace of Mind" good choice of tune BTW!
Mine was 320bit VBR so it sounded pretty good but still wasn't much different than either of your two.
I'm sure SoundClick is 128bit so no surprise it might have sounded a little muddier than mine...
One thing to keep in mind is this is still all MP3 compression....it is what it is...it's not exactly audiophile listening
Not the same thing as what your listening to in your DAW...

Stereo interleave does not have to mean mp3. WAV files are also stereo interleave. The difference(when it comes to exporting according to my DAW at least) is simply that two channel stereo exports to two separate mono files, left and right. Stereo interleave exports to a single stereo file. There must be something I'm missing here or GF is converting the two channels stereo file to interleaved before uploading. You have to afaik if you want to be able to listen to the two channels simultaneously in anything other than a DAW.

hueseph, post: 298109 wrote: Stereo interleave does not have to mean mp3. WAV files are also stereo interleave. The difference(when it comes to exporting according to my DAW at least) is simply that two channel stereo exports to two separate mono files, left and right. Stereo interleave exports to a single stereo file. There must be something I'm missing here or GF is converting the two channels stereo file to interleaved before uploading. You have to afaik if you want to be able to listen to the two channels simultaneously in anything other than a DAW.

No argument on the interleave, yes it can be an interleaved file and converted to lots of different files types not just MP3 or .wav. If you are exporting to .wav you can use split channel, which can then be imported as completely separate channels back into a software editor or DAW tracks. I'm just not sure you can do that for MP3 or .aif or certain compressed file types. I might be wrong on that statement. I'm not clear on how 2 separate split channels then gets combined into a compressed stereo MP3 or .aif without somehow being interleaved as a single file first.
I guess GF needs to tell us how he created the "Joint" file MP3 before I could understand this better....at the end of the day were still talking about how these sound and is there a reasonable reason to use one method over the other....and of course gain some understanding!
BTW hueseph, pardon my ignorance but what is "afaik"?

You wanna know where I get my joints?

<_>
>_>

...NEVER!!

I popped in the CD and imported the same song twice using two different import codecs. Once using the standard 2 channel Stereo and once using what iTunes refers to as Joint Stereo. Yes I used iTunes for this.

OK....so it's a "joint" stereo....I get it....ya know GF back in the old days...
"joint" stereo always sounded way better than regular stereo!
You didn't explain that very well GF....but I understand completely and it is all clear to me now....Hehe
I'm all for "joint" stereo and believe it should be legalized!
Music sounds so much better with "joint " stereo and you can really get into the feel of the sound and hear all of the nuances of the recording!
Reference the following media: (preferably with high quality headphones)
Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon any or all songs from start to finish both sides!
LOL :cool:

There is intensity joint stereo and m/s joint stereo. Intensity joint stereo discards some panning information to reduce file size. M/s joint stereo is like m/s micing in reverse, the l/r information is converted to a sum (mid) channel and a difference (side) channel. M/s is surround compatible (though data reduction of it can lead to artifacts), intensity is not, and both can be engaged at the same time. In both cases the two channels are in one file.

There is no difference in quality between m/s joint stereo and regular stereo except for compression artifacts that may crop up. Intensity joint stereo is inherently lossy.

I would dare to say that for the most part joint or intensity is inconsequential since most people are at the mercy of the compression software they choose to use withvery few exceptions. Flac, Ogg, or Aiff are the formats I prefer if it must be compressed.

hueseph, post: 298726 wrote: Flac, Ogg, or Aiff are the formats I prefer if it must be compressed.

I was under the impression that these were lossless and/or uncompressed algorithms.

They are in fact lossless compression formats. Flac and Ogg use joint stereo afaik.