Talk:Joint stereo: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→General Cleanup & Warning Notes: 2 important suggestions) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Page discussion== | ==Page discussion== | ||
Beto, if that's a *major* correction, why do you mark it as a minor update? Heh, sorry for nitpicking :-) --[[User:Pepoluan|pepoluan]] 16:20, 1 September 2006 (CDT) | Beto, if that's a *major* correction, why do you mark it as a minor update? Heh, sorry for nitpicking :-) --[[User:Pepoluan|pepoluan]] 16:20, 1 September 2006 (CDT) | ||
==General Cleanup & Warning Notes== | |||
1. The "Additional Information" section needs cleanup. | |||
2. The external link "written by user - High Quality Audio guides" -- it still touts MPC as the best-quality encoder, while we all know that it is no longer the case. But the recommendations on tools and procedures are quite on-the-spot. So I suggest putting a warning in the ilk: '''Note: Despite this page's recommendation for MPC, please be aware that in recent listening tests, other encodings are also proven to be at least as good as MPC.''' | |||
--[[User:Pepoluan|pepoluan]] <small>'''([[User_talk:pepoluan|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/pepoluan|contribs]])'''</small> 14:18, 30 November 2006 (CST) |
Revision as of 20:18, 30 November 2006
Page discussion
Beto, if that's a *major* correction, why do you mark it as a minor update? Heh, sorry for nitpicking :-) --pepoluan 16:20, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
General Cleanup & Warning Notes
1. The "Additional Information" section needs cleanup.
2. The external link "written by user - High Quality Audio guides" -- it still touts MPC as the best-quality encoder, while we all know that it is no longer the case. But the recommendations on tools and procedures are quite on-the-spot. So I suggest putting a warning in the ilk: Note: Despite this page's recommendation for MPC, please be aware that in recent listening tests, other encodings are also proven to be at least as good as MPC.