[ipodiot]

I frequently read that if one is going to encode (say with LAME) that 320 CBR (constant bit rate) is the best possible choice. Yes, much of the space is wasted, but at least you virtually get all the information.

I say "virtually" because it is not lossless, and secondly, there are supposedly some very rare musical passages that could require an even higher bit rate to capture all of the information.

So Iask, why wouldn't 320 VBR (variable bit rate), with a minimum floor of 320 kbps, always be a better choice? At worst, it will be equal to 320 CBR almost all the time, and sometimes it might be a little better?

Why does the perpetual rationale for VBR get thrown out the window when it comes to 320 CBR?

 

[BigSurSpoon]

I think it's because the bit-rate for mp3s max out at about 320kbps, so VBR with a minimum of 320 should be the same as 320CBR..

I think.

 

[davidr2287]

I dont think you can get 320 vbr, not very sure though.

 

[Dakins]

I don't think I can give you all the technical details that you want to know but everyone seems to agree that VBR (Lame Insane Preset) gives a similar (if not identical) audio quality whilst reducing the filesize. Basically, the way it works is it analyzes every audio frame and only drops in bitrate during silent or inaudible passages. That way, less useless information is saved. During complex frames, VBR allocates the highest bitrate available (up to 320 Kbps).

Most people will agree that "Insane" VBR and 320 CBR sound the same, it's just that CBR 320 makes the files much bigger by keeping information that is not needed. If you have the HDD space (or if you have the audiophile's placebo effect), go for CBR 320.

 

[epaludo]

For me lame -V0 (variable bit rate) is transparent when compared to 320 CBR. Don't see a point in my case, even being an audiophile, to go with 320 CBR. I'd say, do a ABX test and decide for yourself with format to use. I prefer lossless, but between these lossy in discussion i go with lame -V0 ...

 

[ataraxia]

320VBR is the same thing as 320CBR.

 

[GreatDane]

Insane here too.

Looking at my collection,the average seems to be around 250 kbps which sounds very good to me.

 

[ipodiot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakins /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think I can give you all the technical details that you want to know but everyone seems to agree that VBR (Lame Insane Preset) gives a similar (if not identical) audio quality whilst reducing the filesize. Basically, the way it works is it analyzes every audio frame and only drops in bitrate during silent or inaudible passages. That way, less useless information is saved. During complex frames, VBR allocates the highest bitrate available (up to 320 Kbps). Most people will agree that "Insane" VBR and 320 CBR sound the same, it's just that CBR 320 makes the files much bigger by keeping information that is not needed. If you have the HDD space (or if you have the audiophile's placebo effect), go for CBR 320.

----
I'm just not sure what "...silent or inaudible" means in this context.

Well, I know what "silent" means. But when it comes to "inaudible," well, isn't that what all of mp3 compression is built on? The not quite audible>

 

[majkel]

320 kb/s CBR sounds better than the -V0 VBR, you need better source/amp/mp3 player/headphones/hearing (choose for yourself) to hear it. I do hear, and even can tell that:
FhG 320kb/s > LAME 320kb/s > FhG 256kb/s > LAME -V0 > LAME 256kb/s

The FhG codec is incorporated in the WMP - 10 or 11 preferrably.

 

[Packgrog]

I would recommend switching to either Ogg or AAC, depending on what your player supports. Both provide better sound quality at similar bitrates. An Ogg file encoded with -q7 will handily beat a LAME VBR -V0 --vbr-new file with the right hardware (I tend to notice more life in cymbals and acoustic guitar details with Ogg -q7), and the file would be considerably smaller. -q8 provides soundstage improvement beyond that. I don't hear much difference when you get to much higher bitrates, but they may be apparent with more detailed earphones. AAC is supposedly pretty much on par with Ogg, and a better choice for non-Rockboxed iPods.

Honestly, MP3 is old tech. It's more prevalent as a result (so better for audio file trading), but if you're encoding your own CDs for your own purposes, it's worth it to switch to Ogg or AAC.

-Packgrog

 

[tjweaver]

Quote:

-q8 provides soundstage improvement beyond that.

I was a huge fan of Ogg before I bought a player that didn't support it so i had to go w/ mp3's. I'm planning on purchasing cowon d2 to be used with my new Atrio M5's. Luckily all of my originals are archived in FLAC so I can easily mix up a new batch of Ogg. Can you tell me how much of a difference there is in file size between -q8 and -q7? Thanks for your input.

 

[Packgrog]

Hmmm... I'd say that for rock songs the difference was up to about 1MB. Don't remember exactly, but it was significant. And considering the fact that -q8 Ogg files seemed to be about 100K smaller than a LAME -V0 --vbr-new file of the same song, it seemed like a no-brainer to me. Again, even -q7 sounded better than -V0 MP3.

Question is, what player are you using that doesn't support Ogg *OR* AAC?

I can vouch for the sound quality and codec support of Cowon players. It may be worth using Foobar2000 to apply volume leveling when you transcode from FLAC to Ogg, though. I have to do that with my A2, but the resulting audio experience is wonderful.

 

[tjweaver]

Thanks for your response.

I currently have an older 4gig Creative Zen Touch and a pair of Shure e3c's. Needless to say, i'm pretty excited about the expectant sound upgrade of both the player and the iem's. The M5's are on order - should be here on the 9th I think, and I'm waiting for CES to hit before pulling the trigger on the Cowon. Just in case something new pops up or a hopeful price drop in the 8gig D2.

I originally used Foobar for creating the mp3's from FLAC. I've never used volume leveling though. I'm assuming it doesn't really effect the quality of the file too much?

What settings would you recommend for creating an Ogg file in Foobar?

 

[Packgrog]

Oh yeah, Atrio + Cowon = heaven!

Very good synergy there. The Atrio really thrives with more neutral sources.

As far as volume leveling, there's a checkbox you can select for the transcoding process to apply ReplayGain values BEFORE saving, thus setting your resulting files all to their ReplayGain adjusted volumes. The only loss here is the original volume levels. But then, you won't be altering your original files, so no big deal. It's surprising how much more pleasant the listening experience becomes when all your files are the same volume. It's also depressing how lousy newer rock albums sound compared to older ones (or jazz, classical, etc.). Stupid loudness wars.

 

[Luminette]

lot of talk for stuff that all sounds worse than lossless