MP3 Debate: 320CBR vs V0

[keanex]

"This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
 
Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
 
"v0 is NOT bit by bit the same as 320 so this analogy is irrelevant."
 
Can you prove it's not bit for bit the same? And before you talk about transcoding 320->V0->320, that whole logic is completely flawed to begin with because lossy to lossy transcoding will always produce artifacts and lost data.
 
"no, it's always relevant but it contains more information than lossy files."
 
More information that almost every adult here is incapable of hearing.
 
V0 is the exact same as 320. It never sacrifices data. Want proof? Get a recording that actually uses the full 320kbps and run it as V0. It will run a constant 320kbps since it's what's needed. 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

If you're looking for fidelity, you're already "losing" by using mp3, as V0 is transparent and no one in their right mind would ever begin to think they could ABX 320 CBR and V0. Also based on your assumptions FLAC would also follow the same problems since it's also VBR, which is not the case. The encoder does just a fine job.

 
As I wrote before, there are certain samples where even the 320 CBR version has audible artifacts. ABX tests between 320 CBR and V0 have been done before and will be done in the future period. No, those people are not out of their mind, but people who think they are probably are. 

You can argue as much as you want but 320 CBR provides the highest possible quality / lowest risk of artifacts. But you're right, to the average human ear probably even V2 sounds as transparent in most cases.
 
Regarding FLAC, a small hint: you're comparing apples and oranges.


Quote:

Edit: Never made sense assuming you're on private torrent trackers. If you're archiving you're own CDs then that makes sense to me.

 
So you don't buy your music? Bohohooo...
 


Quote:

"This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
 
Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
 
"v0 is NOT bit by bit the same as 320 so this analogy is irrelevant."
 
Can you prove it's not bit for bit the same? And before you talk about transcoding 320->V0->320, that whole logic is completely flawed to begin with because lossy to lossy transcoding will always produce artifacts and lost data.
 
"no, it's always relevant but it contains more information than lossy files."
 
More information that almost every adult here is incapable of hearing.
 
V0 is the exact same as 320. It never sacrifices data. Want proof? Get a recording that actually uses the full 320kbps and run it as V0. It will run a constant 320kbps since it's what's needed. 

 

a) FLAC is perfect for archiving or further signal processing at playback so stop saying it's worthless, seriously...
b) Yes I can easily prove that it's not the same, without transcoding of course since I have the original (FLAC) tracks and not some pirated crap.
c) ARCHIVING
d) Wrong. The encoder can only estimate when 320kbps is needed.

 

[Satellite_6]

 
Quote:

"This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
 
Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
 
"v0 is NOT bit by bit the same as 320 so this analogy is irrelevant."
 
Can you prove it's not bit for bit the same? And before you talk about transcoding 320->V0->320, that whole logic is completely flawed to begin with because lossy to lossy transcoding will always produce artifacts and lost data.
 
"no, it's always relevant but it contains more information than lossy files."
 
More information that almost every adult here is incapable of hearing.
 
V0 is the exact same as 320. It never sacrifices data. Want proof? Get a recording that actually uses the full 320kbps and run it as V0. It will run a constant 320kbps since it's what's needed. 

You need learn a lot more about lossy files before you make a thread about this, I'll leave it at at that.
 
Who said I was transcoding? I would never do that.

 

[TheGomdoRi]

OP's statements are pretty elementary and are readily available on the internet I don't see a reason for "rebuttals" as all this information has been extensively discussed on HA and is backed with scientific data. If a person likes to use 320 CBR instead of v0 do they really have to justify their reasoning to others?
If they do attempt to justify, there isn't much to discuss really, people like yourself will jump on them and pull facts from HA. It's a losing battle from the beginning.
 
That being said, I honestly feel like the OP is a troll - as he made his initial post and nobody responded and wanted to draw some attention.
 

 

[keanex]

Quote:

 
So you don't buy your music? Bohohooo...
 

 

 
I buy plenty of music, but I'm not going to go through the process of ripping it when it's already on a site that regards quality quite high.
 
 

a) FLAC is perfect for archiving or further signal processing at playback so stop saying it's worthless, seriously...
b) Yes I can easily prove that it's not the same, without transcoding of course since I have the original (FLAC) tracks and not some pirated crap.
c) ARCHIVING
d) Wrong. The encoder can only estimate when 320kbps is needed.

Archiving is pointless like I said, unless you're archiving your own CDs.
Prove it then, and I sense some anger here. Btw the site I use enforces the absolute highest quality when ripping flac, fyi. Also Wav is the original, FLAC is the compressed form, fyi.
Redundant, read point A.
Okay.


Quote:

You need learn a lot more about lossy files before you make a thread about this, I'll leave it at at that.
 
Who said I was transcoding? I would never do that.

 
"I'm not going to actually post an argument, but I'll claim you're wrong."
 


Quote:

OP's statements are pretty elementary and are readily available on the internet I don't see a reason for "rebuttals" as all this information has been extensively discussed on HA and is backed with scientific data. If a person likes to use 320 CBR instead of v0 do they really have to justify their reasoning to others?
If they do attempt to justify, there isn't much to discuss really, people like yourself will jump on them and pull facts from HA. It's a losing battle from the beginning.
 
That being said, I honestly feel like the OP is a troll - as he made his initial post and nobody responded and wanted to draw some attention.
 

Bolding, underlining, and italicizing random sentiments doesn't help you get your point across any better, whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

 

Archiving is pointless like I said, unless you're archiving your own CDs.
Prove it then, and I sense some anger here
Redundant, read point A.
Okay.

 
a) Please learn to read replies in their entirety. With playback processing I mean DSPs like crossfeed, equalizer, replaygain (mp3's often contain a lot of clipping samples, FLAC files cannot) and so on.
And simply imagine the lame mp3 devs release an update that improves file size / quality, well, with FLAC files you can process and re-encode your entire music collection with the updated encoder. Two clicks in foobar2000 and you're set. Couldn't be simpler, I do this regularly after new encoder releases or changes to my music collection to keep my portable player(s) up to date.
 
b) http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=70598
 
"-b 320 ... audibly a little bit better than V0"
 
Of course you could also analyze the resulting files for differences in frequency response, amplitude statistics (min/max RMS power, peak amplitudes ...) and so on.
 
 
Well, there's a certain border that needs to be crossed until people mention the word "troll" around here. Think about it and good luck.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

"This statement is far to broad, not for everyone!"
 
Can you hear above 20k? If not FLAC is worthless to you.
 
"v0 is NOT bit by bit the same as 320 so this analogy is irrelevant."
 
Can you prove it's not bit for bit the same? And before you talk about transcoding 320->V0->320, that whole logic is completely flawed to begin with because lossy to lossy transcoding will always produce artifacts and lost data.
 
"no, it's always relevant but it contains more information than lossy files."
 
More information that almost every adult here is incapable of hearing.
 
V0 is the exact same as 320. It never sacrifices data. Want proof? Get a recording that actually uses the full 320kbps and run it as V0. It will run a constant 320kbps since it's what's needed. 

 

 
1.  V0 is a lame variable bit-rate setting. 320k is a fixed bit-rate setting. The settings produce two different files with different bit-rates.  Please read the LAME manual.
 
2. MP3s sacrifice data, they are removing the least audible sounds from the music to compress the file. The difference between the settings is the algorithm used during compression.
 
3. People have set up tests on the forums using files compressed using LAME, versus lossless files. If you search a little in the Sound Science forum you'll find them.
 

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

I personally find VBR -v0 to be the sweetspot for quality/size ratio and brings optimal listening experience as I don't seem to be able to hear difference between 320 CBR and VBR -v0 even if I try to focus, however between VBR v2 and v0 or CBR 320 kbps I hear a very noticable difference usually. I don't know why but FLAC often sounds less "full/meaty" in the sense some headphones are more warm/forward as opposed to cold/laid-back sounding but the difference is rather negliable if any. I see the argument from a future point of view why storing flac can be a great thing though but from quality/size point of view LAME MP3 VBR v0 is the sweetspot for me. 

 

[ThumperSD]

How do I convert a file (lossless) to v0 LAME mp3 with dbpoweramp? I already have the LAME mp3 codec but I dont see "v0" anywhere
 
http://img233.imageshack.us/i/capture6r.jpg/

 

[xnor]

Quote:

How do I convert a file (lossless) to v0 LAME mp3 with dbpoweramp? I already have the LAME mp3 codec but I dont see "v0" anywhere
 
http://img233.imageshack.us/i/capture6r.jpg/

You chose CBR. You want variable bitrate (VBR) instead (target checkbox). Highest VBR quality is V0 which could also be displayed as ~245 kbps (on average).

 

[ThumperSD]

Ah I never knew VBR was V0/V1/V2 etc. I thought V0 was VBR when I read the OP but I did not see any mention of VBR (CBR was used) anywhere so I thought the bitrate was constant. I guess that's because theres many versions of VBR. Thanks for clearing it up.
 
I made a thread about CBR vs LAME VBR on OCN a few months ago but got no real answers. I was thinking of switching to VBR but just stuck to CBR.

 

[Currawong]

If you're using a DAP (iPod etc.) I'd just save the space and use V0, or even V2.  There was a 128k VBR vs. lossless test here some time ago where many people had trouble telling them apart. It was easy for me with a high-end system but it was amazing how good a 128k file could be.

 

[keanex]

Quote:

If you're using a DAP (iPod etc.) I'd just save the space and use V0, or even V2.  There was a 128k VBR vs. lossless test here some time ago where many people had trouble telling them apart. It was easy for me with a high-end system but it was amazing how good a 128k file could be.

Yup, that thread gave me a chuckle when people with $500 headphones weren't certain.

 

[Currawong]

Quite a bit of it is the music and the rest experience. It's less noticeable with highly compressed pop and more so with "audiophile" classical and jazz recordings to give the extremes of what is available.

 

[EnOYiN]

I'm using v3 on my portable player and I don't think I'll ever be able to hear the difference between lossless and v3 when I'm sitting a train with some kids screaming in the chair next to me. I suppose I could even go with v5 or lower without a problem. It depends on how and where you use a portable player I think.
 
I'm using a Creative Zen> HD25-II.