What's everybody's thing with VBR here?

Originally Posted by Iceboy

I used to use APX all the time, but now I tend to use API. I just don't see how any frame of an MP3 can suffice with anything less than 320k and still make a perfect sound.

You don't get perfect sound, even with 320k CBR. The purpose of VBR is to get relatively consistent quality.

Originally Posted by Iceboy

And who decides what bitrate is needed during VBR encoding? Is it programmed or all automated? Surely you need 320k for every frame to ensure perfect sound?

You could say it's "automated". And automated very cleverly at that. And as I said, you don't get "perfect sound" with MP3 even at 320kbps. You don't need 320kbps for every frame for transparent sound because different passages require different bitrates.

Originally Posted by Iceboy

I did my own encoding tests using the same source Wav and encoding to APX and API. The API yeilded a slightly higher frequency response.

Probably because it uses a slightly higher lowpass (or none) as far as I know. Frequency response is not the be-all and end-all of lossy encoding.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Iceboy

You get consistent quality with 320k as well, then. Every frame is encoded at the highest possible quality.

Some frames need it, some don't. So you're not getting consistent quality.

Originally Posted by Blue_Kirby2

This brings up a question I've been wanting to ask for a long time.

Why does FLAC even exist in the first place? And I mean, aside from getting 1:1 copies of CDs?

If you wanted -real- 1:1 copies, you could just go out and buy the CD yourself. Of course, price becomes an issue, and I can see why people might download a FLAC rip if it means you save money compared to buying a CD. But since VBR exists, there's another problem.

I'm an audiophile myself; and I can't tell the difference between a properly-encoded VBR mp3 and a FLAC file. Not unless I had super-ultra-mega-extra-volcanic-krakatoa-hurricane-katrina-headphones, which I'm sure don't exist. But - if anyone could tell any difference - it would be so small anyhow. And frankly, I'd rather take a 100MB VBR rip instead of a 600MB FLAC rip, if the difference is that small. Hard drive space becomes a concern at some point and I know most people wouldn't want to waste it.

If you have been keeping up with the CD rips I've done, what I'm saying may seem contradictory since I've ripped so many albums in FLAC. But I'll admit something now - the only reason I may rip stuff in FLAC is because other people want them. Hell, I don't know why... but if you prefer having the Final Fantasy XII soundtrack in FLAC at 1.20GB, instead of having the same album in VBR at 400MB with very little to no audible quality difference, be my guest.

I'm not asking anyone to get rid of lossless formats entirely. I'm just wondering why some people go after and rip their stuff in lossless instead of in VBR.

I like to download albums in lossless whenever possible because that gives me the best possible source for making my own MP3s, Vorbises, etc. from the content. Sure, I could download WAV instead, but when you're talking about full albums, the difference between WAV and FLAC is a couple hundred megabytes.
When I have my nice Vorbises and MP3s, then I'll burn the FLACs for safe keeping (in case I want to do something else with them later) and delete them off of the hard drive.

I like to rip my own CD's to FLAC because then I have perfect backups in case something ever happens to the CD. It's also convenient in case in the future I want to convert a large chunk of my collection to another format - rather than transcoding from MP3 and taking a quality hit, or wasting time re-ripping the CD's, I can just pop in my DVDs full of FLACS and transcode away.

There's nowhere I can't reach.