What's everybody's thing with VBR here?

The real justification for VBR doesn't come at the 320kbps vs -V 0 debate, but rather the lower analogies.

For example: 128kbps vs -V 5 (which averages 125-140kbps); if a song contains a lot of silence, VBR will encode that as 32kbps and save space, then ramp up all the way to 320kbps for the most complex audio while maintaining a bitrate in the range laid out above. CBR will just slather 128kbps over everything, treating silence and the most complex audio as the same thing, while ensuring a consistent size (which ABR does better for consistent size/quality ratio BTW) makes the song overall lower quality. I dare anyone to test a CD encode of 64kbps and -V 9 and honestly tell me that 64kbps CBR is a better choice for quality. The only two uses I can ever see for CBR anymore is legacy support for ancient mp3 devices and web streaming, other than that CBR is worthless.

On this note you'll notice that lossless audio always codes as VBR, why? Simply because lossless compression cannot treat all data the same and ensure prefect quality, the only way to have lossless data as CBR is not to compress it at all. Yes I do realize 320kbps still compresses, but it introduces so tiny of an improvement in quality compared to -V 0 that I consider the size vs quality difference (being 64-96kbps) a waste of spave

Most amazing jew boots