What's everybody's thing with VBR here?

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. 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?

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.

I also have two huge HDDs so space isnt a problem for me.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by tenseiken

What made you think that the 'perfect' value is 320 kbps?

Ok, it was late and I wasnt thinking. MP3 is by no means perfect, that was my mistake lol. What I mean is, I fail to see how ANY frame of music needs less than 320k to make the best sound possible. If you give every frame the maximum amount of bitrate, you are making a good a sounding file as possible.

Quote:

Finally, space isn't the only issue of course--there's also bandwidth since we're transferring these files to one another.

Anything I rip is primarily for my use. I dont stop to consider "I may end up sharing this at some point". Besides, many people on the FTPs have CBR files, so I dont think its that big a deal.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

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

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

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

Yeah, and like I said I dont believe some frames dont need anything less than 320k. A lossless redbook CD is 1411kbps, so Im always going to give every frame the highest quality I can to ensure a very good sound production, i.e. 320kbps.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by neothe0ne

You'll have to pardon me, but that's simply ridiculous. The way your logic works, 5 seconds of pure dead silence requires the same amount of space as 5 seconds of distorted guitar.

Thats not what I said at all. I didnt mention anything like that.

I will say, though, that silence of course does not of course require the same amount of space as instrumentation. Im simply saying from any piece of music (silence excluded), I dont believe in giving every frame anything less than the maximum for the best sound reproduction.

The only time I really use VBR is -- for example -- if I have a piece of unreleased music from a digital TV music channel that I have recorded onto my computer that is already from a lossy source (some of these recordings from one channel dont have anything above 14khz or so). 320k would be a waste of time in this case, so I encode in APX.

I was speaking idiomatically.

All Im saying is, I dont believe any material (unless its something like silence or really basic material like a drone) can still sound as good as the same material with the maximum amount of bitrate given to it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Moguta

Although, to be honest, your argument of "I dont believe in giving every frame anything less than the maximum for the best sound reproduction" could very well be used to justify keeping uncompressed WAVs around

Until a few months ago, I was using lossless encoding for my CD singles. Then I realised how much space it was eating up, and re-encoded them as 320k MP3s. I dont mind using some hard disc space, but there is a line I draw!I so no point keeping lossless ones, because comparinf the 320k and lossless files it was hard to find any real differences in quality.

Quote:

The goal of high quality VBR modes...is to use just enough bits to attain audio that is audibly no different from the original. Admittedly, this is only a goal, and the implementation is based on the very complex human hearing model and can never be quite perfect.

Thank you. That just goes to show why I tend to (but not always) opt for 320k.

As for psychological effects, etc. I know all about that. But I have fairly good hearing and I can definitely hear differences at 128k from the original WAV.

Quote:

But, as I said, it's your choice to make. Encoding in 320Kbps isn't a sin, maybe just a bit wasteful, but that's all.

And thanks for being so fair! Until now, everyones slagged me off for using 320k. You're the first person to say "do what you want." So thanks man.

FELIPE NO

Am I missing something?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?