VBR/CBR question

Will encoding using Variable Bit Rate with a minimum of 8kbps and a maximum of 128kbps produce the same sound quality as encoding using a Constant Bit Rate of 128kbps? The more complex parts will still encode at 128kbps so there should be no loss of quality and the less complex parts will encode at the maximum level needed, right?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yes, but why are you setting the maximum as low as 128?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I actually noticed that after using Moguta's guide, too. Now any silence on my albums is recorded in 128, which I found somewhat irritating, but I figured that was just the minimum you could set it as.

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

I've set the max at 128kbps because I need smaller files but don't want a significant reduction in quality (Which encoding at CBR less than 128kbps would give).

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

Since you are encoding at a max of 128kbps, it is impossible for your VBR file to exceed the 128kbps quality. In fact, it is more possible for it to be inferior.

I doubt the space savings from encoding in VBR is substantial though, so I'm not really sure if this is necessary. Are you that strapped for space?

Most amazing jew boots

Basically, you're doubling the risk of sound quality loss (tripling, even) for like a meg a track space.

Let's put it this way. 0 kbps = no audio data. 8 kbps = original audio data downsampled so much it will sound like garbage.

Why even bother, if you're going to encode the low parts as basically silence/noise?

For a good result, use VBR with a minimum of around 128, and a max at (in my book) 320 kbps. Anything (pretty much) else will generate a low quality file, which is pointless in the age of hundred plus GB harddisks.

It's obvious a proper guide is needed, if we're getting questions like this. And it's not like I know everything (obviously, given some other threads where I proved my ignorance ).

- Spike

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Zergrinch

I doubt the space savings from encoding in VBR is substantial though, so I'm not really sure if this is necessary. Are you that strapped for space?

Perhaps he's using a portable device which is quite short on storage.

How ya doing, buddy?

You're right, but c'mon. 128 kbps vs. 8-128 kbps VBR? What kind of space savings would you expect from this? I'd be damned if it's going to enable you to fit even 2% more songs...

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

Well, Eyebrows, you can try the Ogg Vorbis codec if you're playing back only on a computer or one of the few portables that support the format. The format offers much better sound quality than MP3 at the low bitrates. I would heartily recommend using the aoTuV beta5 encoder, as it has improved the sound quality far beyond and above the "official" Vorbis encoder.

If you must use MP3, then I would try LAME with one of the lower bitrate presets. Somewhere from -V 6 to -V 8 looks like it would be good for your needs, but here's a full list of presets: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index....te.29_settings
Or you could use ABR (Average BitRate) mode if you want finer control over the individual file sizes. The command line is --preset BITRATE# where BITRATE# is any target bitrate from 320 to 80, no lower.

Jam it back in, in the dark.