Does variable bit rate give better sound quality

[Crescent13]

If both files are identical, example: AAC, 320kbps, 48 khz. will the variable bit rate sound better, or worse?

 

[daniel1113]

The VBR should be better, of course.

 

[quakefiend420]

i think the sound quality will be the same, but the vbr file should end up smaller

 

[FeuerFrei]

Actually it gives worse quality, but supposedly you won't notice.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i think the sound quality will be the same, but the vbr file should end up smaller

:thumbsup:

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Actually it gives worse quality, but supposedly you won't notice.

I can tell the difference between the smallest things, so I want the absolute highest quality sound I can fit onto my ipod mini. I guess I won't use VBR.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Actually it gives worse quality, but supposedly you won't notice.

exactly.

Anyone that doesn't understand that needs to think about what is going on with the encoding.

VBR tries to use a higher bit rate for critical passages and lower one for non-critical...

Ideally you wouldn't compress it at all.

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i think the sound quality will be the same, but the vbr file should end up smaller

:thumbsup:

Now I'm confused, It's smaller yet it sounds the same?

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Actually it gives worse quality, but supposedly you won't notice.

exactly.

Anyone that doesn't understand that needs to think about what is going on with the encoding.

VBR tries to use a higher bit rate for critical passages and lower one for non-critical...

Ideally you wouldn't compress it at all.

Okay. Thanks. All the music on my computer isn't compressed (41 khz 16 bit wav), but to fit in onto my 4 GB ipod mini, I have to compress it. 320kbps AAC is the best I can find in order to fit it in.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Crescent13

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i think the sound quality will be the same, but the vbr file should end up smaller

:thumbsup:

Now I'm confused, It's smaller yet it sounds the same?

With CBR its pretty much a one pass thing it takes all the infor and no matter what makes it fit into a certain range, whereas VBR will analyze the data and decide wether it needs to have all the information to sound the same. Say you have a section of complete silence the CBR will still be running at a huge bit rate per second whereas the VBR wont encode anything at all. thus making it smaller.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: Crescent13

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Actually it gives worse quality, but supposedly you won't notice.

exactly.

Anyone that doesn't understand that needs to think about what is going on with the encoding.

VBR tries to use a higher bit rate for critical passages and lower one for non-critical...

Ideally you wouldn't compress it at all.

Okay. Thanks. All the music on my computer isn't compressed (41 khz 16 bit wav), but to fit in onto my 4 GB ipod mini, I have to compress it. 320kbps AAC is the best I can find in order to fit it in.

1. Isn't it 44KHZ? and 2. Don't get an iPod. With my cellphone, because I use ogg, I can fit significantly more songs at the same bitrate. 250 Songs for the Ipod Shuffle (according to their site). 333 at 128kb/s OGG, 666 songs at 64kb/s OGG and remember, 64kb/s ogg sound SOOO much better than 64kb/s WMA or AAC (AAC I'd assume).

Edit: Forgot to mention that I have a 1GB SD card and is in comparison to the 1GB shuffle.

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: Crescent13

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Actually it gives worse quality, but supposedly you won't notice.

I can tell the difference between the smallest things, so I want the absolute highest quality sound I can fit onto my ipod mini. I guess I won't use VBR.

if you care that much you should of gotten something that supported flac , like a rio karma

 

[totalcommand]

The CBR will be bigger and sound better than the VBR for sure.

For best quality per unit size, I would use Constant Q.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The CBR will be bigger and sound better than the VBR for sure.

For best quality per unit size, I would use Constant Q.

Here is the thing, because he choose the highest bitrate for MP3, its kinda a meh but yea thats true, for 320 mp3s... For say 192 mp3s, I'd say that CBR will sound worse than 192 VBR because it will peak a bit higher than 192 for "critical" parts of the song and lower for non critical which will provide smaller file sizes.

 

[silverpig]

VBR was really useful back when people could fill hard drives with mp3s due to it's size/quality trade-off. Nowadays though the small savings in file size isn't really all that big a deal.

 

[0roo0roo]

encoder matters more. use lame encoder using eac or some other front end. also... at a given bit rate vbr will sound better as it doesn't waste the bits where they aren't needed. encode to mp3 as its the most compatible. as long as its at sufficient bitrate~192kbps ish... you won't be able to tell from cd. sure some with golden ears and headphone amps with their very expensive headphones might be able.. or atleast claim to, but for most its enough. for those that rip at something like 256-320kbps cbr they do it for consistent quality. atleast it gives them the mental confort that they may hear a difference or something.

 

[aplefka]

No. CBR for best.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i think the sound quality will be the same, but the vbr file should end up smaller

Winner. There will be NO difference in sound quality.

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The CBR will be bigger and sound better than the VBR for sure.

For best quality per unit size, I would use Constant Q.

Here is the thing, because he choose the highest bitrate for MP3, its kinda a meh but yea thats true, for 320 mp3s... For say 192 mp3s, I'd say that CBR will sound worse than 192 VBR because it will peak a bit higher than 192 for "critical" parts of the song and lower for non critical which will provide smaller file sizes.

I'm not using MP3. I'm using AAC. Much better.

EDIT: 1300th POST WOOHOO!!

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i think the sound quality will be the same, but the vbr file should end up smaller

Winner. There will be NO difference in sound quality.

assuming bit rate is high enough.

VBR uses logic to lower the sampling rate on quiet passages that you cannot hear anyway and some other ones to save a lot of space, then ups the sampling on the more critical ones....(real basic here but that is the gist)

CBR uses the same across the board, sampling things you wouldn't even notice and wasting disk space.

Like most of high-end audio discussions, doing it sort of ok will still get you sound quality only a machine can tell the difference in.

 

[Mojoed]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The CBR will be bigger and sound better than the VBR for sure.

For best quality per unit size, I would use Constant Q.

Not always. Let's say I have the following:

160kb/s CBR MP3

and

160kb/s VBR MP3 set to 160kb/s minimum bitrate

In this case, VBR is superior.

 

[mwmorph]

well, aac does a very good job encoding at even 128. so 320 vbr or cbr should be similar. the ibggest trade off in soundquality is really the ipod mini. if it is a 1st gent, yuo are fukked since the caps are too weak to carry a halfway desent square wave.

if a square wave looked like this:
.........-------.........
.........-------.........
.........-------.........
.........-------.........
...........................

the ipod mini would make it look like this

----------------------
.--------------.------
....------------....----
........--------........-
............................


in effect, it the sound is nowhere near optimal due to technical limitations even with no load(read: headphones) connected. a 2nd gen ipod mini is slightly better but for best sound quality, stay away from an ipod mini.

in contrast, a ipod shuffle will create a near perfeect square wave, save for some normal overshoot l;oaded or unloaded since unlike all other ipods, it uses a pair of transistors to push and pull, thus never having to become discharged.

here's that article
http://home.comcast.net./~machrone/playertest/playertest.htm

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
i think the sound quality will be the same, but the vbr file should end up smaller

Winner. There will be NO difference in sound quality.

assuming bit rate is high enough.

VBR uses logic to lower the sampling rate on quiet passages that you cannot hear anyway and some other ones to save a lot of space, then ups the sampling on the more critical ones....(real basic here but that is the gist)

CBR uses the same across the board, sampling things you wouldn't even notice and wasting disk space.

Like most of high-end audio discussions, doing it sort of ok will still get you sound quality only a machine can tell the difference in.

The OP said 320kbps. That is more than high enough that there would be no difference in sound quality. As it is, my post was to refute the other posters who said that the sound quality of VBR would be inferior.

 

[Crescent13]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
well, aac does a very good job encoding at even 128. so 320 vbr or cbr should be similar. the ibggest trade off in soundquality is really the ipod mini. if it is a 1st gent, yuo are fukked since the caps are too weak to carry a halfway desent square wave.

if a square wave looked like this:
.........-------.........
.........-------.........
.........-------.........
.........-------.........
...........................

the ipod mini would make it look like this

----------------------
.--------------.------
....------------....----
........--------........-
............................


in effect, it the sound is nowhere near optimal due to technical limitations even with no load(read: headphones) connected. a 2nd gen ipod mini is slightly better but for best sound quality, stay away from an ipod mini.

in contrast, a ipod shuffle will create a near perfeect square wave, save for some normal overshoot l;oaded or unloaded since unlike all other ipods, it uses a pair of transistors to push and pull, thus never having to become discharged.

here's that article
http://home.comcast.net./~machrone/playertest/playertest.htm

I have a 2nd gen ipod mini, and I have much, much better headphones than what comes with it. I see what you're saying though.