If you encode in VBR, please stand up

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

imported_Strang

Platinum Member
Jan 8, 2001
2,177
0
0
How is it a bad idea? I can see not liking them if they vary between 64 and 128kbps, but otherwise it lets me store higher quality mp3s in a smaller amount of space.
 
T

TranceNation

Platinum Member
Jan 6, 2001
2,041
0
0
alot of stand alone players I've used have trouble playing them. You are saving what 300-700k? Maybe if this was 1995 sure, but memory is cheap these days.
Nobody I know who is serious about mp3s use VBR.
 
I

imported_Strang

Platinum Member
Jan 8, 2001
2,177
0
0
Originally posted by: TranceNation
alot of stand alone players I've used have trouble playing them. You are saving what 300-700k? Maybe if this was 1995 sure, but memory is cheap these days.
Nobody I know who is serious about mp3s use VBR.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that VBR pisses off your Kazaa pals so much.
 
D

dman

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
9,110
0
76
Originally posted by: TranceNation
alot of stand alone players I've used have trouble playing them. You are saving what 300-700k? Maybe if this was 1995 sure, but memory is cheap these days.
Nobody I know who is serious about mp3s use VBR.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it saved hardly any space and made little difference in sound quality and added much compatibility problems, so, no, I avoided VBR like the plague.
 
Platypus

Platypus

Lifer
Apr 26, 2001
31,046
321
136
You're a fvcking idiot. Case closed.


If you can honestly tell me that encoding something in 192k versus VBR will sound better and have a smaller footprint I will laugh in your face.


Also, do you hang out with kazaa users or something? Most scene rippers use VBR, I guess they know nothing about mp3s :roll:
 
S

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Originally posted by: TranceNation
alot of stand alone players I've used have trouble playing them. You are saving what 300-700k? Maybe if this was 1995 sure, but memory is cheap these days.
Nobody I know who is serious about mp3s use VBR.
Click to expand...

Anyone who's serious??
Well your double screwed because
1) VBR vs CBR has NO difference in SQ (assuming same bit rate) so that wont matter
2) Anyone SERIOUS about SQ wouldnt use MP3 anyways

You = Teh stoopid
 
S

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: TranceNation
alot of stand alone players I've used have trouble playing them. You are saving what 300-700k? Maybe if this was 1995 sure, but memory is cheap these days.
Nobody I know who is serious about mp3s use VBR.
Click to expand...

It's not about saving a little bit of space for me. I find that LAME alt-preset-standard sounds exactly the same as a CD. Invisible compression if you will. I can notice 192kbps compression. To get that with a non-VBR MP3, I need to use at least 256kbps if not 320kbps.

I find people who DON'T use LAME even more annoying than you find the VBR folks. They're uploading second-rate music that would have sounded flawless if they had encoded it properly.
 
I

imported_Strang

Platinum Member
Jan 8, 2001
2,177
0
0
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Originally posted by: TranceNation
alot of stand alone players I've used have trouble playing them. You are saving what 300-700k? Maybe if this was 1995 sure, but memory is cheap these days.
Nobody I know who is serious about mp3s use VBR.
Click to expand...

Anyone who's serious??
Well your double screwed because
1) VBR vs CBR has NO difference in SQ (assuming same bit rate) so that wont matter
2) Anyone SERIOUS about SQ wouldnt use MP3 anyways

You = Teh stoopid
Click to expand...

Not to mention that 300-700k adds up quickly when you're using an mp3 player with finite space.
 
S

Shockwave

Banned
Sep 16, 2000
9,059
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast

It's not about saving a little bit of space for me. I find that LAME alt-preset-standard sounds exactly the same as a CD. Invisible compression if you will. I can notice 192kbps compression. To get that with a non-VBR MP3, I need to use at least 256kbps if not 320kbps.

I find people who DON'T use LAME even more annoying than you find the VBR folks. They're uploading second-rate music that would have sounded flawless if they had encoded it properly.
Click to expand...

What hardware are you using?
 
T

TranceNation

Platinum Member
Jan 6, 2001
2,041
0
0
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
You're a fvcking idiot. Case closed.


If you can honestly tell me that encoding something in 192k versus VBR will sound better and have a smaller footprint I will laugh in your face.


Also, do you hang out with kazaa users or something? Most scene rippers use VBR, I guess they know nothing about mp3s :roll:
Click to expand...

care to name a few scene rippers?
 
S

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Originally posted by: SickBeast

It's not about saving a little bit of space for me. I find that LAME alt-preset-standard sounds exactly the same as a CD. Invisible compression if you will. I can notice 192kbps compression. To get that with a non-VBR MP3, I need to use at least 256kbps if not 320kbps.

I find people who DON'T use LAME even more annoying than you find the VBR folks. They're uploading second-rate music that would have sounded flawless if they had encoded it properly.
Click to expand...

What hardware are you using?
Click to expand...

To encode? An Athlon Mobile at 2500mhz. It can actually compress LAME files faster than my 2 52X CD-ROM drives can rip in EAC with error checking turned on (both drives ripping at the same time). So I'm guessing that's around 20X, so it's not too bad at all.

For playback, I'm running an Apple iPod w/ Bose Triport headphones. It's a damn nice setup if I must say so myself. It allows me to hear subleties in music that I would not have noticed otherwise (including MP3 artifacts). The headphones were overpriced for what I got (my buddie's Grado 80's sound as good if not better) but I needed something relatively small and lightweight, comfortable, and most importantly, with good isolation. The Triports are the only product on the market that I have ever seen that can provide this, unfortunately. They cost $150.
 
I

IndieSnob

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2001
1,340
0
0
Originally posted by: TranceNation
and bend over so I can kick you :)
I hate mp3s with VBR, what a bad idea that was
Click to expand...

So then why don't you buy the albums yourself and encode them at the rate you want?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom