If you encode in VBR, please stand up

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Shockwave

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

What hardware are you using?

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.

Try some Bang & Olufsen A8somethings' A8 or A60 or some such. I havent heard ANYTHING with better isolation, there also very stylish and comfortable once you get then adjusted. You can get much better sound for the money, but for comfort and convenience the B&O's take the cake. They do roll off (Pretty seriously too) below 50 hertz though.

EDIT... Yep, A8
 

psiu

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,629
1
0
I stood up. Sister in law looked at me funny. I like VBR for myself *shrugs*
 

Chu

Banned
Jan 2, 2001
2,911
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.

Wow . . . I don't know what to say. Ok, well, one thing. If you think people 'serious' about MP3's don't use VBR, please head over here and get your ass kicked.

-Chu
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I use VBR only. It is superior to CBR.
Agreed. Even if the sound difference is only minor, there's no point in a constant bit allocation - by distributing bits where they're needed more, you're getting a free boost.

Edit: You must have a really ghetto MP3 player to not handle VBR. Even my frickin' Rio PMP 300(the mother of all MP3 players) could handle VBR.
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: TranceNation
and bend over so I can kick you :)
I hate mp3s with VBR, what a bad idea that was

1) You're not downloading any of my mp3s
2) Beggars can't be choosers
 

Allio

Golden Member
Jul 9, 2002
1,904
28
91
Oh yay. Use CBR and have a a 5 minute long gap in an mp3 take up 10 megs. Get real :p

alt-preset-standard is the best bang for buck. I love VBR mp3s. I'm yet to hear a badly encoded VBR mp3, compared with dozens or hundreds of poorly done CBR rips.
 

TechnoKid

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2001
5,575
0
0
I use lame (1.30, engine 3.92 mmx) with the alt-preset_extreme setting. 128min to 320max VBR(2). Nice sound quality imo. I haven't tried alt-preset standard yet. and vbr is better than cbr, unless its cbr 320k.
 

Shawn

Lifer
Apr 20, 2003
32,236
53
91
I have never seen an mp3 player that couldn't play VBR. Even my oldskool Riovolt portable mp3/cd player can play VBR files.