If you encode in VBR, please stand up

[DaiShan]

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.

Trust me, I can tell you that VBR is superior to CBR, vbr surpasses cbr 192kbit, and talk about 1995, get a newer mp3 player, my Lyra plays vbr for godsake, and its a piece of crap. I know no one that uses 192 encoding any more, we leave 192 to those that choose kazaa as their means of getting music.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: TranceNation

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:

care to name a few scene rippers?

That is scene ban, and I will personally call it. 192 is still on the books as standard in addition to vbr, which most groups now use.

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: myusername
Anyone have links to *unbiased* site(s) that compare lossless encoding methods? Have ~ 150 CD's I want to rip .. was going to do .mp3, but I'm open to new ideas

are you crazy about sound quality? if so use FLAC, your gonna need a ton of HD space, if you are a little less concerned use VBr 220-250 and you will be fine, i use it sounds great to me

If he wants the best possible sound and transparentness from LAME mp3 encoder, then alt--preset insane (320kbps CBR) would be his best bet.

FLAC is better than 320CBR because FLAC is lossless, it's virtually identical to the original wav while using less bitrate.

Or you could just rip all 150 cds as wav files

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: myusername
Anyone have links to *unbiased* site(s) that compare lossless encoding methods? Have ~ 150 CD's I want to rip .. was going to do .mp3, but I'm open to new ideas

are you crazy about sound quality? if so use FLAC, your gonna need a ton of HD space, if you are a little less concerned use VBr 220-250 and you will be fine, i use it sounds great to me

If he wants the best possible sound and transparentness from LAME mp3 encoder, then alt--preset insane (320kbps CBR) would be his best bet.

FLAC is better than 320CBR because FLAC is lossless, it's virtually identical to the original wav while using less bitrate.

Or you could just rip all 150 cds as wav files

how big are CBR 320 files compaired to FLAC?

yea anyone who wants pure quality woudl just not compress them and use wavs

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: Strang
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.

I've yet to see a vrb make a smaller mp3.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

MP4 > MP3

Yay nero!

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: myusername
Anyone have links to *unbiased* site(s) that compare lossless encoding methods? Have ~ 150 CD's I want to rip .. was going to do .mp3, but I'm open to new ideas

are you crazy about sound quality? if so use FLAC, your gonna need a ton of HD space, if you are a little less concerned use VBr 220-250 and you will be fine, i use it sounds great to me

If he wants the best possible sound and transparentness from LAME mp3 encoder, then alt--preset insane (320kbps CBR) would be his best bet.

FLAC is better than 320CBR because FLAC is lossless, it's virtually identical to the original wav while using less bitrate.

Or you could just rip all 150 cds as wav files

how big are CBR 320 files compaired to FLAC?

yea anyone who wants pure quality woudl just not compress them and use wavs

I believe FLAC encodes at about 805kbps, where as 320CBR encodes at well, 320kbps. The difference is that FLAC is lossless, and mp3 is a lossy encoding. WAV is 1411kbps...

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: myusername
Anyone have links to *unbiased* site(s) that compare lossless encoding methods? Have ~ 150 CD's I want to rip .. was going to do .mp3, but I'm open to new ideas

are you crazy about sound quality? if so use FLAC, your gonna need a ton of HD space, if you are a little less concerned use VBr 220-250 and you will be fine, i use it sounds great to me

If he wants the best possible sound and transparentness from LAME mp3 encoder, then alt--preset insane (320kbps CBR) would be his best bet.

FLAC is better than 320CBR because FLAC is lossless, it's virtually identical to the original wav while using less bitrate.

Or you could just rip all 150 cds as wav files

how big are CBR 320 files compaired to FLAC?

yea anyone who wants pure quality woudl just not compress them and use wavs

I believe FLAC encodes at about 805kbps, where as 320CBR encodes at well, 320kbps. The difference is that FLAC is lossless, and mp3 is a lossy encoding. WAV is 1411kbps...

i ment file size MB wise

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: dman

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.

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.

Ditto.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: dc
i'm sorry your p2 300mhz can't handle vbr.

Damn, I had a Pentium 75mhz and it could handle vbr. That p2 must be playing off a floppy disk or something.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: myusername
Anyone have links to *unbiased* site(s) that compare lossless encoding methods? Have ~ 150 CD's I want to rip .. was going to do .mp3, but I'm open to new ideas

are you crazy about sound quality? if so use FLAC, your gonna need a ton of HD space, if you are a little less concerned use VBr 220-250 and you will be fine, i use it sounds great to me

If he wants the best possible sound and transparentness from LAME mp3 encoder, then alt--preset insane (320kbps CBR) would be his best bet.

FLAC is better than 320CBR because FLAC is lossless, it's virtually identical to the original wav while using less bitrate.

Or you could just rip all 150 cds as wav files

how big are CBR 320 files compaired to FLAC?

yea anyone who wants pure quality woudl just not compress them and use wavs

They are about 4 or 5 times the size of a high quality mp3.

But when you play them it is the same as playing the original wav file.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: TechnoKid

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: myusername
Anyone have links to *unbiased* site(s) that compare lossless encoding methods? Have ~ 150 CD's I want to rip .. was going to do .mp3, but I'm open to new ideas

are you crazy about sound quality? if so use FLAC, your gonna need a ton of HD space, if you are a little less concerned use VBr 220-250 and you will be fine, i use it sounds great to me

If he wants the best possible sound and transparentness from LAME mp3 encoder, then alt--preset insane (320kbps CBR) would be his best bet.

FLAC is better than 320CBR because FLAC is lossless, it's virtually identical to the original wav while using less bitrate.

Or you could just rip all 150 cds as wav files

how big are CBR 320 files compaired to FLAC?

yea anyone who wants pure quality woudl just not compress them and use wavs

They are about 4 or 5 times the size of a high quality mp3.

But when you play them it is the same as playing the original wav file.

so like 40-50meg files, might as well use WAVs, ill stick to my VBR mp3s they sound fine and thats way to freeking big

 

[Reikon]

Most of my FLAC files are around 20 MB...

 

[UNCjigga]

I only encoded in CBR because it was a lot faster, but a few CPUs and a few versions of LAME later I can now say that CBR vs. VBR has no speed advantage, so I encode using the standard preset VBR (very nice quality.)

 

[Howard]

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.

Their marketing team's gotten to you!

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
EAC + Lame Encoder absolutely kills CBR in every way.

LAME supports CBR.

 

[Chu]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: Chu

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

What mp3 formate are they serious about now?
For a long while it was 192 vbr over there

I've been on HydrogenAudio since it was founded when Dibrom (--alt-preset author) and r3mix (--r3mix author) had a flame war that forced one of them to leave the official LAME site (Dibrom left). I don't EVER remember 192vbr ever being the reccomendation, the mp3 areana over at HA was always geared towards dibrom's presets and the best settings for 320cbr.

That being said, even since HA was founded there have been two opinions about mp3 in general :

(a) we're at a stange where it's transparent to 99%+ of people if your willing to give it enough bandwith (--alt-preset standard style)

and

(b) MP3 is a horrible outdated format, but it is the gold standard for compatibility, and most people 'serious' about psychoacoustic compression have moved on to better formats.

(a) is pretty much still accurate, but the iPod with AAC support has changed (b) drastically. If I was to re-rip all my audio CD's, it would def. be to AAC and not MP3.

That being said, the huge majority of work is now being done on the best quality you can achieve at dial-up streaming bitrates. MP3 isn't even a contender here.

-Chu

 

[Chaotic42]

If you're brave enough, go for it.
I like VBR.

I must admit that when I last decided to rip all of my albums, I encoded them at 320. I have more than enough hard drive space, so it isn't a big deal.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: ThisIsMatt
shut it, noob. Buy some decent hardware.

:beer:

 

[Thegonagle]

I :heart: VBR.

Alt-preset-standard and Alt-preset-extreme rock my hard drive. (And my car MP3-CD player.)