variable bit encoding in mp3, why do people do this???

[TranceNation]

I think it's irratating, people should stick with 128,160 or 192

 

[Maetryx]

Read the AnandTech FAQ regarding the best encoder for MP3s. Link

 

[ElFenix]

i encode lame vbr from 128 to 256. 128 for dead silence, 256 max because its indistinguishable from a CD. put in a high pass filter about 19.5 KHz and you've got a file thats somewhat smaller and yet sounds just the same as a 256 bit encoded one.

 

[AndyHui]

Why?

You can squeeze a better quality MP3 for a lower overall bitrate/file size. You don't have to waste bitrate for encoding passages of music that don't need it, while you can use what you saved on passages that would take advantage of a higher bitrate.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by irritating? As long as your MP3 decoder/player has no problems with VBR, it shouldn't matter to you whether or not a file is CBR or VBR.

 

[habib89]

Read the AnandTech FAQ regarding the best encoder for MP3s. Link soon.

i dont' even think you read the post

what do you mean by somewhat smaller? like 5 bytes? if so, big freggin deal... even if it saves 1 meg out of a 5 meg file, big deal...

 

[conjur]

Get better quality that way. Up to, say, 320 on parts of the song and for the quieter passages, drop the rate down low.

 

[AndyHui]

FAQ: What is the best program (encoder) for making MP3s?

 

[Maetryx]

<< Read the AnandTech FAQ regarding the best encoder for MP3s. Link soon.

i dont' even think you read the post >>



You apparently didn't read the FAQ, which does in fact answer his question.


<< In ABSOLUTE terms, the best encoder is LAME 256kbps Stereo. In terms of best file size/audio quality trade-off, LAME "V1" VBR Joint Stereo is BY FAR the best. >>



See. The "people do this" because it is "BY FAR the best."

 

[glen]

People that DON'T use VBR are irritating.

 

[yakko]

<< even if it saves 1 meg out of a 5 meg file, big deal >>

It is a big deal when you have a large amount of mp3 files. If I convert all 700+ CDs I own and they had 5 songs each and I saved 1 meg per song I woul have saved over 3 gb in hard drive space.

 

[extro]

If you think people should use 128, then I don't know what to say. I think music encoded at 128 sounds about as bad as FM radio. 160 I can tolerate and 192 is fine, but I'd prefer if everyone used LAME VBR with a good switch setting like --r3mix or --alt-preset standard.

 

[MikeO]

<< People that DON'T use VBR are irritating. >>



Exactly, because they are wasting space. I can save about 10 megs per album by encoding with "-r3mix" switch rather than 256 CBR, that's 100 megs per 10 albums.. and so on, it's no small numbers when you have 500+ albums..

And the quality is propably even better, so that's why I do it and that's why everybody should do it.

 

[Nefrodite]

me thinks trancenation sees a 187kbs file and thinks its a artibrary cbr file

 

[PliotronX]

<< People that DON'T use VBR are irritating. >>


Agreed..

The only real reason not to use VBR anymore is for the compatibility with older players, or portable players with a ceiling of 256Kbps frames (even then you can specify a maximum bitrate in LAME with the -B256 switch). The compromise of VBR and being able to predict the size of a file is easily accomplished by using ABR. Even still, VBR remains the most efficient method of quality in filesizes.

Another reason why VBR may be irritating is that some popular P2P programs report the bitrates incorrectly, and Windows Media Player thinks they're some outrageous bitrate such as 445Kbps, and only plays the first 30 to 90 seconds. I use Winamp for playing and LAME VBR for encoding, and I am damn happy with the results

CBR is soooo 1997

 

[S0me1X]

because you can get better quality at around the same size... why does it bother you?

 

[kami]

Oh my god, just shut up! Maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood since I just woke up, but you're a moron.

They don't stick with the same frickin' bitrate because you can get higher quality with less file sizes, genius. Why not use your common sense before spouting off nonsense such as this.

 

[Palek]

Sorry to change the topic slightly but does anyone here use Windows Media Audio instead of mp3? I tested it once and got hooked on it because it sounds much-much better than mp3 at equal bit-rates. 160 kbps wma is absolutely indiscernible from a CD for me. 128 kbps wma sounds as good (if not better) as 160 kbps mp3.

I know it is Microsoft so some people might hate it just because of that, but the fact of the matter is that it simply sounds better. Besides, mp3 is not free anymore since Fraunhofer started charging for it...

P.S.: My RioVolt can read both!!!

Please do not flame me!!!

<EDIT>Whoa, that was my 100th post!!! I think I am going to celebrate tonite!!!</EDIT>

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<< Sorry to change the topic slightly but does anyone here use Windows Media Audio instead of mp3? I tested it once and got hooked on it because it sounds much-much better than mp3 at equal bit-rates. 160 kbps wma is absolutely indiscernible from a CD for me. 128 kbps wma sounds as good (if not better) as 160 kbps mp3.

I know it is Microsoft so some people might hate it just because of that, but the fact of the matter is that it simply sounds better. Besides, mp3 is not free anymore since Fraunhofer started charging for it...

P.S.: My RioVolt can read both!!!

Please do not flame me!!!

<EDIT>Whoa, that was my 100th post!!! I think I am going to celebrate tonite!!!</EDIT> >>



Anything made by Microsoft sux. Anyone liking anything made by Microsoft sux.

 

[skace]

<< Sorry to change the topic slightly but does anyone here use Windows Media Audio instead of mp3? I tested it once and got hooked on it because it sounds much-much better than mp3 at equal bit-rates. 160 kbps wma is absolutely indiscernible from a CD for me. 128 kbps wma sounds as good (if not better) as 160 kbps mp3. >>



People in this thread are talking about LAME VBR encoded mp3s with 256kbs+. Until you've heard that quality I don't think your WMA argument stands . Just using LAME is a whole nother standard...

 

[TranceNation]

wow, you are a true winner.



<< Oh my god, just shut up! Maybe I'm just in a grumpy mood since I just woke up, but you're a moron.

They don't stick with the same frickin' bitrate because you can get higher quality with less file sizes, genius. Why not use your common sense before spouting off nonsense such as this.

>>

 

[Kev]

<< Sorry to change the topic slightly but does anyone here use Windows Media Audio instead of mp3? I tested it once and got hooked on it because it sounds much-much better than mp3 at equal bit-rates. 160 kbps wma is absolutely indiscernible from a CD for me. 128 kbps wma sounds as good (if not better) as 160 kbps mp3.

I know it is Microsoft so some people might hate it just because of that, but the fact of the matter is that it simply sounds better. Besides, mp3 is not free anymore since Fraunhofer started charging for it...

P.S.: My RioVolt can read both!!!

Please do not flame me!!!

<EDIT>Whoa, that was my 100th post!!! I think I am going to celebrate tonite!!!</EDIT> >>



I use WMA and you're right, it does sound better than mp3. And I've done VBR mp3. mp3 sucks and seriously needs to be replaced.




<< Anything made by Microsoft sux. Anyone liking anything made by Microsoft sux. >>



You sux. Retard.

 

[Palek]

<< People in this thread are talking about LAME VBR encoded mp3s with 256kbs+. Until you've heard that quality I don't think your WMA argument stands . Just using LAME is a whole nother standard... >>



I think you missed my argument. I said that at equal bit-rates wma sounds better than mp3. Naturally if you encode at bit-rates of 256+ kbps you are going to get very good quality. But compare a 128kbps mp3 to a 128kbps wma and you will know what I am talking about.

 

Please people, whining about space when you have 40+ gigs.

 

[Palek]

<< Anything made by Microsoft sux. Anyone liking anything made by Microsoft sux. >>



Wow, I think I will suddenly stop using W2k and Office2k and Visual Studio 6 because your argument was soooo convincing.

Seriously, there are valid reasons for not liking Microsoft, but when you make a blanket statement like that without even trying to prove your point you just make yourself sound like you are one of those people hating Microsoft just because it is trendy. I never said I loved Microsoft but the fact is that they make some good software. I try to use alternatives to their products when there are better ones (I hardly ever touch Explorer and even uninstalled Outlook Express - though I had to do it manually - , I use Opera for browsing and email), but Office is a great software package, so is Visual Studio, and Win2k is a great, rock-solid operating system.

I will simply ignore your insult concerning people who like Microsoft products.

P.S. I wonder what you are running RTCW on... Let me guess... MacOS? Probably not.

 

[silverpig]

I use LAME VBR 1 High quality preferred (>160 kb) from 128 to 320 kb with J-stereo.

CBR 320 kbit is too large of a file, and I can tell quite easily the difference between 256 kbit and CD; I can even differentiate between 320 kbit CBR and CD if I listen closely.

The settings I use give a decent quality, decent size, and help keep the noise down during high, intense parts. Works for me.