VBR vs. CBR

[aphex]

Damnit.... This sucks...

With my new soundcard (Revolution 7.1) and my Klipsch 4.1's i can totally tell the difference between the 320VBR and the cd now (didnt used to be able to)

Whats gonna give me the closest to cd sound?

 

[Howard]

If space is no issue, simply encode the original WAVs with FLAC (40-50% reduction in size). Or, if you're lazy and have lots of space, just leave the WAVs as they are.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: Howard
If space is no issue, simply encode the original WAVs with FLAC (40-50% reduction in size). Or, if you're lazy and have lots of space, just leave the WAVs as they are.

I've got an 80gb drive with about 200 cd's i would like to encode....

 

[NewSc2]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: Howard
If space is no issue, simply encode the original WAVs with FLAC (40-50% reduction in size). Or, if you're lazy and have lots of space, just leave the WAVs as they are.

I've got an 80gb drive with about 200 cd's i would like to encode....

you might be interested in this site:

it goes over the differences between CD and Mp3's and also stated that when put to a double blind test on $10k+ equipment, 20 "audiophiles" could not tell the difference between 256kbps VBR.

r3mix lame (click on Quality tab)

If you can really tell the difference, try using the MAD winamp plug-in for winamp 2. It made the mp3's a lot more fuller and clearer for me~

I'm currently using Videologic Digitheatre DTS's and Santa Cruz sound card, and I'm very hard-pressed to hear the differences between CD's and Mp3's using MAD plug-in. I can tell *a* difference when A/B testing, but it's so minimal that I don't really care much anymore.

Also, try using CBR? VBR had that constant veiling effect that I couldn't stand.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
VBR

 

[0roo0roo]

i've never had a problem burning vbr for years, so its pretty good stuff. maybe old shoddy burning softare can't handle it. either way you can just decompress to wav first and u'll have no problems.

nero handles em fine, who doesn't have nero anyways? it comes like with every burner out practically


vbr seems better for 192~kbs range since logically it allocates bits as needed. if u want to go to extremely high bitrate i can see where cbr might be attractive. course this all depends on you using lame for the mp3 encoder. if u use audiocatylst or something cruddy it won't make a difference what u do, it'll be cr@p.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: NewSc2

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: Howard
If space is no issue, simply encode the original WAVs with FLAC (40-50% reduction in size). Or, if you're lazy and have lots of space, just leave the WAVs as they are.

I've got an 80gb drive with about 200 cd's i would like to encode....

you might be interested in this site:

it goes over the differences between CD and Mp3's and also stated that when put to a double blind test on $10k+ equipment, 20 "audiophiles" could not tell the difference between 256kbps VBR.

r3mix lame (click on Quality tab)

If you can really tell the difference, try using the MAD winamp plug-in for winamp 2. It made the mp3's a lot more fuller and clearer for me~

I'm currently using Videologic Digitheatre DTS's and Santa Cruz sound card, and I'm very hard-pressed to hear the differences between CD's and Mp3's using MAD plug-in. I can tell *a* difference when A/B testing, but it's so minimal that I don't really care much anymore.

Also, try using CBR? VBR had that constant veiling effect that I couldn't stand.

Purists like the peace of mind that comes with knowing that you're not losing any information at all.

I'm fine with 160kbps through my crappy system, anyway.

200 CDs should be 50-60GB on your hard drive assuming 500MB per cd and a 50% compression ratio.