VBR is useless

Gomar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
315
I had set VBR min:32 max:192
However, it only goes down to 112, mostly stayes at 128 or 160, rarely goes up to 192.
Classical has alot of silent moments, but not rock or jazz. Thus, CBR at 160 seems a better choice.
 
It's never useless, because you're getting higher quality for whatever file size you end up with than you would with a CBR file of equal size.
 
Don't set min or max for frames sizes. Select a profile and LEAVE IT ALONE.
 
if you are using mp3s, don't pick some stupid ass settings like that, use lame and a preset like v2 or v1 or v0

if you are using other formats i dont care
 
I had set VBR min:32 max:192
However, it only goes down to 112, mostly stayes at 128 or 160, rarely goes up to 192.
Classical has alot of silent moments, but not rock or jazz. Thus, CBR at 160 seems a better choice.

Good thing you posted this here and not at Hydrogen Audio, lol.

VBR > CBR, except in the case of CBR 320 which will give you the same quality as VBR 320 but will make the file size much larger than it needs to be.

If you do CBR 160, you'll never exceed that quality. Why would you want that? 160 sounds like trash for most music unless your gear is complete crap also (in which case it's not entirely the file's fault). I don't even think 192 sounds that great anymore, much less 160. Bleh.
 
I don't even think 192 sounds that great anymore, much less 160. Bleh.

Fine, but going above 160, or 192, would give me larger file sizes than I need. I might as well use FLAC. Why not 320 and get 1/4 size of WAV?
With CBR 160 I know what I get ---> 160.
 
Fine, but going above 160, or 192, would give me larger file sizes than I need. I might as well use FLAC.

I don't know what kind of VBRs you're using, but for example I have a 320kbps CBR mp3 rip of Selkies the Endless Obsession which clocks in at 16.91mb and the flac ripped from the same source CD is 57.2mb. That's a huge big difference on the scale of a single song, let alone an entire album or a whole collection of music.


Why not 320 and get 1/4 size of WAV? With CBR 160 I know what I get ---> 160.

It's simply ignorant to state that a constant bit rate at 160kbps would be "better" than a variable bit rate at 160kbps. If the music dictates a constant state of 160kbps then the VBR file would be next to identical to the 160kbps CBR file, and if there were gains in file size to be had you would see them and have no degradation of quality.


Aside from all of that, I can barely stand to listen to anything below 192kbps nowadays and I strongly prefer flac. You need to get some better cans/amp/something if you're happy with 160kbps.
 
I have a 320kbps CBR mp3 rip of Selkies the Endless Obsession which clocks in at 16.91mb and the flac ripped from the same source CD is 57.2mb.

Thus, 170mb for 10 songs; 1700mb for 100 songs; 17000mb for 1000 songs.
I could fit 1000 songs on a single CD-R using CBR 160.
And... drum roll please... if I really need to listen to the best quality on home speakers, instead of MP3 player or my laptop, I will play the original CD.
 
With CBR 160 I know what I get ---> 160.
With the trade-off being inconsistent quality. It's really very difficult to emphasize just how much LAME developers are favoring VBR tuning these days. CBR is seeing minimal improvement while VBR has made some fairly substantial strides.

Unless you're streaming these files or intend to play them back on very antiquated hardware/software, encoding to CBR is not encouraged. That is what I'm telling you; that is what LAME developers will tell you.
 
Thus, 170mb for 10 songs; 1700mb for 100 songs; 17000mb for 1000 songs.

You missed the entire point of what I typed. There is plenty of reason to choose 192kbps or higher VBR or CBR versus FLAC because you still gain a very large amount of space.
 
lol @ those bit rates, what are you listening on stock ipod earbuds? haha.
 
You missed the entire point of what I typed. There is plenty of reason to choose 192kbps or higher VBR or CBR versus FLAC because you still gain a very large amount of space.

So is 192kbps CBR fine vs. FLAC?
Is it better than 160 VBR?

my point is that if I want the highest quality audio, I'll play original CDs, not MP3's. The whole point of MP3's is to reduce file size by 1/10th so as to play on ipods/mp3 players etc. not to brag about how high your kbps is.
 
A VBR file that avges 192kpbs will sound better than one at a constant 192. Same file size. Why would you not use VBR?

Use lame with V2 to get files that avg ~192kpbs, if you want them a little smaller use V4 or so to get down to 160-ish... 5 or 6 gets down to ~128kbps or so.

Even if you're trying to make files that avg 128kbps you're still off using vbr. VBR will just insure whatever bits you are using, are being put to the best use.
 
A VBR file that avges 192kpbs will sound better than one at a constant 192. Same file size. Why would you not use VBR?

Use lame with V2 to get files that avg ~192kpbs, if you want them a little smaller use V4 or so to get down to 160-ish... 5 or 6 gets down to ~128kbps or so.

Even if you're trying to make files that avg 128kbps you're still off using vbr. VBR will just insure whatever bits you are using, are being put to the best use.
Slight tangent here, but I've done ABX testing and could easily pick out the difference between lossless vs. V4, and I don't even have great speakers. I think V3 was more iffy... certain tracks I could pick out small differences if I really tried, others no. Overall, I wouldn't recommend going any lower than V2 if you want "transparent" lossy encoding, but YMMV.

FWIW, I agree that VBR has advantages over CBR, and is also completely without disadvantages.
 
FWIW, I agree that VBR has advantages over CBR, and is also completely without disadvantages.

Just to clarify this, I think the disadvantages line is in comparison to CBR. Because VBR definitely has disadvantages over all, i.e. it's still lossy.

I had set VBR min:32 max:192
However, it only goes down to 112, mostly stayes at 128 or 160, rarely goes up to 192.
Classical has alot of silent moments, but not rock or jazz. Thus, CBR at 160 seems a better choice.

You do realize that those silent moments are being encoded at 160 kbps in CBR and will dip down to the 128 to 160 that you complain about in VBR. Thus the files in VBR will be smaller since they dip down below what you've set as your comparison (160) and according to you rarely go above it. The file sizes would then be smaller. You refute yourself in your original post.

And to go with another comment, are you listening on a 4gb or smaller player? Because it may be time to upgrade (Clip + would be my recommendation).
 
So is 192kbps CBR fine vs. FLAC?
Is it better than 160 VBR?

my point is that if I want the highest quality audio, I'll play original CDs, not MP3's. The whole point of MP3's is to reduce file size by 1/10th so as to play on ipods/mp3 players etc. not to brag about how high your kbps is.

The point of lossy compression to reduce the file size as much as possible while still retaining as much audio quality as possible.

LAME-VBR-MP3, AAC, or OGG can all do this easily, but not with the settings you use.
 
Just to clarify this, I think the disadvantages line is in comparison to CBR. Because VBR definitely has disadvantages over all, i.e. it's still lossy.
Correct, I meant specifically in comparison to CBR MP3.
 
Back
Top