Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
i dont think you have that quite right
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.
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.
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.
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.With CBR 160 I know what I get ---> 160.
I could fit 1000 songs on a single CD-R using CBR 160.
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.
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.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.
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.
FWIW, I agree that VBR has advantages over CBR, and is also completely without disadvantages.
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.
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.
Correct, I meant specifically in comparison to CBR MP3.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.