IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
mp3 320kbps CBR or VBR?what s better?
takeshibeat
post Sep 30 2011, 11:43
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 26
Joined: 25-September 11
Member No.: 93964



hi m new here
i have a hifi system marantz mcr 502 with speakers
on whom i listen to music via usb stick(mp3 320kbps cbr)
all of my music is in flac
i convert the music from flac to mp3 320kbps cbr with foobar2000
i wanted to ask is in my case better to convert the music to mp3 320 kbps cbr or 320kbps vbr?
what s the difference?
if its better to convert it to mp3 320 vbr, can you tell me a few softwares which are good for converting in mp3 320 vbr
is it possible that if i convert an album in mp3 320kbps vbr, that i will get a smaller bitrate than 320kbps??
that s why i thoguht its better to have 320 kbps cbr because thats always 320kbps the same, i thought that if i convert it in vbr 320kbps ,that i could get than a smaller bitrate like 256kbps or ....
and also i don t have in the foobar converting options(converter setup) the ability to convert my music in mp3 320kbps vbr
i just can download the music in mp3 320 cbr

This post has been edited by takeshibeat: Sep 30 2011, 11:52
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dhromed
post Sep 30 2011, 12:18
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1335
Joined: 16-February 08
From: NL
Member No.: 51347



At such high bitrates, the difference is largely technical. I am confident you will not be able to tell them apart from your flacs.

When you set the quality slider to just below the max setting, you will produce files that are perfectly fine. If you're not confident that the max VBR of foobar and 320CBR sound the same, you can do an ABX test with two file converted from the original flac.

Happy convertin'.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Sep 30 2011, 15:32
Post #3





Group: Developer
Posts: 3435
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



And there's no such thing as "MP3 320 kbps VBR"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Sep 30 2011, 18:06
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 3442
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



Well, there sort of is...-V 0 -B 320. Of course, it mainly just pads out each frame to equal 320 kbps.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MikeFord
post Sep 30 2011, 22:21
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 22-May 04
Member No.: 14241



QUOTE (dhromed @ Sep 30 2011, 04:18) *
At such high bitrates, the difference is largely technical. I am confident you will not be able to tell them apart from your flacs.

When you set the quality slider to just below the max setting, you will produce files that are perfectly fine. If you're not confident that the max VBR of foobar and 320CBR sound the same, you can do an ABX test with two file converted from the original flac.

Happy convertin'.


I appreciate the quality neutral go test it for yourself attitude here, but in reference to the OPs question isn't VBR always the better option?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
testyou
post Oct 1 2011, 00:54
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 24-September 10
Member No.: 84113



QUOTE (MikeFord @ Sep 30 2011, 14:21) *
isn't VBR always the better option?


No, it depends. Maybe the files are going to be used in a situation where CBR is preferred or even necessary.
Op didn't state his aims for encoding to mp3. Whether it be file size, compatibility, or whatever.

I believe OP would be happy with Lame -V0.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Oct 1 2011, 14:24
Post #7





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (takeshibeat @ Sep 30 2011, 11:43) *
is it possible that if i convert an album in mp3 320kbps vbr, that i will get a smaller bitrate than 320kbps??
Assuming “320kbps vbr” (which doesn’t exist) means -V0, then yes; that’s the point! Because…

QUOTE
that s why i thoguht its better to have 320 kbps cbr because thats always 320kbps the same, i thought that if i convert it in vbr 320kbps ,that i could get than a smaller bitrate like 256kbps or ....
…this saves bits from being wasted on regions of audio that are not complex enough to demand 320 kbps; it may also enable regions that demand more than 320 kbps to receive the extra bits via the bit reservoir. The overall quality of -V0 is likely to be on a par with or better than -b320.

Anyway, both settings might be more than you need; the way to check this is to, as suggested, perform ABX tests on these and lower settings across a representative set of tracks from your library.

There have been several past discussions on the two settings, on which LAME settings are generally transparent, on ABXing, etc.; you may be able to get more information by searching for those (using the built-in Google bar) than by waiting for users who feel like retreading the same ground again.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Typhoon859
post Oct 6 2011, 08:08
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19-December 10
Member No.: 86635



To answer your question simply, TECHNICALLY CBR would be better but VBR saves you even more space by only using your selected bitrate when necessary, rather than applying it all throughout, even when there is barely even any sound. Also, the difference in sound quality between the max 320 KB/s and V0 (which is at around 244 KB/s) will not be noticeable. I doubt there's anyone that would be able to hear the difference between the two regardless of the level of equipment unless there are strong measures in place to make that difference more distinguishable. In summary, there is no really perceivable difference between V0 and 320 CBR so I wouldn't even worry about it. Just use V0 in Foobar and it'll be perfect. As a matter of fact, it's difficult to tell the difference even between FLAC and MP3. I swear to you that if you hear it, it's placebo affect.

ABX testing, which you can do in Foobar2000, would prove me right. I am known to have extraordinary hearing and I've confirmed these results to myself. I was pretty bummed actually...

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 6 2011, 10:28
Reason for edit: deleting unnecessary quote of first post
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Oct 6 2011, 09:46
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



If you don't care for space just use CBR 320. VBR is to save space but also aims to keep quality constant . But high bitrate CBR 224 ~ 320 is just fine so quality won't suffer 'bitrate starvation' like is commonly claimed or at least you would be hard pressed to hear it. Technically 320 cbr should be the best quality mp3. 320vbr is better for other formats like aac - bitrate can go much higher. There is no easy setting for 320k vbr and V0 is much lower like 230 k . So you would use a very high bitrate ABR like --abr 288 or --abr 320. That could save you some bits.

High bitrate addicts should try:

-b320
--abr 288
--abr 287 -h
-V0
-V1

This post has been edited by shadowking: Oct 6 2011, 09:50


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 6 2011, 16:29
Post #10





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10250
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Typhoon859 @ Oct 6 2011, 00:08) *
ABX testing, which you can do in Foobar2000, would prove me right.

If you're claiming there is no difference, then ABX testing can really only be used to prove you wrong. ABX is in place to determine if any user at any given time with any given sample can distinguish a difference. Failure to distinguish a difference can not reliably be extended beyond that criteria.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Typhoon859
post Oct 6 2011, 22:27
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19-December 10
Member No.: 86635



Ummm... Ok? What?...

All I was really saying was that I was sure he wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the quality of the said comparisons which the ABX testing results would show.

This post has been edited by db1989: Oct 7 2011, 11:14
Reason for edit: deleting pointless full quote
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 6 2011, 22:40
Post #12





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10250
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



You're arguing that no one can tell the difference between -V0 and 320 and are suggesting ABX tests can be used to prove it.

Ignoring the fact that your claim is patently false (there are people who can routinely spot artifacts in 320kbit mp3 or otherwise in normal music samples, despite how incredible you want us to believe your hearing is), the logic that a failed ABX test (however you try to define what a "failed" ABX test is) can somehow prove it, is fundamentally flawed.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 6 2011, 22:49


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sld
post Oct 13 2011, 11:21
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 1017
Joined: 4-March 03
From: Singapore
Member No.: 5312



What he means is that ABX testing is legitimate scientific testing and as such can only disprove phenomena, not prove them. An overwhelming number of Ayes will still be trumped by a single Nay.

This post has been edited by sld: Oct 13 2011, 11:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Typhoon859
post Oct 13 2011, 11:58
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 19-December 10
Member No.: 86635



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 6 2011, 16:40) *
You're arguing that no one can tell the difference between -V0 and 320 and are suggesting ABX tests can be used to prove it.

Ignoring the fact that your claim is patently false (there are people who can routinely spot artifacts in 320kbit mp3 or otherwise in normal music samples, despite how incredible you want us to believe your hearing is), the logic that a failed ABX test (however you try to define what a "failed" ABX test is) can somehow prove it, is fundamentally flawed.

Umm, no...

Also, I don't see why you're trying to argue. My point was very simple and just something I wanted to point out. Once again, as I said initially, unless you're looking specifically for the artifacts created by the compressed format, you won't really distinguish it "feel" wise. Yes, with good enough equipment and knowing what you're looking for, you'll hear but probably at worst would mark it off as a difference - nothing significant - maybe slightly unpleasant just being aware of it.

And don't be a douche - "despite how incredible you want us to believe your hearing is". I don't care what you think and I was just trying to help the guy out.

I was trying to say that in most people's cases, it doesn't make much a difference and that he can see for himself if he'd like. Something you should consider trying as well...

QUOTE (sld @ Oct 13 2011, 05:21) *
What he means is that ABX testing is legitimate scientific testing and as such can only disprove phenomena, not prove them. An overwhelming number of Ayes will still be trumped by a single Nay.

Right. Thanks.

This post has been edited by Typhoon859: Oct 13 2011, 12:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd November 2014 - 20:07