Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Should I go with CBR or VBR(0) for my mp3's?
post May 3 2012, 03:35
Post #1

Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 99436

Hi all, new to the forums. I had asked this question elsewhere and was told this is the best place to ask.

I'm currently in the process of re-converting my cd library into mp3's on my computer. Ultimately I'd like to get the best (lossy) sound quality I can get...and was originally planning to go with 320 CBR but I'm now reading a lot about VBR v-0 and how it's basically equivalent with an impossible to notice difference between the 2. I'm not concerned about space on my computer hard drive but I do plan on loading up these mp3's to my iPhone (where space can get scarce). I just converted 2 FLAC files and noticed a 1.5 mb difference between the 2, but as far as I can tell, no real degradation in sound quality.

Id just like to get some thoughts on this. I'm certainly no expert on the subject of sound science. To be honest, I'm not an audiophile at all...but at the same time, I want to "future proof" myself so that I never do realize (like I did this time around) that I'd like to upgrade my library (upgraded my headphones and started noticing a difference in quality of some mp3's).

Is there any reason why I may regret going with vbr v-0 over cbr or will I thank myself for saving the space? I figure that if some of the professionals on here cannot notice a difference then there is no chance I ever will. smile.gif

Also, if there are any mac users here, could you please give me your opinion on the best settings for converting FLAC/CD's in XLD? Are the below settings good?


This post has been edited by db1989: May 3 2012, 07:36
Reason for edit: TOS #6: not an MP3 tech issue / TOS #5: post completely different topics to their own threads
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
post Jul 5 2012, 22:10
Post #2

Group: Members
Posts: 320
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621

If one of the reasons for using "needlessly" high bitrates when ripping mp3 is that one doesn't care about how much space it takes up then there is no reason not to rip as lossless.
IMO, the only reason to rip using a lossy codec at high bitrates (beyond 200Kbps) is generally an irrational paranoia about preserving sound quality.

Well, if one is paranoid about preserving sound quality and space consumption isn't an issue, lossless is THE best option.. Once one has their library in a lossless format they can then transcode on the fly to whatever lossy codec they desire and is supported by whatever device without any generational quality issues.

Plus, since one's main library is lossless, and once they do a little ABX testing and realize they can't ABX V5 mp3 or q2 Vorbis (aac, etc) against the lossless versions, they can feel better about transcoding to much lower, rational, bitrates/quality on those devices instead of copying over huge, high bitrate lossy "archival" files. This allows one to store MUCH more music on devices with limited capacity.

Just my opinion..
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- DaGrandMastah   Should I go with CBR or VBR(0) for my mp3's?   May 3 2012, 03:35
- - eahm   1) You will regret it if you don't save them i...   May 3 2012, 04:23
|- - Erich_2   cbr versus V0   May 3 2012, 11:17
- - twostar   I recommend ripping to ALAC. Itunes could then con...   May 3 2012, 11:22
- - LosMintos   QUOTE (DaGrandMastah @ May 3 2012, 04:35)...   May 3 2012, 12:33
- - DVDdoug   QUOTE I just converted 2 FLAC files and noticed a ...   May 3 2012, 18:06
- - shadowking   IMO you should take time to find out what is accep...   May 4 2012, 01:33
- - shadowking   I will add that if you really need to go with high...   May 4 2012, 04:57
- - antman   QUOTE (shadowking @ May 3 2012, 19:33) IM...   May 13 2012, 15:17
|- - timcupery   QUOTE (antman @ May 13 2012, 10:17) ABX J...   Jul 5 2012, 17:43
- - eahm   Reading my comment up there, I can't believe I...   Jul 5 2012, 17:59
- - halb27   It's fine to use moderate bitrate because qual...   Jul 5 2012, 21:45
- - yourlord   If one of the reasons for using "needlessly...   Jul 5 2012, 22:10
- - halb27   Yes, lossless is the way to go, no doubt after rip...   Jul 5 2012, 22:37
- - AshenTech   I agree on the "go lossless" thing, Its ...   Jul 6 2012, 02:49
- - RobertoDomenico   If you're planing to use Lame encoded mp3...   Jul 6 2012, 03:12
- - Canar   320 and V0 are total overkill. I've heard the ...   Jul 6 2012, 04:30
- - rhfrjpfdh   hello to all i'm interested in the question (l...   Sep 3 2012, 12:37
|- - Kohlrabi   QUOTE (rhfrjpfdh @ Sep 3 2012, 13:37) i...   Sep 3 2012, 13:20
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Sep 3 2012, 14:20) Usin...   Sep 3 2012, 16:38
|- - Dynamic   QUOTE (halb27 @ Sep 3 2012, 16:38) QUOTE ...   Sep 3 2012, 17:22
|- - halb27   QUOTE (Dynamic @ Sep 3 2012, 18:22) ... b...   Sep 3 2012, 18:51
- - halb27   An actual post gives another sample that shows tha...   Sep 6 2012, 07:45
- - Dynamic   Thanks for the Angel Falls link, halb27. I ABXed t...   Sep 6 2012, 19:48
- - halb27   You are right in assuming I don't care about t...   Sep 6 2012, 20:43

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: 30th November 2015 - 11:09