MP3s: Constant VS Variable bitrate

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- MP3s: Constant VS Variable bitrate

Posted by DeleriuM2K on Feb-01-2004 06:12:

MP3s: Constant VS Variable bitrate

just wondering... what is better for size/quality:
for example

if I were to have an MP3 of a track with the variable bitrate ranging between 64 and 192 kbps, and then I were to have a 192kbps fixed mp3, would the quality be the exact same even though one file would be smaller?

Posted by Spin Doctor on Feb-01-2004 23:01:

Re: MP3s: Constant VS Variable bitrate

quote:
Originally posted by DeleriuM2K
just wondering... what is better for size/quality

If ripped correctly, VBR has the best size/quality ratio.

quote:
Originally posted by DeleriuM2K
if I were to have an MP3 of a track with the variable bitrate ranging between 64 and 192 kbps, and then I were to have a 192kbps fixed mp3, would the quality be the exact same even though one file would be smaller?

Pretty much. The overall quality would be virtually the same, you probably wouldn�t notice the difference.

Posted by `pr0digy on Feb-02-2004 03:13:

If I rip something I personally use VBR, but the "scene's" method is 192k CBR.

Posted by Fast Turtle on Feb-02-2004 04:24:

Yep, the people in the inner release "scene" are usually slow to adjust. Originally it was 128~160 cbr, then 192 CBR, now people are starting to include VBR (which in theory is a much more efficient compression algorithm).

Hopefully we'll have ogg soon though, because it sounds far better than mp3 at the same bitrates (as well as the fact that it is open source).

Posted by Mr.Mystery on Feb-02-2004 12:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Nou
A close friend of mine is in the "scence" very deeply and he says that this year they are moving towards VBR with releases.

And all these "new" VBR releases have sounded like crap so far.

Posted by tvmann on Feb-02-2004 18:33:

I just use LAME standard VBR as the option in Exact Audio Copy which I think is average 192 kbps, and it seems to use bit rates between 128 and about 500. It appears to chop the music into segments and uses a different constant bit rate in each segment.

I previously used CBR 256 kbps from MusicMatch which might be using the Fraunhofer encoder which is also a good one.

I did some tests playing a vinyl record direct, and various ripped MP3 formats and they all sounded the same except maybe a small amount of inaccuracy on a 128 CBR MP3. Same with CDs. Maybe someone with better hearing could tell the difference.

I can't see how AAC or OGG etc would sound better, since then they would be better than the original!

MP3s from the LAME Standard VBR are sized about 14 percent of the original WAV. One disadvantage of VBR is that some software will give you a delay if you try to fast forward to a new point in the music.

Many music junkies, including those with expensive equipment, are using LAME Standard VBR and see no need to go to higher bit rates.

Posted by razzi on Feb-02-2004 18:41:

nothing less than 320kbps.

ever.

hahah yeah right.. on 56k? damn it would take years to download a freakin set. i think that VBR is more efficient for quality.. but i prefer 192 CBR in general. i pray that the 'standard' doesnt change to 256 or something like that... at least not until i get into college and have a t1 line at my disposal

Posted by `pr0digy on Feb-02-2004 20:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Nou
bah screw ogg, i think that they should start using AAC, its sounds a lot better. Ogg is good tho, dont get me wrong.

I forget where it was, but there have been double blind tests run that show ogg = mp3, except at low bitrates such as 96k and less.