Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[twriter]

I did some searching here and didn't quite find this addressed, except in some discussions by more audiophiles who were ripping at high btrates. I'm sorta the opposite, not at all an audiophile, but I have music that I like to make portable. I listen in environments such as my car and the gym, so qualnity is a bit more important than quality.

For the past couple o years I've been going abck & forth over MP3 bitrates. First I did 128 (CBR), then when I wasn't getting much on my (low memory) portable players, I wiped out my collection and did 64 (CBR).  But that seeme dto take a too big quality hit, so I started over again with 96 (CBR).

That, of course, takes up more space. My Pet Shop Boys collection now takes up about 2/3 of my Rio Nitrus (although I'm drooling over th 4GB version) and will no longer fit on a 700MB CD. As a result, I've been experiementing with VBR. It looks like, though, with the built-in encoders, that the lowest quality VBR rips at a bitrate on average a bit higher than 96 (CBR), which means slightly higher file sizes.

What I'm wondering is: Is there a sound quality increase using that quality VBR that's significant enough, given the conditions I'm talking about, to warrant using it (and haveing the larger file sizes)? What is the real (not theoretical) difference in sound quality between a similar size/bitrate VNBR and CBR track?

I know many people advocate WMA as having uality similar to MP3 in half the file size. If my car CD/MP3 player could read WMA (something I have yet to test), I might be tempted, although the switch to a Microsoft format over a more open and ubiquitous format runs against my grain.

thx for your input.

[xen-uno]

> What is the real (not theoretical) difference in sound quality between a similar size/bitrate VBR and CBR track?

That is up to the ears of the beholder. If I have a 192 kbs CBR and compare it to a 192 kbs (avg) VBR then the latter should sound better for theoretical reasons (#1 being it throws more bits at more difficult to encode samples). In practice, they may sound the same which is why you should ABX to determine yourself. If you want a general concensus...go with VBR.

R_x

[Madcow]

If you're ripping at rates like 96, VBR MP3s aren't really for you - they're designed to give smaller size files at high-quality really.  WMA or AAC would be the way to go for you.  Both give excellent results at low bitrates with small file sizes.  Although this depends on your player's capabilities, of course, and as far as I'm aware MC still doesn't support ripping to AAC.