|
VBR vs. CBR
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. February 2005 @ 05:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok i know that vbr takes up less space than cbr but is there actually any notiecable diference in the quality of the sound if the vbr was 256kbs and the cbr was 320kbs.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. February 2005 @ 05:52
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
27. February 2005 @ 06:41 |
Link to this message
|
Constant Bit Rate (CBR) encoding means that you encode a file at a fixed rate, such as 128 Kpbs. For many people this is a common method of encoding MP3s. You can usually tell CBR files because they have consistent file sizes and sound quality. OK, file sizes aren't the kind of thing most of you will look out for. We know that.
Variable Bit Rate (VBR) encoding is a method that ensures high audio quality bit-allocation decisions during encoding. The encoder allocates an appropriate amount of data per second, depending on the complexity of the audio file.
If there are very complex parts in a song it will use a quite high bit rate and a lower bitrate for something such as silence. The average bit rate may not be as high as the bitrate of an MP3 of the same quality with constant bitrate.
You should use VBR encoding when consistent audio quality is the top priority.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. February 2005 @ 08:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok I sorta get what mean. I downloaded exact audio copy like someone reccommended and I have ripped a cd sucessfully. But I don't understand the whole .cfg files and 4 adapters issue. Please explain in greater detail so I can understand this concept more.
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
27. February 2005 @ 08:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I do not use exact audio copy !! Perhaps you should ask that person that recommended it to you to explain what those things are .
Could be the software comes with a ""Help"" section -- maybe the website where you bought it has a Support board or..... someone else in here may be able to help you.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. February 2005 @ 08:54
|
|
shiroh
Account closed as per user's own request
|
27. February 2005 @ 09:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. February 2005 @ 15:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
VBR 256 isn't suppose to sound better than CBR 320. The point is if you want a file that sounds good and saves some space then you will want to go with a VBR scheme. CBR should only be used to create files for streaming audio broadcasts (at low bit rates) and recording live audio.
For any other case(s) VBR should always be used. Napster really screwed people up when it came to Mp3 encoding. People use CBR because it s what they are use to instead or using what they should, VBR. The two schemes where desinged for differnt situations.
Ced
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
27. February 2005 @ 15:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. February 2005 @ 16:16
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. February 2005 @ 16:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Jeanc1,
Thats just not true (mathematically) and wasn't the point of my previous post. VBR will produce smaller file sizes that sound just as good as CBR at the same bit-rate. VBR isn't magic. Both use the same encoder, one just does alot more work than the other when it comes to the allocation of avalable bits per frame. The same is true for ABR aswell.
If you feel that VBR sounds better at lower bit-rate than CBR thats fine cause I'm not trying to start an argument,
Ced
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
27. February 2005 @ 16:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
You are entitled to your opinion -- !! But am very sorry I tend to believe my own experience in a Sonolab and the wisdom of an ASC such as Chris Myden. Thank you for your opinion.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. February 2005 @ 17:22 |
Link to this message
|
not to keep throwing gas into the fire, but I beleive VBR is better quality at lower bitrate. The whole point of VBR is to achieve the best quality possible by varying the bitrate depending on that exact frame of audio. Its pretty much standard these days that 192 or 256 is the norm. So using those standards, VBR provides the highest quality possible at lower bitrate levels. I've done so many tests, even going as far to look at the waves up close on an oscillioscope, and the bottom line is 320kpbs is a waste. 192 or 256 VBR is the highest quality you can achieve, and encoding at CBR 320k is wasting space. I found no difference at all between lower bitrate VBR than high bitrate CBR. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions...
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. February 2005 @ 17:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
weazel:
I'm glad you decided to go with EAC and LAME, as it is the best option to get the highest quality sounding mp3s. the config files you have to place in the preferences directory is for your CD ROM drive. There are 4 different adapter types, and apparently this guy wrote 4 different config files so whatever drive you have will be properly enable to rip at the best efficiency by using the corresponding config file.
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. February 2005 @ 18:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. February 2005 @ 18:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
yeah I referred weazel to that guide in another thread
|
|
shiroh
Account closed as per user's own request
|
27. February 2005 @ 19:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
whats important is that VBR is way cooler
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. February 2005 @ 21:19 |
Link to this message
|
DJ Scoop:
I downloaded the .cfg for the 1st adapter and it works fine as I was able to sucessfully rip an album. So, downloading and using the rest of the adaptors won't change the bit rate, quality and file size at all. Also, when the album has been ripped I go into the directory and right click on the toolbar options where you can chhose what options you want to see such as, title, date modified, date created, genre, etc. The bitrate column displays what bit rate a certain file is but when I play the file it is actually lower than stated. Eg 320kbs in the column will actually be read as 177kbs when I go to play the file. Is this normal.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. February 2005 @ 08:47 |
Link to this message
|
yeah, you only need the config file for whatever adapter you have, either 1 thru 4. your files won't show up as what they are specified, because every frame in that mp3 has a different bitrate to it. if you rip at 192 it could be anywhere from 100 to 250, depending on what point you are listening to it. If you play the files in winamp, you will notice that the bitrate jumps around frequently. So that is normal for it not to display the "target" bitrate it was ripped at. depending on what you are looking at it with, it could either be showing the bitrate average for the song, or the bitrate just for the first frame of audio.
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
28. February 2005 @ 09:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree with that.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. February 2005 @ 10:08 |
Link to this message
|
Ok that clears up the issue with the bitrate changing but you say that all of the 4 .cgf are exactly the same but it depends on what cd drive you have as some vary on what adapter they need.
|
|
Jeanc1
Suspended permanently
|
28. February 2005 @ 10:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
When you set up EAC -- Eac will decide which cfg file (Adapter) the drive you have requires -- That is the adapter you download and put in your Profiles folder. The other 3 cfg are not needed on your Pc unless you have extra drives that have different characteristics. EAC will indicate what Adapter (cfg file) 0--1--2--3 is needed for those other drives.
Will leave you in the good hands of djscoop --- You cant go wrong with his tutorship !
Edited for typos.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. February 2005 @ 11:00
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. February 2005 @ 14:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol thanks Jeanc1. I used to be horrible at explaining and teaching things to people, but I faced my fears 2 years ago when I started teaching audio. Not to pat myself on the back, but I think I'm getting better at helping people. Its all about the good karma, so I come here to do my good daily deeds :)
|
