Besides the obvious fact that 320 is higher than 192, is there really a reason that 320 is better. Is the sound difference noticeable? Also i have heard that the LAME encoder excels at 192 and not necessarily a higher bitrate. What are u VBR guys using?
The highest VBR setting you can get is alt preset extreme which is roughly 256kBps VBR. 320 kbPs is a constant bit rate and is alt preset insane. Read this guide to help you out. http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/1912
wow that is one long thread. Thanks for the link weazel200. I'm still confused, i thought CBR was bad, but it seems like now, that 320CBR is better than the rest?? Confused.. O also, i dont care about file sizes, just the highest quality.
It is quite confusing. To sum up mp3, 320kBps CBR is the highest quality you can get for an mp3 file. The only downfall is the space issue as it takes up loads. Thats why EAC w/ Lame was created to make decent sounding mp3 files which sounded just below the 320 CBR standard or equal (personally not many people can tell the difference between VBR and lets say for example 192kbs CBR, but tests have been proven to show that VBR is better). Anyway so to conclude if ripping a cd to mp3 use EAC w/ Lame with 1st choice being 320kBps CBR if space really isn't an issue or 2nd choice the VBR option. Personally I would go for VBR as I don't really notice the difference and it doesn't take up too much space. BTW if you really want your music uncompressed with superb quality then convert to WAV as nothing beats it which kinda defeats the purpose of 320 kBps CBR. WAV is on average 30 MB's a file. Feel free to reply if you have any more queries.
192 cbr - I've never heard one and thought "that doesn't sound good" ...128 I have I can't tell the difference between 320 cbr and vbr just my 2 cents
Just an example. 128 kBps CBR is the lowest I would go for encoding to mp3. Anything else below that is absloute crap. Anyway there must be a reason why VBR is better than 192 kBps CBR as most people would rather choose VBR.
Okay I have taken one song "The Crystal Method - Name Of The Game", and ripped it 3 different ways. First straight uncompressed wave, second 320 CBR, and third 192kbVBR. Now I must add that I have some decent ear training; since i have been working with audio and production for a some time now. And my honest opinion is that i could not catch a single difference in quality. I have listened to the track over and over. Now I can surely say that I do not want my ripped cd collection in uncompressed wav files. This song came out to be 44mb for 'wav' while a '192vbr' encoding came out to be a mere 6mb. And there is no difference in quality, at least not to the human ear. But also the CBR option resulted in a file of 10mb. That's roughly one-fourth the size of the original uncompressed audio file. 'weazel200' stated that even the highest setting in VBR is going to be lower than 320CBR, i'm guessing 320CBR will be a good option for me if i want the ***highest quality mp3 file, period*** There's nothing over 320CBR, right? Am i correct? Someone educate me if i'm wrong. Again i dont care for uncompressed as i own the cds to begin with, so i can always go back. P.S. I am aware that the only reason people use VBR because its 'smart'. But i'm a stubborn purist, what can i say.
there's nothing over 320 CBR, but I really don't see the point in people ripping at such high bitrate, when you don't need it. The beauty of VBR is that it applies the applicable amount of compression needed per frame of audio to provide the highest quality possible. So for example, if one frame only needs 138kb, why encode the entire song at 320kb when LAME has already decided in VBR mode that 138kb is all the compression required to maintain quality? As long as you use the proper methods of ripping, from start to finish, by using EAC, secure mode, the right drive adapter, and LAME VBR your mp3s will be just as good as encoding them at 320. Stick with 192 or 256 VBR. It will be worth it in the long run. Thats where most of the compression technology is going
djscoop, isnt it true that even the highest that 256VBR has to offer will still be a tiny bit smaller than 320CBR? Hence not 'FULL quality'
that was kinda my point. I really don't beleive that 320 CBR is any higher quality than 192 VBR is. I've done so many tests and my conclusions have always been the same. I did a test of VBR 192 and 320 CBR on computer speakers, home theatre system speakers (klipsch), car stereo, and also through my recording studio, and same results. I even went as far as to analyze the peaks and dips of the sound waves through an oscilloscope and they were identical to me. So why not do a test yourself. Encode a song at 320 CBR and again at 192 VBR. see what you think. but the general concensous is that the lame VBR encoder has progressed to the point where 320 CBR is NOT necessary to achieve the best quality possible, as far as mp3s go anyways
I still use VBR at 256 for those times when music gets intense. I don't mind using VBR at 256 because the encoder never goes up that high but occassionally it does hit 205 or 220. That tells me that to be safe you should encode at VBRs max. anything less will turnacate some of the song somethimes. Ced
