Chrysalis

I've been going through my library, and I've notified that some of my albums are encoded in a VBR bitrate. Would this encoding be recommended, or should I go for a constant bitrate?

I'm just curious as to what VBR is.

__________________
RateYourMusic
A dead Last.fm account

RVCA

Bit rate is essentially the amount of data that is processed per unit of time. In music, a higher bit rate means more data is processed, which in layman's terms means better quality sound. As opposed to CBR, VBR allows a higher bitrate (and therefore more storage space) to be allocated to the more complex segments of media files while less space is allocated to less complex segments. Basically, a higher bitrate is used (and more data is stored) during the "louder" parts of the song, and a lower bitrate is used (and less data is stored) during the "quieter" parts of the song. The advantages of VBR are that it produces a better quality-to-space ratio compared to a CBR file of the same data. While a constant 320k file might store a LOT of data throughout the entire song, it may not need to because parts of the song don't involve that much data.

In essence, VBR allows you to retain sound quality while reducing the digital size of the file, because 320cbr files are quite fat.

Freebase Dali

The only caveat to that is there tends to be sync issues and other problems that arise with VBR in certain applications. If you're not worried about space, you're better off with CBR simply because it's likely to give you less problems in the long run.

As far as quality, there shouldn't really be any noticeable difference. When VBR drops the bitrate for quiet parts of a song, the quality is irrelevant because the bits being excluded aren't representing any actual data. But typically VBR is only really becoming an asset when there are quiet enough parts of the song that wouldn't be heard very well in the first place... and that's not very representative of most of the music most people listen to.

Personally, I'd say go with CBR unless there's a compelling enough reason not to. If you actually need the space, you're probably better off just buying another external hard drive or whatever.

s_k

What FBD says. Just compatibilty issues.
I always go for 256kbps cbr (unless I don't have the original record/CD, in that case I go for FLAC )

__________________
Click here to see my collection

Freebase Dali

Quick question... do you personally notice the difference between 256 and 320 CBR? I don't, but you've got far better gear to listen on, I suppose. I have a pair of studio monitors, but they're not really the greatest, and my headphones are more intimate for listening, but they're nowhere near as reproductive as the monitors.

s_k

Well I did the test on this forum and apparently I do.
But I don't think the difference is big enough to care.
I mean, if I want quality, I'm not going to go for Mp3 anyway .
It's really a storage thing

__________________
Click here to see my collection

Freebase Dali

Very true.
Just curious, but does the difference lie in depth of low end, and detail of high end? I've always noticed that in lower bit rates, especially anything under 192, but it gets harder for me to notice a difference between 256 and 320. I still prefer 320 simply as a matter of placebo effect in my case though, but I don't doubt there are perceptive differences to more trained ears.

someonecompletelyrandom

It's funny you mention this. I often wonder how much of the supposed quality increase I hear between lower bit rates and 320s is genuine, and how much of it is just a placebo.

s_k

Well it's said that it has to do with high end, but in my ears what you lose is transparency in the high end, definition in the mids and depth in the low end. The main problem though is that the 'black' between instruments (and this, really, is something you cannot hear on affordable equipment) goes lost. You cannot hear this through headphones, you can just hear this through very carefully set up equipment with very well positioned speakers. My rig only displays a tiny fraction of the 'black' that's possible.

Let me explain this to you; The instruments are positioned somewhere in the 'sound stage'. Some are to the left, some to the right, higher, lower, more towards, you, some are actually behind the speakers. It's pretty easy to get a wide, high, deep sound stage. But with some rigs, you can actually hear the 'space' between the instruments. So the room, the sound that isn't there. This is completely lost with an mp3, even a 320kbps mp3. This makes the whole stereo image rather undefined and makes listening to mp3 a tiresome experience compared to listen to less or uncompressed audio (it's always compressed in some way). Even when your rig doesn't allow you to hear much 'black', you wil surely loose a lot of 'peace' in your sound. It's really hard to explain, but the more 'black' you have, the more room there seems to be to listen to the instruments. It almost seems like you have more space and time to listen to the music, it sounds less hurried.

This, again, is really vague and hard to explain. This is all I can do.
I can tell you what to buy to get the best sound I've heard so far, but be prepared to sell your house .

__________________
Click here to see my collection

s_k

All of it is genuine, but some people don't know how or where to listen and some people just cannot hear it.

Some people are not able to hear a record that runs slighly slow, some people can't hear wow and flutter (go google, these are real audio words ), some people cannot hear the jitter (the deviation in or displacement of some aspect of the pulses in a high-frequency digital signal, says wiki) of a CD player. Some people cannot hear dropouts in an old tape.
This has nothing to do with the quality of your ears, it's more like a sensitivity. I, unfortunately, can hear it all very well. Which is ****ing frustrating.

__________________
Click here to see my collection