I've always thought that a song in CBR was better in quality than VBR, but somebody on another forum told me that VBR was better. Is VBR really better than something in CBR? If so, how is it better?
VBR Vs CBR - encoding acronyms explained 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. -mp3machine.com
yes VBR is MUCH better than CBR. The filesizes stay the same, but the appropriate compression needed per frame is applied when using VBR, resulting in a much higher quality. Rip with EAC (exact audio copy), encode with LAME, and use VBR 192 or 256 kbps settings for best results. Check this out for more info about the above steps: http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/mydeneaclame.cfm
If you think about it 320 kBps CBR is the best sound quality you can get for MP3's. WAV files are at a Constant BitRate (1408/1411 kBps) and their the best quality you can get. The thing with encoding at 320 is it takes up way too much space making the VBR method more practical.
I'm just going to go ahead and say VBR is the newer technology, and it's probably better 9 times out of 10, maybe 99/100...
VBR isn't newer, it is defined in the same spec that CBR is defined in. The thing in VBR was poorly emplimented untill the beginning of the millenium in many products. Ced
yeah they were both created around the same time, and CBR was initially used because it wasn't realized the quality potential. Thats why most first-gen mp3 players go ape sh*t when you try to feed them a VBR mp3
What exactly is the purpose of ABR (Average Bit Rate)? Some MP3 files I downloaded are encoded this way. When I play them in WinAmp they have odd numbers such as 191, 200 and 201. Where as CBR and VBR have the usual 128, 160, 192, 224, 256 and 320. Is ABR better quality than CBR and VBR?
I have been pondering this question for some time now. Let me start out by saying that I'm definitly not an expert. djscoop made a statement that VBR is better while maintaining the same file size. This doesn't make sense to me. So let me explain the way that I see it. CBR(constant bit rate)- You have a song that is 5 mins. long at a bit rate of 192mbs & you get a file size of(and I'm not going to do the actual math) 5mb. VBR(variable bitrate)- You ask the software to maintain a certain QUALITY, as apposed to a certain bitrate. So the file size may be bigger or it may be smaller, depending on the type of music. The software will adjust the bitrate to maintain the quality level you seek. ABR(average bitrate)- You ask the software to maintain an AVERAGE of 192mbs. So somewhere along the line the software HAS to adjust the bitrate more than it NEEDS to. For example that 5 min. song starts out really slow with a piano solo, or something like that, the bitrate would be low. Let's say it's 152mbs(and yes, I'm just picking #'s here)& this piano solo last exactly 2 1/2mins.(one half of the song) & then the song goes into a major heavy metal mode, nonstop for the last 2 1/2mins.. In order for the bitrate to average at 192mbs out it is FORCED to maintain a bitrate of 232mbs. Which may not be enough to maintain CD quality. Now let's say that the same song speeds up a little bit but not as much as the previous example & it needs to maintain a bitrate of...let's say 212mbs, to stay at CD quality, the software STILL needs to maintain a bitrate of 232mbs to get an average of 192mbs. Hence, you get a file size that is larger than needed. So, in the case of downloading, I would think you are better off sticking with CBR over the ABR. Now everybody, feel free to straighten me out on my way of thinking. Because I know better than anyone that I could be completely wrong here, but I doubt it.(LOL)
We know what CBR and VBR mean: CBR - Each frame of audio is encoded at the same bit rate. e.g 128, 192, 320 VBR - Each frame of audio is encoded differently depending on the noise structure of the frame. A frame with a heavy metal guitar in it will require 256 or 320 where as a mellow beat will be ok with 128 or 192. I looked on Wikipedia but there wasnt really a clear explanation on what ABR means.
I know what you mean, then again, I don't. I do remember downloading a song that Windows said was ~780 bitrate, but was obviously the maximum, and I just played a VBR song in Winamp that skips between 64, 96, 128, 160 and 192. Is there an odd-numbered way and an incremental way? I don't know, but I do want to say one thing: one thing: VBR has to be newer than CBR, so technically I'm not wrong. VBR is like CBR with an extra skill, so why would VBR have been created first.
@ ashroy01 djscoop and ced already explained that VBR and CBR came out at the same time but no one realised VBR's quality potential til quite recently.
Hi Guy, Knew that you all are expert on converting the MP3 file. How can i convert a MP3 to have XRCD (extended resolution CD) or SACD (Super Audio CD) quality?
no to sure about XRCD (never heard of it honestly...) but as far as Super Audio CDs go, there currently aren't any computer applications that can convet to that super high sample rate PCM format. Mainly because SACDs have pretty nasty copy protection, not to mention that computer drives (CD or DVD) cannot write (and I'm pretty sure can't read) SACD format disks.
I don't know for sure but the IsoBuster web site says that IsoBuster can make SACD images! Check it out: http://www.smart-projects.net/isobuster/ Ced
wow thats very interesting...last time I tried the DVDROM drive doesn't even recognize the SACD disc...perhaps that has changed now. I still find it hard to beleive you can make SACD copies though. Have you actually tried with isobuster???
