Aff wrote:You may start with the Lame help as a source, or just read the internet
I've read much of that and you are good at representing it
But taking the
variation in size out of the equation, since the V in VBR refers to bitrate not size, even though that is also an effect,
I certainly believe that what all the info says is
theoretically true. But for
higher bitrate encoding, I just don't
hear that adding a few more bits to louder,
more complex parts and less to silent or quieter/less complex parts improves the quality (
in practice). The quality
naturally improves
the higher the bitrate, either way. The higher and higher you get with bitrate, the closer you get to lossless. With lossless there is no need to artificially
vary the vbitrate. So, as you go higher and higher, varying the bitrate, at some point along the way (like say, 192), becomes negligible (even though,
"theoretically" it should still make a noticeable difference).
If you keep the bitrate the same across all passages (at around 192 or higher CBR), the lower, less complex parts are still represented lower and with
less complexity (well enough) and the higher parts are still represented higher and with greater complexity (well enough).
Does VBR allocate bits properly, necessarily or by some mathematical aproximation of what it thinks will best duplicate the
original sound? So, what
truly wins out? The imperfections of evening everything out or variable guessing?
"I" don't pick up enough of a difference at 192 or higher CBR vs VBR.
I mean, yes, I can hear a bit of a difference between the two, but I don't translate it as being better, just a bit
different. And I do consider myself to have
audiophile ears. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-VBR. And I guess I could retract the word "hurts" that I used in my op; replacing it with "messes with more", maybe.
I've just only experienced it making much of a difference back when I encoded my files at 128Kps (which is also a point made around the net, although,
it seems moreso nowadays in forums rather than site articles).
Nowadays, to balance between size and quality (because I also house
music movie/video related content on my music drive), I use FLAC for what is most important to me and mp3 cbr/192-320 for stuff I like but is less important, as indicated in degree by range of bitrate.
Ultimately, one should use what is liked. The sound that makes one happy is the only one that matters!
[quote="Aff"]You may start with the Lame help as a source, or just read the internet[/quote]
I've read much of that and you are good at representing it :wink:
But taking the [i]variation in size[/i] out of the equation, since the V in VBR refers to bitrate not size, even though that is also an effect,
I certainly believe that what all the info says is [i]theoretically[/i] true. But for [u]higher bitrate encoding[/u], I just don't [i]hear[/i] that adding a few more bits to louder,
more complex parts and less to silent or quieter/less complex parts improves the quality ([i]in practice[/i]). The quality [i]naturally[/i] improves
the higher the bitrate, either way. The higher and higher you get with bitrate, the closer you get to lossless. With lossless there is no need to artificially
vary the vbitrate. So, as you go higher and higher, varying the bitrate, at some point along the way (like say, 192), becomes negligible (even though,
[i]"theoretically"[/i] it should still make a noticeable difference).
If you keep the bitrate the same across all passages (at around 192 or higher CBR), the lower, less complex parts are still represented lower and with
less complexity (well enough) and the higher parts are still represented higher and with greater complexity (well enough).
Does VBR allocate bits properly, necessarily or by some mathematical aproximation of what it thinks will best duplicate the
original sound? So, what [i]truly[/i] wins out? The imperfections of evening everything out or variable guessing?
"I" don't pick up enough of a difference at 192 or higher CBR vs VBR.
I mean, yes, I can hear a bit of a difference between the two, but I don't translate it as being better, just a bit [i]different[/i]. And I do consider myself to have
audiophile ears. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-VBR. And I guess I could retract the word "hurts" that I used in my op; replacing it with "messes with more", maybe.
I've just only experienced it making much of a difference back when I encoded my files at 128Kps (which is also a point made around the net, although,
it seems moreso nowadays in forums rather than site articles).
Nowadays, to balance between size and quality (because I also house [i]music movie/video[/i] related content on my music drive), I use FLAC for what is most important to me and mp3 cbr/192-320 for stuff I like but is less important, as indicated in degree by range of bitrate.
Ultimately, one should use what is liked. The sound that makes one happy is the only one that matters! 8)