I hear a lot about CBR and VBR; what’s wrong with ABR?, Was “MP3 ABR WHY NOT.” (shouting won’t make anyone likelier to reply) Options

[soylentgreen]

I have read numerous forums and articles about mp3 cbr and vbr, some swear by cbr others vbr, the debate just goes on and on. I,ve tried cbr 256, vbr 256, cbr 320, cbr 192 cbr etc and I cant hear any difference. My question is why bother with cbr or vbr, why dont people just go with MP3 ABR, would this not be the ideal compromise, or I am missing something, as there does seem to be lack of mp3 abr on offer as downloads from the likes of Napster etc.

[JJZolx]

Actually, it is being transcoded from FLAC. Why would that make any difference?

Where I've used this in practice before is in streaming my FLAC library from my home, transcoded to MP3, to my office. At the time, my home internet connection's upstream was only about 512 kbps and I found that because traffic fluctuated quite a bit I was only able to stream reliably at about 192 kbps. Using ABR worked just as reliably as CBR.

[mjb2006]

streaming my FLAC library from my home, transcoded to MP3, to my office.

What I meant was, depending on how this streaming is being accomplished, ABR might not make a difference.
The streaming software or gear that you're using is either

1. taking the files "raw" and pumping them through the network—that is, if one file is 320 kbps CBR and the next is ~160 kbps VBR, that's exactly what's going out over the network, so on the receiving end you see the bitrate changing; or
2. transcoding the files as it reads them—that is, no matter what format they are on disk, they get decoded and re-encoded with consistent parameters (that you configured in the streaming software) so what goes out over the network doesn't fluctuate.

If it's #2, then it doesn't matter whether you are making the files be ABR or CBR on disk before they're streamed.

This post has been edited by mjb2006: Jul 24 2012, 22:46