Well I must say I have little experience with mp3(I love APE)
So, while I was wandering about in the FAQ I found that
"CBR at 320Kbps yields best quality."
BUT isn't VBR at 320Kbps best quality?
Or is this a flaw of MP3?
Full Version: CBR is BEST?
Since 320kbps is the highest bitrate MP3 can provide, a 320 CBR is considered the best in that the algorithms used to determine the complexity of a frame in a variable bitrate MP3 may not be perfect, and those decisions could result in a lower quality encode than a 320 CBR mp3 that always uses the highest possible bitrate.
Basically, a 320kbps CBR is generally a "better safe than sorry" approach that is not necessary in 99.9999% of cases.
Basically, a 320kbps CBR is generally a "better safe than sorry" approach that is not necessary in 99.9999% of cases.
QUOTE
BUT isn't VBR at 320Kbps best quality?
You can't have 320 VBR, that would be CBR.
QUOTE(grug @ Nov 15 2003, 11:48 PM)
Basically, a 320kbps CBR is generally a "better safe than sorry" approach that is not necessary in 99.9999% of cases.
It does seem a bit silly... if "better safe than sorry" is important, lossless (or Wavpack hybrid) makes more sense to me... then you really are "safe" against any/all artifacts.
Someone may be thinking "portables," but that's one area I don't really understand why someone might object to a potential few artifacts (--alt-preset standard for me).
QUOTE(grug @ Nov 15 2003, 10:48 PM)
Since 320kbps is the highest bitrate MP3 can provide, a 320 CBR is considered the best in that the algorithms used to determine the complexity of a frame in a variable bitrate MP3 may not be perfect, and those decisions could result in a lower quality encode than a 320 CBR mp3 that always uses the highest possible bitrate.
Basically, a 320kbps CBR is generally a "better safe than sorry" approach that is not necessary in 99.9999% of cases.
Basically, a 320kbps CBR is generally a "better safe than sorry" approach that is not necessary in 99.9999% of cases.
Actually 640kbps is the highest, LAME --freeformat -b 640, though --freeformat doesn't work with VBR and most decoders/players doesn't support freeformat...
QUOTE(fewtch @ Nov 16 2003, 08:23 AM)
It does seem a bit silly... if "better safe than sorry" is important, lossless (or Wavpack hybrid) makes more sense to me... then you really are "safe" against any/all artifacts.
True, and if you really want absolute security, 320kbps MP3 will contain a few artifacts anyway. It would be better to go for a modern lossy format in that case.
QUOTE(MiChael. @ Nov 16 2003, 10:41 AM)
Actually 640kbps is the highest, LAME --freeformat -b 640, though --freeformat doesn't work with VBR and most decoders/players doesn't support freeformat...
Any software players that support --freeformat ?
QUOTE(MiChael. @ Nov 16 2003, 03:41 AM)
Actually 640kbps is the highest, LAME --freeformat -b 640, though --freeformat doesn't work with VBR and most decoders/players doesn't support freeformat...
Since lossless is usually around 650-750kbps, I would like to officially dub "LAME --freeformat -b 640" as the new "braindead" profile for Lame...
QUOTE(JeanLuc @ Nov 16 2003, 02:34 PM)
QUOTE(MiChael. @ Nov 16 2003, 10:41 AM)
Actually 640kbps is the highest, LAME --freeformat -b 640, though --freeformat doesn't work with VBR and most decoders/players doesn't support freeformat...
Any software players that support --freeformat ?
The MAD plugin for winamp does.
LAME --decode and other mpg123-based players do also (up to 540 kbps).
FHG-based decoders do support it up to 320 kbps AFAICR. (which makes it pointless)
Hardware support is unknown.
There's a table in LAME documentation.
FHG-based decoders do support it up to 320 kbps AFAICR. (which makes it pointless)
Hardware support is unknown.
There's a table in LAME documentation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.