Hi...first post here.
I have a bunch of mp4 files encoded vith "Nero CBR 320" and I want to transcode them to "Nero VBR Ultra".
Will there be any significant quality loss?...
I have been trying to figure out what Kb/s range the VBR Ultra setting uses. Winamp with FAAD2 shows the CBR 320 files as actually being VBR 305-320. It shows the VBR Ultra files as aprox. VBR 3-320, but I am not at all sure whether this is the actual bitrate showing or rounded numbers!?
If it's not the actual bitrate is there a program that will analyse and show me actual bitrate?
If the actual bitrate of VBR Ultra is 3-320 will there then be any serious quality degradation when transcoding from CBR 320 to VBR Ultra?
Give me your thoughts. Thx in advance
Full Version: Nero CBR320>VBR Ultra
Why would you even want to transcode?
Space saving, while still keeping quality. U should rather ask why I went for CBR instead of VBR in the first place...
Yes, there will be a quality loss. But only you can decide, if this is too much for you, by ABXing the files (the old CBR with the new VBR). But transcoding is definitely not a good idea 
QUOTE(bassevl @ Jan 20 2004, 12:56 PM)
U should rather ask why I went for CBR instead of VBR in the first place...
Okay,I'll bite. Why did U?
Well, if by quality loss you mean subjectively audible loss, I would say the chances are slim that you would hear the difference, considering the high bitrates from both the source and the destination formats; unless you happen to be well-trained in artifact detection and/or have excellent hearing and equipment. If this is the case, try ABXing. However, in objective terms, yes, there definitely is information being lost and noise being added (whether you can hear it or not).
For the ~15% space saving you expect from that transcoding (The "Ultra" preset, according to Nero, should be in the 250-300 kbps range), however, I find little sense in doing this: If you want highest-fidelity lossy copies, transcoding is a no-no. If you care about filesize and transparency, why not try the lowest-bitrate transparent settings such as "Transparent" or "Extreme".
For the ~15% space saving you expect from that transcoding (The "Ultra" preset, according to Nero, should be in the 250-300 kbps range), however, I find little sense in doing this: If you want highest-fidelity lossy copies, transcoding is a no-no. If you care about filesize and transparency, why not try the lowest-bitrate transparent settings such as "Transparent" or "Extreme".
QUOTE(bassevl @ Jan 20 2004, 03:56 PM)
Space saving, while still keeping quality.
An oxymoron when it comes to transcoding.
Re-rip and encode.
If what you've already encoded is transparent to you, why bother switiching. Just change from this point on
OK, thx.
Thanks for playing. Please come again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.