if size doesn't matter, is the highest possible CBR better than a high quality VBR or ABR? Why?

sorry if I am sking something stupid...

Each frame in an MP3 can take sizes of 8 16 24 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 160 192 224 256 320 kbps.

A 320kbps CBR file will have all frames at 320kbps

A high quality ABR/VBR file will probably have mostly 320kbps frames, some 256, some 224....

See the picture now?

picture? the one with the teddy bear?
just kidding...
I see what you mean but if more frames are not needed, why has the file to be bigger when it can be smaller?

Now, I thought you asked in your first post "if size doesn't matter"!

If size DOES matter to some degree (and obviously it does, lest we all use lossless compression, or no compression at all...), and you want an optimally, efficiently encoded file, with great sound, then VBR is absolutely the way to go.

For me (and I don't have bat ears), the perceptual audial difference between CBR 320 and --alt-preset extreme (or even --alt-preset standard in most cases) is null - 0%. The file size difference, however, is readily apparent.

As for me, I don't like to waste bits on silent, or easy-to-encode material. I like to save those bits for the hard stuff. It's about maximizing compression potential without sacrificing quality. The file size savings, in this case, vastly outway any (imperceptible!) quality lost due to encoding certain 'easier' frames at less than 320.

This is what I was not sure of... but now you say that and I think I agree with you.
Some People say CBR320 is the highest possible quality... ok, I even admit size DOESN'T matter. But why wasting frames when we obviously know we really don't need them for silent or not too demanding parts.

there is nothing silent on a cd.

The noise leve on af cd i smaller then the noise in the recording studioe. sp evne the noise of the room is recorded
and of size doesn matter you better take this with you


absolute silence on af cd can only be made artificial. that how"sensitive" cd audio is.