krochat;397096 Wrote: > > Another poster recently commented that VBR was superior to CBR at a > given bit rate so I recently reset my iTunes to rip at 320 VBR. > That was me. :)
The way I understand it VBR varies the bit rate dynamically between something lower than the nominal VBR rate and 320. (In practice the bit rate may never hit 320 if the space constraints are too high or the signal too complex, but it never goes over 320.) So you can see for any rate lower than 320, VBR does have an advantage of CBR because it can, for complex parts of the music, apply up to 320 encoding. However, since the highest rate for VBR is still 320 that means 320CBR cannot be beaten. In fact VBR320 doesn't really exist, effectively that is 320CBR. The reason I said I'd prefer ~256VBR to 320CBR is that 256VBR is more compact and in almost every situation the same quality. Also, for me it wouldn't make sense to say "I don't care about the space used - it's all about SQ". For situations where truly I don't care about space I use FLAC, of course! Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. http://www.last.fm/listen/user/darrenyeats SB3 + Inguz -> Krell KAV-300i (pre bypass) -> PMC AB-1 Dell laptop / Rio Karma -> JVC UX-C30 mini system / Sennheiser PX-100 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=60041 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
