Hello Mark,
Monday, July 10, 2000, 6:21:20 PM, you wrote:
MT> The thing I worry about with VBR is the following:
MT> A VBR with an average bitrate of 180kbs may sound as
MT> good as a 200kbs CBR 99% of the time. But 1% of the time
MT> the psycho acoustics could screw up and use 128kbs
MT> when it needed 180kbs. So 1% of the file might only be
MT> as good as a 128kbs encoding. So which is better:
MT> 1: average bitrate 180kbs which sounds like 200kbs 99% of the time
MT> and 128kbs 1% of the time.
As noted in the other post, I, and many with me have very little to
complain about in with the <=3.85 vbr_rh mode... Cannot find any
glitches since 3.83, encoded a few hundreth albums and counting...
MT> 2. CBR 180kbs which sounds like 180kbs 100% of the time
On my HQ headphones I pick out many 192 mp3's. There are _a LOT_ more
instances where 192 isn't enough and the -V1 picks out a good higher
bitrate frame than an instance where VBR screws up. (vbr_mt that is)
A few months ago a 192 was somewhat considered perfect for me, but
when I upgraded hardware, it was not so hard to find flaws. If you
want the best possible mp3's, just take 256cbr or 320. proven
statistically to be of the same Q as original material. (ti: you can
distinguish some test sounds, but 256 does not sound bad, as being the
exception).
VBR 256kbit/s average VS 256kbit/s cbr is another story. The chance of
psy messing up in VBR is now much bigger than 256cbr being
insufficient.
MT> ???
I think it makes sense :)
--
Best regards,
Roel mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
