Variable Bit Rate: Getting the Best Bang for Your Byte

blog
62

Cool. I was wondering what the VBR codec meant. Now I know how good it is. I actually was going to do loseless, but settled for VBR because its highest ripping bit rate was between 240 and 355, higher than 192, lower than about 400, and not MP3 (I like to stick to WMA). This article gave even nore reason to use VBR. Its interesting how that works.

63

Okay, so we’re up to iTunes 8.2. The ripping options in iTunes are plentiful. Plus, iTunes wins in convenience b/c it is an all-in-one music management app; as it handles ripping and provides ‘library content management’. (as apposed to ripping with one program and manually adding it to your music app of choice). …oh, and you need iTunes to run your iPod…

That being said, I would give up the convenience of ripping with iTunes for better audio quality. So…

  1. Anyone know how iTunes stacks up against EAC (ExactAudioCopy) as a ripping tool?
  2. Does iTunes use the LAME encoding engine?
  3. Has Apple/iTunes addressed the problems it once had with VBR files?

Thanks.

64

I converted lossless .flac files to both the highest quality VBR .ogg and then the 128 nominal VBR .ogg and could not tell the difference from the FLAC version. Usually I can hear and ID a 128kbps .mp3 as soon as I hear the muddy highs, but with the .ogg VBR I was very impressed. Took it from a 60MB .flac to a 7 MB .ogg

65

One problem with VBR is not all car stereos will play VBR. And I had the same problem with my BOSE system at home. It can plan CBR coded MP3’s, but not VBR. So it means I only play music from my IPOD connected to my stereo, vs. having the ability to just throw in a MP3 CD with a 150 songs on it.

66

Hi,

For the best bitrate, 256Kbps is better, to have a Hi-Fi quality. See the next link “http://www.mp3-tech.org/” and select “audio tests”.

As far as using VBR, I do beleive that it will add more quality to the sound.
Using EAC, I’m trying it now, but the downside, it’s the settings are command line and not GUI, which for the basic user, would be better.

Gonçalo

67

Doesn’t 160kbps filter all content above 16khz (or thereabouts)? Whilst FLAC, 320MP3 etc goes up to 22khz+. I wouldn’t want to lose that ‘air’ out of the tracks, although I think it isn’t really audible by most of us.