Is VBR better? It seems like most users still use CBR.

Is there any way to shut off the chaning bit rate number on Winamp and
have it just display the average.

I'm thinking about changing to VBR.

Tim923 <4-club-juggler@verizon.net> wrote:

That simply depends on what your needs are. I would suggest
flexibility; some sources can't make more than 128 Kbps CBR worthwhile
(prerecorded cassettes, for example, would be hard pressed to make
even 160 worthwhile), while others don't quite get captured by less
than 256 CBR. Those latter ones are where I really begin to see the
potential value of VBR. A LAME 3.92 alt-preset extreme file can sound
unbelievable, and be significantly smaller than a full-on 320 CBR.

Menu:Options:Preferences...:Plug-ins:Input:Nullsoft MPEG Audio
Decoder, press Configure. Go to the Decoder tab, and check "Show
average bit rate on VBR files".

--
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:
Even 128K is a bit of a stretch for cassettes.

Mike Papa III wrote:

No MP3 is perfect.

I wholeheartedly disagree. APS is for those who think they need more
than 160 Kbps for mediocre recordings (since we're generalizing), and
APE is for *recordings* which will sound better *to those* whose ears
are more discriminating than Microsoft's WMA test subjects.

Internet mantras are a dime a dozen. I'm sure you're well aware of
how the absm.d crackfiends see this: Large files take up more server
space, thus you can't hear the difference between 128/160 files and
large files. Great logic those guys have.

99.9-percent transparent on all recordings? I smell dishonesty.

"Negligible improvement" is quite the generalization.

And still not perfect.

--
Joel Crump

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:10:11 -0400, Joel <joelc999@hotmail.com> wrote:

Exactly.

Uh...did you read my entire post? I said this is a quote from the
developer of the alt-preset settings...he should know. You are
disagreeing with the developer of the setting. These 2 points that I
gave are from direct quotes made by the developer and that I wished to
highlight. He is the one that developed APE and he stated the reason
for developing the APE setting which, again I say, I quoted.

Yeah, yeah. The "mantra" is from the APE developer...did you miss that
part of my post where I said that?

C'mon, do you know what you are talking about? These are direct quotes
from the guy who wrote the LAME --alt-preset encoder. Check out
hydrogenaudio.org where the LAME developers hang out. It aint'
dishonesty you smell.

Exactly...again.


NOTE: I will be going away for the next several days. I probably will
not be able to respond further until sometime next week. CYA.

Hey, do you mind posting a link to the thread where you got these quotes?
I'm interested to read it but couldn't find it.

Thanks,
Ric


<Mike Papa III> wrote in message
news:ld0qkvkrnfguc6v675mtkh636bg9sm5vcd@4ax.com...

"Ric" <ricnews@hotmail.com> wrote in news:HaV5b.66448$PD3.4688148
@nnrp1.uunet.ca:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.p...0&&#entry31251

--
fred

Joel <joelc999@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a9cfkvorr2vta4dapstfj0knrpursk16fr@4ax.com>. ..
To add to what you are saying at times even a 128kbps mp3 is better
quality than a 320kbps mp3. Some mp3s have such shocking qualities
that you have to check what an mp3 sounds like before you download
much of it. I hate watery sounding mp3s and quiet ones etc. On my
stereo when I press the Karaoke function it blocks out most lead vocal
and this is generally when you get to hear how bad quality some mp3s
are when there aren't such loud sounds to block the wateryness or
scratchiness of mp3s. Isn't there one good free cd ripper that can
universally be used to avaoid such bad quality?

In a previous post, Ben said...

While you are certainly right in saying that some mp3s that are
"advertised" as high quality files are certainly less than that, you also
should be aware that there is no reliable way to remove the vocals from a
mixed recording. The method your stereo is using is likely just to
remove the center signal using something similar to the phase reversing
that you would do with a wave editor to achieve the same thing. This
process itself is notorious for introducing artifacts (such as reverb),
making it a very unreliable method to be using to check the sound quality
of mp3s.
--
CQ

CQ <me@privacy.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19c239e56abdeb599898b7@news.cis.dfn.de>. ..
That may be true, but it never happens with CDs and even before
removing the vocals if you listen carefully there is a slight watery
sound to it. That's the thing, it is hard to hear which mp3s are
watery because on certain eqipment it may sound more watery like
perhaps when you use headphones or if you are exactly between well
aligned speakers.

On 5 Sep 2003 02:56:46 -0700, imnotscurrilous@yahoo.com.au (Ben)
wrote:

As an aside, what has always surprised me are some of the audio books
that show up as being 64 bitrate (and even a couple at 32) yet sound
fantastic and better than some I've dl at 192 and up. There is I've
always wondered how this was possible (?).

"Logan263" <IHateSpam@SpamBad.com> wrote in message
news:i3pllvcjaort8agfa3j5qfna2rknqdrq20@4ax.com...
They must be encoded as mono (the actual bitrate is 128 then) and probably
use a lowpass filter set very low so there's less chance for artifacts.
Speech sounds good enough in 50Hz-8000Hz spectrum.