Increase Quality Of Mp3

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Samurai@15 January 2004 - 11:27
CBR Vs VBR
Constant Bit Rate or Variable Bit Rate?? Well, if you want your music to have the very best in quality, I'd choose CBR. If you want your music to sound like 'Mïcrösöül°V³'s', choose VBR. He probably doesn't have a clue what this is either.

---

dumb question, why would you choose a fixed bitrate over variable?
the music changes tempo, has peaks, theres all kinda sh*t going on,
why limit what your music sounds like?
try ripping the scorpions 'still loving you' at, say,
192 kb/s CBR and see if it dont feck up
the only thing that saved it at a CBR was the good frequency conversion
that dbpoweramp's got
with 'professional frequency conversion' off, the song sounded like shite
had to re-rip

not flaming ya or nothin bro, but someone misinformed ya
read paul's guide ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FKDUP74@15 January 2004 - 18:50
read paul's guide ;)

---

*Chris Myden's guide ;)

It is NOT possible!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK let me encode all my stuff to 64 bit rate ;)

just to save space then you guys can dl it off me and improve the quality

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN+16 January 2004 - 07:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FuNkY CaPrIcOrN @ 16 January 2004 - 07:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-99shassan@15 January 2004 - 16:35
As I said before I didn&#39;t know what bitrate it was&#33; Maybe you didn&#39;t understand what I said, if I had known the songs had sucha low bitrate I wouldn&#39;t have downloaded it.

---

;) What Program does not show the Bitrate?Thank God for SoulSeek.


I mean what in the hell?Even shitty Kazaa Lite showed the Bitrate. :lol: [/b][/quote]
and even shitty kazaa reports the bit rate wrong

I was trying to Hunters and collators album kazaa had it as 64 bit rate but I knew something was wrong coz the file was bigger then 128

played it on WMP and it showed up as 518 bit rate

BTW CBR is better then VBR

BTW: CBR is a waste of MegaBytes

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 02:03
BTW: CBR is a waste of MegaBytes

---

what&#39;s a few megs between friends? ;)

it&#39;s only a problem if you don&#39;t have much hdd space or a slow connection, and i&#39;d rather have cbr rips for greater quality than vbr to save a few hundred k per track :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 13:03
BTW: CBR is a waste of MegaBytes

---

but is better quality

and will play on ANY Mp3 player

explain how it is better quality.
it is not.

If you need me to explain it to you, I will.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 02:10
explain how it is better quality.
it is not.

If you need me to explain it to you, I will.

---

you think you&#39;re the don on this issue, so you explain to me how a vbr rip up to 192k is the same quality as a 192k cbr rip, please

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 13:10
explain how it is better quality.
it is not.

---

You think you know everything Sparsely??

You post as if "I KNOW IT all and nothing else is better your all wrong tone"

Volume wise 192 bit is better VBR sounds too flat

Now thats to my ears

there is no right or wrong or better or worse way.

and I&#39;m not going to waste my time here posting anymore comparing apples to oranges its ridiculous

Interesting, i hope we could debate about the Good and Bad
sides of CBR and VBR files...

Atleast, do we agree that 192k is The Bottom Line when ripping?

Cheers:
-GS-

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guitar&#045;Slinger@16 January 2004 - 02:18
Interesting, i hope we could debate about the Good and Bad
sides of CBR and VBR files...

Atleast, do we agree that 192k is The Bottom Line when ripping?

Cheers:
-GS-

---

actually, i love 64k wma if i can find them :-"

:)

WMA? Damn... :lol:

I was thinking maybe make a Poll about this,
like, what Bitrates is Cool.

There wouldnt be WMA there now would it? Or anything under 192k ,
why promote crappy sounding files...

Cheers:
-GS-

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guitar&#045;Slinger@16 January 2004 - 13:25
WMA? Damn... :lol:

I was thinking maybe make a Poll about this,
like, what Bitrates is Cool.

There wouldnt be WMA there now would it? Or anything under 192k ,
why promote crappy sounding files...

Cheers:
-GS-

---

i request that poll be made now&#33;&#33;&#33;

:01: MusicWorld Poll&#33; :01:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Adster+16 January 2004 - 05:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Adster @ 16 January 2004 - 05:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Guitar&#045;Slinger@16 January 2004 - 13:25
WMA?&nbsp; Damn...&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:

I was thinking maybe make a Poll about this,
like, what Bitrates is Cool.

There wouldnt be WMA there now would it? Or anything under 192k ,
why promote crappy sounding files...

Cheers:
-GS-

---

i request that poll be made now&#33;&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
So Be It.

if you thought I was being cocky in my previous post, you misinterpreted it.

but it really is quite simple.
rip a song with the same ripper. encode it with the same encoder, but with one use VBR settings, & use CBR on the other.

if you encode @ 192 CBR you are losing all the audio data that would be present at a higher quality rip (say, 320).
You are also retaining audio data that would go completely unnoticed, thereby taking up more KB & MB to store what you&#39;ll never miss anyway.
This is what I meant by wasted space.

If, on the other hand, you encode @ ~192 VBR, the encoder keeps audio data that is above 192, and discards more of the data you don&#39;t need anyway.
So you get the quality of a 320 or wav rip without the cumbersome file size.

no, I don&#39;t think I know everything.
People certainly have the right to carry as many delusions as they choose.
Just don&#39;t try to pass off that misinformation as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 03:10
if you thought I was being cocky in my previous post, you misinterpreted it.

but it really is quite simple.
rip a song with the same ripper. encode it with the same encoder, but with one use VBR settings, & use CBR on the other.

if you encode @ 192 CBR you are losing all the audio data that would be present at a higher quality rip (say, 320).
You are also retaining audio data that would go completely unnoticed, thereby taking up more KB & MB to store what you&#39;ll never miss anyway.
This is what I meant by wasted space.

If, on the other hand, you encode @ ~192 VBR, the encoder keeps audio data that is above 192, and discards more of the data you don&#39;t need anyway.
So you get the quality of a 320 or wav rip without the cumbersome file size.

no, I don&#39;t think I know everything.
People certainly have the right to carry as many delusions as they choose.
Just don&#39;t try to pass off that misinformation as fact.

---

you must have taken some time to write that and i took the time to read it

doesn&#39;t mean i took anything from it now, does it? :)

the reason i said that you thought you were the don was because you seem to want that last and loudest word when people ask what to rip with

i don&#39;t care what you say, because until i decide to change, i&#39;ll continue to rip at 192 cbr, maybe i&#39;m just &#39;delusional&#39;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 4th gen@15 January 2004 - 23:17
the reason i said that you thought you were the don was because you seem to want that last and loudest word when people ask what to rip with

---

;) You think he is bad.What about Jibbler and his Ripping kit?Its like anything else is no good. :lol:




:P Not to start anything.Keep up the work Jibbler.Just saying. :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparsely@16 January 2004 - 14:10
if you thought I was being cocky in my previous post, you misinterpreted it.

but it really is quite simple.
rip a song with the same ripper. encode it with the same encoder, but with one use VBR settings, & use CBR on the other.

if you encode @ 192 CBR you are losing all the audio data that would be present at a higher quality rip (say, 320).
You are also retaining audio data that would go completely unnoticed, thereby taking up more KB & MB to store what you&#39;ll never miss anyway.
This is what I meant by wasted space.

If, on the other hand, you encode @ ~192 VBR, the encoder keeps audio data that is above 192, and discards more of the data you don&#39;t need anyway.
So you get the quality of a 320 or wav rip without the cumbersome file size.

no, I don&#39;t think I know everything.
People certainly have the right to carry as many delusions as they choose.
Just don&#39;t try to pass off that misinformation as fact.

---

sorry I apologies about my comment

that might explain why when i rip my bands stuff which is pretty shit quality bad recordings at VBR it is small file because the volume is crap and with CBR I get a big file to do with the time

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FKDUP74+15 January 2004 - 23:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FKDUP74 @ 15 January 2004 - 23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Samurai@15 January 2004 - 11:27
CBR Vs VBR
Constant Bit Rate or Variable Bit Rate?? Well, if you want your music to have the very best in quality, I&#39;d choose CBR. If you want your music to sound like &#39;Mïcrösöül°V³&#39;s&#39;, choose VBR. He probably doesn&#39;t have a clue what this is either.

---

dumb question, why would you choose a fixed bitrate over variable?
the music changes tempo, has peaks, theres all kinda sh*t going on,
why limit what your music sounds like?
try ripping the scorpions &#39;still loving you&#39; at, say,
192 kb/s CBR and see if it dont feck up
the only thing that saved it at a CBR was the good frequency conversion
that dbpoweramp&#39;s got
with &#39;professional frequency conversion&#39; off, the song sounded like shite
had to re-rip

not flaming ya or nothin bro, but someone misinformed ya
read paul&#39;s guide ;) [/b][/quote]
Just thought I&#39;d let you know that when I played a VBR mp3 I downloaded, the &#39;bits you can&#39;t hear&#39; (like so many people have ranted about) are the pauses and areas in songs where there is no music. You can hear &#39;squelching&#39; and all sorts and you can physically tell when the mp3 is using a higher bitrate in some parts of the song than in others.

I don&#39;t pretend to know the be all and end all of mp3&#39;s, but I do hear quality when I hear it. If you ever turn your speakers up during a VBR test you&#39;ll see what I&#39;m talking about.

Besides, why must a VBR mp3 have cause to higher the bitrate and lower it at certain points during the song? I would pretty much like my music to continually sound like it was meant to be, not altered.

what you are describing is a rip/encode that someone highly fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Samurai@15 January 2004 - 21:37
I would pretty much like my music to continually sound like it was meant to be, not altered.

---

thats the whole point of VBR and ABR
again, read paul&#39;s post

i&#39;ll even give ya the link
http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=22763

i cant be arsed to explain something to someone who&#39;s already made up their mind