dumb question, why would you choose a fixed bitrate over variable?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'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.
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 [/b][/quote]
Just thought I'd let you know that when I played a VBR mp3 I downloaded, the 'bits you can't hear' (like so many people have ranted about) are the pauses and areas in songs where there is no music. You can hear 'squelching' 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't pretend to know the be all and end all of mp3's, but I do hear quality when I hear it. If you ever turn your speakers up during a VBR test you'll see what I'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.
Bookmarks