Increase Quality Of Mp3

[Afronaut]

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-

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Guitar-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 :-"

[Afronaut]

WMA? Damn...

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-

[Adster]

Originally posted by Guitar-Slinger@16 January 2004 - 13:25
WMA? Damn...

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!!!

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

MusicWorld Poll!

[Afronaut]

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;

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.

[sparsely]

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.

[4th gen]

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;

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

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.




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

[Adster]

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