# 320kbps VBR vs 320kbps CBR MP3's?



## Raikoh

Which is best? I've tried researching for a good while, but I could only find very mixed responses.

 I understand VBR would be better as a means to save HD space, but would VBR not generally produce more dynamic sound as opposed CBR?

 I've listened to several songs in both formats but I would also like to have some opinions from others.

 Also, as a side question, what is the easiest way to use LAME? It seems a bit complicated, but I am also a complete newbie so please don't be too harsh on me.

 Thanks!


----------



## anetode

CBR is that tiny bit better.

 The easiest way to use lame is with a front end like Exact Audio Copy. If you're using a command line interface, try the "--preset fast extreme" setting.


----------



## Necrolic

So according to that graph there are .mp3 files that take up 85MB of space?


----------



## TheRH

I think the graph is showing the progress after each song had been added to the previous.


----------



## fenixdown110

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f15/lo...-p-7-a-225356/


----------



## userlander

I actually think VBR sounds better than CBR. I'll even take a 256 VBR over a 320 CBR.


----------



## Raikoh

Does Exact Audio Copy only work with CD's? I have some FLAC files on my HD I would like to convert to 320kbps MP3's through LAME.


----------



## TheRH

Yes FLAC works with only cd's. I made a post not to long ago that will do exactly what you need. As long as you are on a Windows machine you need to look at this thread. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/fl...ps-mp3-460331/

 This should help you out.


----------



## krmathis

I would assume CBR to give the highest sound quality, since it does not drop below 320kbps anywhere. While VBR does, and hence may risk being less transparent.
 As for using LAME, I recommend iyts native interface. The command line (Terminal) one..


----------



## JaZZ

320 kbps is the highest rate (the lowest degree of compression) possible with MP3. So 320 kbps CBR offers the best sound quality. 320 kbps VBR doesn't exist (due to the limitation to 320 kbps), so the highest average VBR bitrates available are about 290 kbps and the like (from what I experienced myself with single tracks with LAME set to -V0). Usually the highest VBR quality (said LAME -V0 setting) results in bitrates around 250 kbps. -V0 sounds better than 256 kbps CBR.

 The sweet spot when it comes to the space/quality ratio is around -V3. -V2 is commonly considered «transparent» (= indistinguishable from uncompressed) for >95% of the people.

 A very convenient and transparent front-end for the use of LAME is RazorLame.
.


----------



## userlander

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would assume CBR to give the highest sound quality, since it does not drop below 320kbps anywhere. While VBR does, and hence may risk being less transparent.
 As for using LAME, I recommend iyts native interface. The command line (Terminal) one.._

 

Actually VBR is shown to give higher sound quality, and at lower file size. Someone posted a really good link recently that I'm trying to find, with graphs comparing all kinds of different encodings. From doing my own listening tests, I had found that I was consistently picking the high bitrate VBR over the CBR, and when I read that article it really sealed it for me. Don't always assume that more bits necessarily = better quality. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





 P.S. another thing to add to the mix is that .ogg is more efficient than mp3 and gives superior sound quality at every comparable bitrate. So you might want to consider encoding to ogg instead, if your player can handle it (I think most can by now). Ogg vorbis is really state of the art, it's too bad that most people just automatically default to mp3. Ogg is also an open source format, so it's superior just on the basis of that fact, imo, all other things being equal .
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 wiki:
Vorbis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 vorbis:
Vorbis.com


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *userlander* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually VBR is shown to give higher sound quality, and at lower file size._

 

That's certainly true, but nothing is better than 320 kbps CBR – by nature, as it's the lowest compression possible all of the time.

  Quote:


 _P.S. another thing to add to the mix is that .ogg is more efficient than mp3 and gives superior sound quality at every comparable bitrate. So you might want to consider encoding to ogg instead, if your player can handle it (I think most can by now). Ogg vorbis is really state of the art, it's too bad that most people just automatically default to mp3._ 
 

That may be true, but the risk of one time owning a Vorbis-incompatible player and having to re-encode the whole music collection makes up for the 20-25% lower file size for the same sound quality. Moreover, MP3 is much less processor demanding, thus easier on the battery.

 And isn't MP3 an open-source format, too (as LAME shows with its constant improvements)?
.


----------



## userlander

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's certainly true, but nothing is better than 320 kbps CBR – by nature, as it's the lowest compression possible all of the time.

 That may be true, but the risk of one time owning a Vorbis-incompatible player and having to re-encode the whole music collection makes up for the 20-25% lower file size for the same sound quality. Moreover, MP3 is much less processor demanding, thus easier on the battery.

 And isn't MP3 an open-source format, too (as LAME shows with its constant improvements)?
._

 

LAME is free, but is mp3? I thought it was a case of lame being free, but mp3 itself, as the format, still being patented/proprietary? I can't say I know the actual legalities currently, and it's also more just a philosophical point right now than practical one. I just thought I'd mention it as something to consider (plus I'm hoping more people will give ogg a try, because for me at least I think it does sound better). 

 I hear what you're saying about 320kbps, but we have to admit even that's not perfect. So it's possible there could be more artifact generated in parts where it's high bitrate and doesn't need to be, etc. I guess that's just speculative, but I often wonder. Suffice to say that at the same bitrate, VBR will obviously be better sound quality, I think we're all in agreement on that. 

 But looked at from a logical perspective, the purpose of compression is to get the best ratio of SQ to file size. 320 CBR clearly doesn't do that - it has a much lower size to sq ratio and therefore defeats the purpose. So from a logical point of view, a high bitrate VBR is actually a superior compression strategy, imo, because it has the highest SQ to size ratio, with the SQ arguably being indistinguishable from 320CBR. So if you're going to lose out on the full benefits of compression by going 320, perhaps you might as well just leave it lossless.


----------



## JaZZ

I agree: high-bitrate VBR such as LAME -V0 makes more sense than 320 kbps CBR (at least in most cases).
.


----------



## AtomikPi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *userlander* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LAME is free, but is mp3? I thought it was a case of lame being free, but mp3 itself, as the format, still being patented/proprietary?lossless._

 

MP3 is copyrighted but not restricted in use. 

 See MP3

 WRT OP, jazz's post captures all of what I would have said.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *userlander* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually VBR is shown to give higher sound quality, and at lower file size. Someone posted a really good link recently that I'm trying to find, with graphs comparing all kinds of different encodings. From doing my own listening tests, I had found that I was consistently picking the high bitrate VBR over the CBR, and when I read that article it really sealed it for me. Don't always assume that more bits necessarily = better quality. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

For bitrates lower than 320kbps that makes sense, ex. 256kbps. Since then CBR will be fixed at 256kbps, while VBR may go all the way up to 320kbps if needed.
 But for 320kbps it can not go any higher, just lower. Hence CBR always have the maximum bits, while VBR may not.

 But, what do I know...


----------



## userlander

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For bitrates lower than 320kbps that makes sense, ex. 256kbps. Since then CBR will be fixed at 256kbps, while VBR may go all the way up to 320kbps if needed.
 But for 320kbps it can not go any higher, just lower. Hence CBR always have the maximum bits, while VBR may not.

 But, what do I know... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No, that's all true, of course. I am merely questioning whether that automatically means that 320CBR is going to sound better. It's not better compression, at least, if by better we mean the best SQ to size ratio.


----------



## eruditass

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *userlander* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually think VBR sounds better than CBR. I'll even take a 256 VBR over a 320 CBR._

 

Same here - but because VBR generally requires a good LAME encoder, instead of some crappy old encoder that could have been used to do 320 CBR. Since it can't go above 320 anyway, the encoder matters.


----------



## Pageygeeza

I've noticed on Exact Audio Copy that Lame defaults to VBR Joint Stereo. I know It's saving a few bytes, but is it seriously affecting audio quality?


----------



## userlander

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pageygeeza* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've noticed on Exact Audio Copy that Lame defaults to VBR Joint Stereo. I know It's saving a few bytes, but is it seriously affecting audio quality?_

 

 Quote:


  (j)oint stereo
 In this mode, the encoder will make use of a correlation between both channels.
 The signal will be matrixed into a sum ("mid"), computed by L+R, and difference
 ("side") signal, computed by L-R, and more bits are allocated to the mid chan‐
 nel. This will effectively increase the bandwidth if the signal does not have
 too much stereo separation, thus giving a significant gain in encoding quality.
 
 


 ...


----------



## UNHchabo

From the Lame documentation:

  Quote:


 JOINT STEREO is the default mode for stereo files with fixed bitrates of 128 kbps or less. At higher fixed bitrates, the default is stereo.
 For VBR encoding, jstereo is the default for VBR_q >4, and stereo
 is the default for VBR_q <=4. You can override all of these defaults
 by specifing the mode on the command line. 

 jstereo means the encoder can use (on a frame by frame bases) either
 regular stereo (just encode left and right channels independently)
 or mid/side stereo. In mid/side stereo, the mid (L+R) and side (L-R)
 channels are encoded, and more bits are allocated to the mid channel
 than the side channel. This will effectively increase the bandwidth
 if the signal does not have too much stereo separation. 

 Mid/side stereo is basically a trick to increase bandwidth. At 128 kbps,
 it is clearly worth while. At higher bitrates it is less useful.

 FORCED MID/SIDE STEREO forces all frames to be encoded mid/side stereo. It 
 should only be used if you are sure every frame of the input file
 has very little stereo seperation. 
 

Long story short -- you shouldn't need to specify the stereo mode on the command-line; Lame will take care of that for you to give you the best average combination of quality and file size.


----------



## Raikoh

So, I downloaded RazorLame and it seems rather simple, however when I try to encode, it says it cannot find "Lame.EXE", I've downloaded the file "lame-398-2.tar.gz" from Browse LAME (Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder) Files on SourceForge.net

 However, I could not find an EXE file at all amongst the files included on the folder. Am I missing something or did I downloaded the wrong file?

 I apologize for the dumb questions, I've only recently discovered the joys of listening to high-quality music as a general means, therefore I don't know too much so far.

 Thanks!


----------



## TheRH

I would try using EAC for encoding. Here is an excelent tutorial in setting it up. Exact Audio Copy Guide Once you have that set you are good to go.


----------



## EddieE

I have to agree with the view that LAME VBR sounds better than 320kbps CBR. I can't explain that with any tech talk, it's just my subjective feeling.

 I had a collection of 100% CBR 320kbps before I found LAME. Now I'm re-ripping my CDs into LAME and find it sounds better. So much so that I cannot tell the difference between MP3s and WAV/Flac files now, whereas with the 320kbps CBR I felt I could detect a slight difference. Also when I'm done I'm going to be able to fit a LOT more music on my dap than before 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Placebo? Possibly, but that's how I feel about it.


----------



## fenixdown110

I can tell the difference between 320 mp3 and FLAC on my setup, but I really have to strain to do so. If I'm just enjoying the music, I can't tell the difference at all.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EddieE* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to agree with the view that LAME VBR sounds better than 320kbps CBR. I can't explain that with any tech talk, it's just my subjective feeling.

 I had a collection of 100% CBR 320kbps before I found LAME. Now I'm re-ripping my CDs into LAME and find it sounds better._

 

Could it be that you were comparing LAME with non-LAME?
.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Raikoh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, I downloaded RazorLame and it seems rather simple, however when I try to encode, it says it cannot find "Lame.EXE", I've downloaded the file "lame-398-2.tar.gz" from Browse LAME (Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder) Files on SourceForge.net

 However, I could not find an EXE file at all amongst the files included on the folder. Am I missing something or did I downloaded the wrong file?_

 

Yes, you've downloaded the wrong file. Here's the .exe you need. (I would take version 3.98.2 on top.)
.


----------



## EddieE

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Could it be that you were comparing LAME with non-LAME?
._

 

Not sure how you mean. Before I was listening to wmp ripped 320kbps and sometimes on some tracks I felt I could tell a difference between lossless or a cd and it.

 Now I'm using Eac ripped lame vbr and i've done a few tests and am yet to spot a difference in any way. I guess eac could have as much to do with it as lame...


----------



## UNHchabo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Raikoh* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, I downloaded RazorLame and it seems rather simple, however when I try to encode, it says it cannot find "Lame.EXE", I've downloaded the file "lame-398-2.tar.gz" from Browse LAME (Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder) Files on SourceForge.net

 However, I could not find an EXE file at all amongst the files included on the folder. Am I missing something or did I downloaded the wrong file?_

 

What you've downloaded is the LAME source code. If the code is compiled, you will get an executable.

 JaZZ gave a URL that will work, but pretty much the canonical place to get encoder binaries is Rarewares:
RareWares
 The guy who runs Rarewares knows how to compile encoders to run their best.

  Quote:


 I have to agree with the view that LAME VBR sounds better than 320kbps CBR. I can't explain that with any tech talk, it's just my subjective feeling. 
 

I agree with JaZZ on this one; if you're comparing non-Lame 320CBR against Lame VBR, it's no contest -- Lame will almost always win. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 However, using the same algorithm, Lame's 320CBR will beat Lame's VBR, because Lame _cannot_ use more than 320kbps for any packet in VBR mode, so there's inherently less information. It's impossible to get a better reproduction with the same algorithm with fewer bits.


----------



## EddieE

UNHchabo,
 Ah, I get what JaZZ was saying now, thanks for the clarification.

 I'll have a go ripping 320 LAME CBR and LAME VBR with EAC and do some listening tests.

 EDIT: But could I forward speculatively, that LAME VBR could of course decide to encode every part of the file at 320kbps - 320kbps is available there for it to use. The reason that it decides to encode so much of the file at less than 320kbps, ending in a smaller file size, is that it deems it can meet the criteria of transparency without it?

 If that is the case, why would there be any audible difference?

 Anyway, just an idea, I will do a test with the ears rather than logic soon.


----------



## Raikoh

Thanks for all the help provided so far, you guys are very helpful 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 So, am I to understand that Exact Audio Copy would be one of the best methods for encoding from CD's, whereas Razorlame would be one of the best for just for other files in your hard drive?

 Also, it should be possible to encode a 320kbps CBR into an VBR, right? If so, I must be doing something wrong, since I am attempting to encode a file to VBR through razorlame and it does not appear to work, despite having set the options to do so.

 My lame options are: -b 320 -m j -V 0 -B 320


----------



## jewman

Do not transcode a 320kbps CBR file into a VBR file. Though it is indeed possible, transcoding from one lossy format to another leads to a degradation of audio quality and the possibility of artifacts appearing in the audio. If you want to use VBR instead of CBR, go ahead and re-rip the audio from the CD so as not to lose any quality. Hope this helps!


----------



## EddieE

Hi hope all had a great Christmas 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I want to do the test I mentioned above but am having trouble finding an online entry for the 320 cbr lame command line that is recent (i.e. posted this year), so am not sure the ones I have found are right.

 Could some one do me a favour and post up the correct current command line for cbr 320 lame so I can get this test running please?

 Many thanks


----------



## userlander

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *EddieE* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi hope all had a great Christmas 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I want to do the test I mentioned above but am having trouble finding an online entry for the 320 cbr lame command line that is recent (i.e. posted this year), so am not sure the ones I have found are right.

 Could some one do me a favour and post up the correct current command line for cbr 320 lame so I can get this test running please?

 Many thanks 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

It can be something as simple as: 

  Code:


```
[left]lame -b 320 <input-file.wav> <output-song.mp3>[/left]
```

here are the man pages listing other options: 
lame(1): create mp3 audio files - Linux man page


----------

