# Question about VBR vs. 320kbps



## robenco18

Hi,

 I know what VBR is but when I have a choice between a file that is encoded at 320kbps or say 217kbps VBR which one is better? Is VBR always better or is 193kbps VBR not as good as 320kbps but 217kbps VBR is better than 320kbps. It isn't as clear cut for me as 320kbps vs. 256kbps is obviously. Should it be? Thank you.


----------



## fjf

Short answer...try them and choose. If you can hear a difference, go for the better. Most likely you wont.


----------



## royalcrown

Well, 320kbps in theory will always be better than VBR 0. It's wasteful, and every single second of your track will be at 320kbps, regardless of whether it's needed or not. In practice, VBR is simply more efficient, and the resulting file is completely transparent. Then again, as is said, just try both and see if you can ABX them (foobar has a handy ABX tester built in). I'd be very surprised if you could actually pass the test, because AFAIK LAME VBR 0 is transparent.


----------



## krmathis

Depends what you look for, in the meaning of "better".
 * Sound quality -> Then a 320kbps CBR file will most probably be "better" than a 217kbps VBR one.
 * File size (for portable use) -> Then a 217kbps will probably be "better", as it have almost the same sound on just 2/3 the file size.


----------



## Rempert

These mp3 encoders will not use more than 320 kb/s for any portion of time regardless of settings, so a 320 CBR is indeed the maximum quality you can get. That doesn't mean it's a particularly wise choice. Chances are that 320 kb/s would have the same artifacts that -V0 would (in the case that you can hear any artifacts in -V0). Where space is an issue, the VBR setting would probably make a lot more sense, and when space is not much of an issue one should be considering lossless options.


----------



## majkel

How many times... people who claim VBR saves "unused" bits which appear in 320kb/s mp3 CBR:
 1) listen carefully on a decent equipment
 2) find out what is "bit resorvoir" and how it works
 3) try to extract "unnecessary" bits from the 320kb/s mp3 file, I forgot the name of the executable which does that trick. In 320kb/s, especially FhG it finds no spare bits. 
 -V0 doesn't even reach the 256kb/s quality level - just because of the fact of lower bitrate. Don't believe in miracles that less bits will sound better.


----------



## psyllium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How many times... people who claim VBR saves "unused" bits which appear in 320kb/s mp3 CBR:
 1) listen carefully on a decent equipment
 2) find out what is "bit resorvoir" and how it works
 3) try to extract "unnecessary" bits from the 320kb/s mp3 file, I forgot the name of the executable which does that trick. In 320kb/s, especially FhG it finds no spare bits. 
 -V0 doesn't even reach the 256kb/s quality level - just because of the fact of lower bitrate. Don't believe in miracles that less bits will sound better._

 

That program you are talking about is mp3packer (or WinMP3Packer is my GUI wrapped around it).

 And yes, a file at 320kbps converted to VBR by removing unused data will usually bigger than a -V0 VBR file.. which means the original VBR file had some sort of loss.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_3) try to extract "unnecessary" bits from the 320kb/s mp3 file, I forgot the name of the executable which does that trick. In 320kb/s, especially FhG it finds no spare bits._

 

Not unused, no, but useful? Depends on the listener. If you can't hear them, it's pointless to keep them. -V0 gives the encoder a chance to discard more where it believes it can, but whether it works out depends on the accuracy of that decision.

 The way CBR works (roughly), the encoder iteratively picks frequency bands to make less accurate, then checks with the psy model to see if it's done any audible damage to the sound yet. It stops when it finds an acceptable result at the bitrate you asked for (or picks the best it can do if it can't get it perfect -- no miracles at 128kbps!). If you ask for 320bkps, it will use every bit of it, without even considering the possibility it could have used less.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_-V0 doesn't even reach the 256kb/s quality level - just because of the fact of lower bitrate. Don't believe in miracles that less bits will sound better._

 

It's around 700kbps. If I had to pick doing that or using 128kbps mp3 for my music, I'd pick the mp3. Efficiency, and not just raw bitrate, matters.

 Yes, thanks to the bit reservoir, 256kbps mp3 can effectively reach 320kbps... for a very short time, until the reservoir is depleted. It has a very small fixed maximum size. -V0 is free to encode every frame at 320kbps if it feels the need. I've seen it average well above 256kbps.

 Then again, if you don't trust the VBR mode, 320kbps CBR should never sound worse. The worst risk is a potential waste of space.


----------



## psyllium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LnxPrgr3* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not unused, no, but useful? Depends on the listener. If you can't hear them, it's pointless to keep them. -V0 gives the encoder a chance to discard more where it believes it can, but whether it works out depends on the accuracy of that decision._

 

Have a look at this page MP3packer - TMB Wiki

 There *can* be wasted space that can be removed in a completely lossless fashion from a 320kbps CBR file. But as LAME is progressing, less and less wasted space is appearing in the 320kbps files.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_-V0 doesn't even reach the 256kb/s quality level - just because of the fact of lower bitrate._

 

LAME almost invariably uses a substantial number of 320kbps frames when it encodes at -V0.


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_LAME almost invariably uses a substantial number of 320kbps frames when it encodes at -V0._

 

This means nothing. 320kb/s frames appear even in the 128kb/s CBR mode, at least the FhG encoder uses them occasionaly. The higher the bitrate, the more offen it happens.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

-V0 vs. -b320






 Hearing a difference between -V0 and -b320 isn't unheard of -- for people listening for artifacts in problem samples. If -V0 were universally transparent for all sounds anyone would ever want to encode, on all equipment, to all people, LAME developers probably wouldn't be toiling with public listening tests and years of tuning between versions.

 Given that, not everyone will necessarily hear the same differences. People who hear artifacts in problem samples at -V0 can probably still use that setting for most of their music (unless they only listen to known problem samples).

 All in all, the only way to be able to say what the differences between setting is to you, as many have said, is to try it out!


----------



## koto-in

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *robenco18* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi,

 I know what VBR is but when I have a choice between a file that is encoded at 320kbps or say 217kbps VBR which one is better? Is VBR always better or is 193kbps VBR not as good as 320kbps but 217kbps VBR is better than 320kbps. It isn't as clear cut for me as 320kbps vs. 256kbps is obviously. Should it be? Thank you._

 

VBR is simply more efficient at minimizing file size relative to a specific level of sound quality. The real question is to determine where your threshold of transparency lies. Beyond that, you will achieve no gains in sound quality but a substantial increase in the size of your files. The only reason to use lossy encoding is to save space and to achieve the _maximum_ sound quality relative to the _maximum_ space savings, use _--preset standard_ or _-V 2_. If you find that the sound quality at this setting is lacking, you can increase stepwise, _-V 1_ or _-V 0_, toward the _maximum_ sound quality relative to the _minimum_ space savings, i.e _--preset insane_ or _-b 320_ until you find your sweet spot.


----------



## majkel

This graphs are pure speculation. What do the quality steps mean? Between the -v2 and -v0 is a slight difference due to more aggressive low-pass filter, and it's audible in the treble region when you compare. However, when switching from -V0 to 320kb/s there is a substantial difference in the midrange distortion level and timbre completeness. Unfortunately, most of the budgetary audio equipment and DAPs doesn't even reach the quality level of 256kb/s CBR or -V0, and that's why people don't hear the difference. So, for me this graph is crap, because there is a meaningful difference for me between the 320kb/s CBR and everything below which has incomplete tonality.


----------



## koto-in

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This graphs are pure speculation. What do the quality steps mean? Between the -v2 and -v0 is a slight difference due to more aggressive low-pass filter, and it's audible in the treble region when you compare. However, when switching from -V0 to 320kb/s there is a substantial difference in the midrange distortion level and timbre completeness. Unfortunately, most of the budgetary audio equipment and DAPs doesn't even reach the quality level of 256kb/s CBR or -V0, and that's why people don't hear the difference. So, for me this graph is crap, because there is a meaningful difference for me between the 320kb/s CBR and everything below which has incomplete tonality._

 

Sounds like you found your sweet spot.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This graphs are pure speculation. What do the quality steps mean? Between the -v2 and -v0 is a slight difference due to more aggressive low-pass filter, and it's audible in the treble region when you compare. However, when switching from -V0 to 320kb/s there is a substantial difference in the midrange distortion level and timbre completeness. Unfortunately, most of the budgetary audio equipment and DAPs doesn't even reach the quality level of 256kb/s CBR or -V0, and that's why people don't hear the difference. So, for me this graph is crap, because there is a meaningful difference for me between the 320kb/s CBR and everything below which has incomplete tonality._

 

You have said (in another thread, I believe) that the PX100 is more than good enough to pick out the difference you speak of, so long as it is hooked to a decent DAP.

 Now, I must ask -- which contributes more distortion and coloring to the sound -- the average DAP or the PX100?


----------



## majkel

The average DAP. The PX100's will let you hear the timbral difference. The HD25-1's will make it even better. The ones you can safely use are: iRiver iHP100/H300 series, ifp 700/800/900 series, E10, *clix2*, Rio Karma, Teclast T39 AKA Vedia V39, RAmos RM850, RAmos V80. Can't comment on others, not recommended: iRiver's T series, Meizu M6 SP.


----------



## Nocturnal310

I ve been trying out VBR these days...not bad.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LnxPrgr3* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Now, I must ask -- which contributes more distortion and coloring to the sound -- the average DAP or the PX100?_

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The average DAP._

 

That is something of a generalization, for intsance my PX100s have THD of < 0.1% and my Creative Zen ( an entirely average DAP) also has distortion level of < 0.1%. Furthermore a DAP is more likely to have a reasonably flat FR unlike headphones, for instance here are the graphs for two budget headphones I just happen to own







 Here by contrast is the FR curve for the Creative Zen Micro, I could not find a graph for my Xtra







 Which one of thse diverts more from neutral ?


----------



## 1UP

Yada, yada, yada, use the ABX comparator component in foobar against two tracks and see if you can tell the difference reliably with your equipment!


----------



## koto-in

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *1UP* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yada, yada, yada, use the ABX comparator component in foobar against two tracks and see if you can tell the difference reliably with your equipment!_

 

That includes your ears!


----------



## Chri5peed

This thread has a lot of boglocks in it.

 I'm afraid if you even mention fhg in a good light you are a moron.



 Someone doesn't have a clue what VBR is or does.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This graphs are pure speculation. What do the quality steps mean? Between the -v2 and -v0 is a slight difference due to more aggressive low-pass filter, and it's audible in the treble region when you compare. _

 

It is highly unlikely that the difference in the low pass filter itself makes any material difference. Way back in the 1970s the AES were testing the audibility of low pass filters. For one interesting paper[1] a set of subjects listened to very high frequency capable speakers, a set of music samples with substantial quantities of 20K+ sounds which then had various filters applied to them. Only when the filter was set at 14K was there a reliable difference noted, filters at 20K , 18K and 16K did not reliably degrade the sound, a 16k filter was beginning to get close but was far from reliably detected. No MP3 scheme of moderate quality has a low pass filter that low.

 It is unlikely that differences between V0 and V2 can be attributed to this. 

 I did some listening tests myself using a set of different filters. With filters set to anything above 13K the effect was not audible.

 V 0 lowpass filter recc setting ~ 19383 Hz - 19916 Hz 
 V 1 lowpass filter recc setting ~ 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz 
 V 2 lowpass filter recc setting ~ 18671 Hz - 19205 Hz 

 320K has a low pass filter at about 20.5K or 21.4 K depending on the precise settings.

 1. Sampling-Frequency Considerations in Digital Audio
 TERUO MURAOKA, YOSHlHlKO YAMADA, AND MASAMI YAMAZAKI


----------



## deviationer

Using lame I do 320KB CBR Stereo Q0. I like knowing that my mp3s are at max quality. The space save from using VBR isn't worth it. 

 Also I really can't tell the difference between my max quality mp3s and lossless. But I can tell the difference between 192 and 320.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *deviationer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Using lame I do 320KB CBR Stereo Q0. I like knowing that my mp3s are at max quality. The space save from using VBR isn't worth it._

 

?????

 Same quality, less space. Why isn't it worth it?
 I find the Ogg Vorbis @ -q6 (~192 kbps) to be the best SQ/file size ratio.
 Vorbis uses a much much better encoding algorithim than mp3 (both CBR and VBR) which results in better sound quality at lower bitrates. (except for low low quality like 64 kbps, in which in fact WMA is best).


----------



## NiceCans

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_?????
 I find the Ogg Vorbis @ -q6 (~192 kbps) to be the best SQ/file size ratio.
 Vorbis uses a much much better encoding algorithim than mp3 (both CBR and VBR) which results in better sound quality at lower bitrates. (except for low low quality like 64 kbps, in which in fact WMA is best)._

 

I found it difficult to imagine that one format could sound better at a lower bitrate, until I heard it to be true listening to a 128aac stream from radioparadise.com as compared to their 192mp3. The 128aac sounds at least as good.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *NiceCans* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I found it difficult to imagine that one format could sound better at a lower bitrate, until I heard it to be true listening to a 128aac stream from radioparadise.com as compared to their 192mp3. The 128aac sounds at least as good._

 

Not difficult to imagine if you factor in that all codecs use different algorithims to encode. Different algorithims can produce the exact same results e.g. PCM WAV vs. FLAC vs. Apple Lossless. All are the same, only encode differently (Tells the computer different sets of instructions but produces the same result SQ wise).


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is highly unlikely that the difference in the low pass filter itself makes any material difference._

 

It makes numerical difference - lower spectrum compressed lets for lower bitrate, the lower psychoacustic threshold settings do that surely, too. Quote:


 320K has a low pass filter at about 20.5K or 21.4 K depending on the precise settings. 
 

If it's true, it's pretty stupid, because high frequencies eat up lots of bits which could be used for more precise lower frequencies encoding and channel information. This is surely not the case in the FhG encoder which cuts at best around 17kHz. For me it doesn't matter as 17kHz is the highest frequency I'm sure I hear. 18kHz makes me feel something in the air but whether it's still hearing, I'm not sure.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It makes numerical difference - lower spectrum compressed lets for lower bitrate, the lower psychoacustic threshold settings do that surely, too._

 

My point was any difference heard between V0 and V2 is unlikely to be due to the diference in the low pass filters. Even for folks with much better hearing than you or I the effect of low pass filters at 17K or 18K look minimal at worst.


  Quote:


 If it's true, it's pretty stupid, because high frequencies eat up lots of bits which could be used for more precise lower frequencies encoding and channel information. 
 

Indeed.

LAME Lowpass Filter - Hydrogenaudio Forums - see 
 post #2




  Quote:


 This is surely not the case in the FhG encoder which cuts at best around 17kHz. For me it doesn't matter as 17kHz is the highest frequency I'm sure I hear. 18kHz makes me feel something in the air but whether it's still hearing, I'm not sure. 
 

Mine cuts out around 15K - 16K, too many rock concerts in the 70s


----------



## chinesekiwi

^

 ? with the attitude.
 I'm just arguing that it's more space efficient.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

You have said you can hear an improvement between 192 and 320kbps. Can you hear a difference between -V0 and -b320? Without knowing which is which? Repeatably?

 Then again, if -b320 helps you sleep better at night...


----------



## kilgoretrout

I found this to be a good resource for information about mp3 encoding
LAME - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase


----------



## E.B.M.Head

Well... regarding the Low Pass Filter:
 Lame 3.98 now has -Y switch that temporary lowers the Low Pass Filter if 320 kbps ain't enough to encode the full audio spectrum. Lame is now very close to what is possible within the MP3 format (VBR, Bitrate reservoir, smart choosing of Left/Right or Mid/Side encoding, Freeformat up to 640 kbps, Variable Low Pass Filter,...).
 -V0 -Y is the way to go now to get the best possible quality at the lowest bitrate.

 But anyway: I wouldn't rip my songs to MP3 only at the moment if I would be on a windows plattform. The Worm.Win32.GetCodec.a / TROJ_MEDPINCH.A / Trojan.ASF.Hijacker.gen is spreading like hellfire on the windows plattform and transcodes all MP3s on your harddisks to WMA. This means your files will only be playable with the Windows Media Player (or other Players that don't care that a WMA File has a MP3 extension) and that the sound quality will degrade.


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *E.B.M.Head* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well... regarding the Low Pass Filter:
 Lame 3.98 now has -Y switch that temporary lowers the Low Pass Filter if 320 kbps ain't enough to encode the full audio spectrum. Lame is now very close to what is possible within the MP3 format (VBR, Bitrate reservoir, smart choosing of Left/Right or Mid/Side encoding, Freeformat up to 640 kbps, Variable Low Pass Filter,...).
 -V0 -Y is the way to go now to get the best possible quality at the lowest bitrate._

 

 Code:


```
[left]experimental switches: -Y lets LAME ignore noise in sfb21, like in CBR[/left]
```

This switch is not new to 3.98, is *not* a variable lowpass, is not enabled by default until you go down to -V3, and is not a good idea to blindly switch on.

 What it does is lets the encoder ignore the psychoacoustic model for the last scalefactor band. When sfb21 is distorted, the encoder can only allocate more bits to the frame to fix it due to a limitation in the mp3 format. VBR can do this, and so does by default at the higher settings.

 In other words, all you're doing is preventing the encoder from allocating more bits to a frame to fix high frequency distortion. This will reduce bitrate, but will *not* improve quality.


----------



## Chri5peed

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *E.B.M.Head* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But anyway: I wouldn't rip my songs to MP3 only at the moment if I would be on a windows plattform. The Worm.Win32.GetCodec.a / TROJ_MEDPINCH.A / Trojan.ASF.Hijacker.gen is spreading like hellfire on the windows plattform and transcodes all MP3s on your harddisks to WMA. This means your files will only be playable with the Windows Media Player (or other Players that don't care that a WMA File has a MP3 extension) and that the sound quality will degrade._

 


 Thats a nasty virus. Wouldn't a physical firewall[via router] protect me?


 Fortunately 90% of my music is in FLAC anyway. Only mp3s I have are on SDHC cards for my D2.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *E.B.M.Head* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wouldn't rip my songs to MP3 only at the moment if I would be on a windows plattform. The Worm.Win32.GetCodec.a / TROJ_MEDPINCH.A / Trojan.ASF.Hijacker.gen is spreading like hellfire on the windows plattform and transcodes all MP3s on your harddisks to WMA. This means your files will only be playable with the Windows Media Player (or other Players that don't care that a WMA File has a MP3 extension) and that the sound quality will degrade._

 

Sounds nasty!
 Another reason to stay clear of MS Windows...


----------



## kilgoretrout

I agree. Personally, I don't use the internet because of the risk of getting a virus is too great. Same thing with sex.

 All my data is transmitted via carrier pigeons that are inspected for viruses in both the digital and analog domains for maximum security.

 Seriously though, getting a computer virus that converts all your mp3 files converted to wma is not the worst thing that could happen to your life from a computer virus.


----------



## E.B.M.Head

More Info on that Trojan: 
http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/13...ltimedia-files

 Appart from that all your mp3s are transcoded to WMA and carry the Trojan in it, it also seems that it has some problems with VBR files and some of the transcoded files playback too fast or too slow. If you don't have a backup then you have to rerip everything. IMHO this is nearly as bad as deleting the harddisk completely. 

 According the Y switch:
  Quote:


 -Y Advanced Setting
 The -Y setting is especially useful for use on audio that has been recorded from radio transmissions that do not have any audio greater than 16kHz. That generally includes most UK broadcasts, and indeed is especially relevant for older mixes that were recorded onto cassette tapes (as the cassette tape frequency limit is approx 15-16kHz).
 In simple terms this means that by using the switch you'll save a few KBs and produce a slightly lower VBR bitrate as the encoder doesn't have to worry about audio over 16kHz.
 The technical explanation goes something like: sfb21 bloat is possible with LAME settings -V0 through -V2. Due to faults in the design of the Layer III format itself, encoding audio of 16kHz and higher will cause more bits to be needed than normal. The Heavy Metal genre suffers with this sfb21 bloat problem sometimes. -V3 through -V9 do not have this problem as they have the -Y switch activated by default. This switch basically makes it where if the data above 16kHz will bloat the bitrate it is not encoded.
 So, you only use it on the -V0, -V1 & -V2 switches. 
 

LAME - TMB Wiki


----------



## LnxPrgr3

Quote:


 -Y Advanced Setting
 The -Y setting is especially useful for use on audio that has been recorded from radio transmissions that do not have any audio greater than 16kHz. That generally includes most UK broadcasts, and indeed is especially relevant for older mixes that were recorded onto cassette tapes (as the cassette tape frequency limit is approx 15-16kHz).
 In simple terms this means that by using the switch you'll save a few KBs and produce a slightly lower VBR bitrate as the encoder doesn't have to worry about audio over 16kHz.
 The technical explanation goes something like: sfb21 bloat is possible with LAME settings -V0 through -V2. Due to faults in the design of the Layer III format itself, encoding audio of 16kHz and higher will cause more bits to be needed than normal. The Heavy Metal genre suffers with this sfb21 bloat problem sometimes. -V3 through -V9 do not have this problem as they have the -Y switch activated by default. This switch basically makes it where if the data above 16kHz will bloat the bitrate it is not encoded.
 So, you only use it on the -V0, -V1 & -V2 switches. 
 

In other words, we avoid bitrate bloat by allowing audible distortion. It doesn't avoid encoding energy past 16k anyway -- it just ignores any distortion there.

 If your material has nothing useful past 16k anyway, why not use --lowpass 16000? Then, I doubt throwing in an extra -Y will cause any harm.

 Alternatively, use a format where the only way to solve high frequency distortion isn't to throw bits at the whole spectrum


----------



## Chri5peed

That Trojan is like a virus not affecting a Mac. Mac-users think their computers almost use god-given anti-virus software...more like the makers of viruses are not going to spend their time writing to infect such a tiny userbase.

 With this, an uber popular codec is targetted[mp3]. If you use an obscure codec or a Mac, you'll be fine.


----------

