what is Virtual Bit Rate equivalent to in Kbps sound quality
Discussion
VBR is Variable Bit Rate as opposed to CBR - Constant Bit Rate. Do a google for CBR VBR MP3 convertion and you should find a few tools to help you.
160kbps is generally considered good "HiFi" quality. 192kpbs is CD quality, 256 is studio quality. So if the VBR encoded clip is decent quality audio then you should use at least 160.
160kbps is generally considered good "HiFi" quality. 192kpbs is CD quality, 256 is studio quality. So if the VBR encoded clip is decent quality audio then you should use at least 160.
_dan_ said:
VBR is Variable Bit Rate as opposed to CBR - Constant Bit Rate. Do a google for CBR VBR MP3 convertion and you should find a few tools to help you.
160kbps is generally considered good "HiFi" quality. 192kpbs is CD quality, 256 is studio quality. So if the VBR encoded clip is decent quality audio then you should use at least 160.
?? Anything below 256KBPS is not CD quality!
telecat said:
VBR is Variable Bit Rate as opposed to CBR - Constant Bit Rate. Do a google for CBR VBR MP3 convertion and you should find a few tools to help you.
160kbps is generally considered good "HiFi" quality. 192kpbs is CD quality, 256 is studio quality. So if the VBR encoded clip is decent quality audio then you should use at least 160.
?? Anything below 256KBPS is not CD quality!
Fair enough if your an audiophile. I should have put quotes either side of the words "CD and "studio". It was more of a generalisation rather than a true comparison. For all intents and purposes 192kbps is generally accepted to be a pretty true representation of the original sound. True it does lack something compared to an uncompressed original sometimes, but I defy you to pinpoint what exactly!
I was really just pointing out that 128 and 160 are a bit crap! 192 is good enough and 256 is overkill in most cases
It lacks a lot - with compression you get a lot of sibilance on s and other things as well
What you really need is loss-free compression, not a lossy compression, cos thats exactly what it is - lossy.
Case in point - I've been using an MP3 hard drive for about 3 years, and been very happy with the sound quality in top of the line manufacturers systems (in car).
BUT
I recently changed to a better quality system, with decent component speakers, amps and EQ, and you can now really hear the music, and a lot of MP3s recorded at 192kBps are shite - tinny, no detail, ssssssssssss all over the place, makes it orrible to listen to at times. Even at 320kBPs its not as good as a CD, so I'm now looking to re-record all the stuff I've got with a loss-less compression system. Ho hum.
What you really need is loss-free compression, not a lossy compression, cos thats exactly what it is - lossy.
Case in point - I've been using an MP3 hard drive for about 3 years, and been very happy with the sound quality in top of the line manufacturers systems (in car).
BUT
I recently changed to a better quality system, with decent component speakers, amps and EQ, and you can now really hear the music, and a lot of MP3s recorded at 192kBps are shite - tinny, no detail, ssssssssssss all over the place, makes it orrible to listen to at times. Even at 320kBPs its not as good as a CD, so I'm now looking to re-record all the stuff I've got with a loss-less compression system. Ho hum.
_dan_ said:i know what it means an how to convert it, which is why my question never asked about these matters - but what i did query, was what scale i'm working to when converting, like is it 1:1, thus meaning my sampless 'vbr 109' rating would need to be '112' as thats the nearest, or do i need to multiply/divide the vbr number to determine cbr equivalent?
VBR is Variable Bit Rate as opposed to CBR - Constant Bit Rate. Do a google for CBR VBR MP3 convertion and you should find a few tools to help you.
There's no direct way to convert the numbers. Also the vbr109 term is meaningless. That's usually just the bitrate used at the start of the file. It'll vary up to a maximum that was set on encoding (usually 320kbps). There may be a tool out there that spins through a sound file and finds the max/average bitrate. I've never seen one.
That said if you want a rough guide and you know the encoding max bitrate, the VBR quality is usually slightly worse than the CBR rate of the max bitrate. So a 128kbps VBR will be slightly worse quality than a 128CBR, but have a much smaller file size.
That said if you want a rough guide and you know the encoding max bitrate, the VBR quality is usually slightly worse than the CBR rate of the max bitrate. So a 128kbps VBR will be slightly worse quality than a 128CBR, but have a much smaller file size.
VBR is bad.
We did some listening tests in the studio a while back and found (a) no discernable increase in "quality" and (b) in some cases of VBR we were seeing (hearing) quite disturbing distortion of the stereo image, presumably where the rate is fluctuating.
I'd never use it, personally.
Go for at the very least 192kbps, fixed bit rate.
And CD Quality should be "CD Quality". Nothing but an uncompressed or FLAC file will be actual CD quality. MP3 is a destructive compression format therefore any rate will be worse than the original CD. Whether you can perceive the difference is another discussion and depends on your ears, your amp and your speakers.
We did some listening tests in the studio a while back and found (a) no discernable increase in "quality" and (b) in some cases of VBR we were seeing (hearing) quite disturbing distortion of the stereo image, presumably where the rate is fluctuating.
I'd never use it, personally.
Go for at the very least 192kbps, fixed bit rate.
And CD Quality should be "CD Quality". Nothing but an uncompressed or FLAC file will be actual CD quality. MP3 is a destructive compression format therefore any rate will be worse than the original CD. Whether you can perceive the difference is another discussion and depends on your ears, your amp and your speakers.
Interestingly I played around with a song and played it through my new stereo (NAD amp CD and Kef Iq5 speakers) using a sqeezebox 3 and the following mp3 bits upto 320kbps Flac and ogg. I found the best sound in my setup was the 320 mp3, Flac which I was expecting to be better was just similar. WMA straight was not significantly better.
All of them lacked considerable depth when compared back to back with the CD of the same song. I'm putting that down to the differences ion the DAC converter in the squeezebox.
However what I would say is go for as high a cbr rate as you are happy storing, I wasn't impressed with lossless and ogg would probebly give a slightly better compression ratio.
Anyhow probebly down to the kit it's coming through. I am not an audiophile by the way as this is my first decent hi fi which by audio phile standards isn't that great anyway.
Just enjoy the music.
I would strongly recomend the Squeezebox though brilliant peice of kit.
All of them lacked considerable depth when compared back to back with the CD of the same song. I'm putting that down to the differences ion the DAC converter in the squeezebox.
However what I would say is go for as high a cbr rate as you are happy storing, I wasn't impressed with lossless and ogg would probebly give a slightly better compression ratio.
Anyhow probebly down to the kit it's coming through. I am not an audiophile by the way as this is my first decent hi fi which by audio phile standards isn't that great anyway.
Just enjoy the music.
I would strongly recomend the Squeezebox though brilliant peice of kit.
fish said:
Interestingly I played around with a song and played it through my new stereo (NAD amp CD and Kef Iq5 speakers) using a sqeezebox 3 and the following mp3 bits upto 320kbps Flac and ogg. I found the best sound in my setup was the 320 mp3, Flac which I was expecting to be better was just similar. WMA straight was not significantly better.
All of them lacked considerable depth when compared back to back with the CD of the same song. I'm putting that down to the differences ion the DAC converter in the squeezebox.
However what I would say is go for as high a cbr rate as you are happy storing, I wasn't impressed with lossless and ogg would probebly give a slightly better compression ratio.
Anyhow probebly down to the kit it's coming through. I am not an audiophile by the way as this is my first decent hi fi which by audio phile standards isn't that great anyway.
Just enjoy the music.
I would strongly recomend the Squeezebox though brilliant peice of kit.
Interesting.
The latest generation of SqBox use Burr Brown DACs which are amongst the best in the market so they'll likely be a match or better than your NAD CD player. Did you try the digital coax/optical out on te SqBox too? Notice any difference?
Re FLAC and 320kbps. On 95% of material you wouldn't notice the difference. The only real reason to go for FLAC in this case would be if, for example, you wanted to get rid of the original CD (ok, not legal, but then again, neither is ripping it to MP3 these days). Only a FLAC file would get you the original data, byte-for-byte. Assuming that you've used a proper ripping program like EAC (Exact Audio Copy).
The Dude said:
Interesting.
The latest generation of SqBox use Burr Brown DACs which are amongst the best in the market so they'll likely be a match or better than your NAD CD player.
Ah, but I bet the output stage on the Squeeze is the usual far east cheapest, lowest tolerance component job. You get lucky and everything's in spec or unlucky and it's all more than 10% out and sounds, er, average.
Just thought I'd add my bit!
The compression rates are all dependant on what encoders you use. For example....a 192Kb MP3 will most likely sound the same as a 160Kb AAC encoding. For that reason I use M4A AAC at 160Kb and the quality is pretty damn good.
Also, you have to look at the encoding quality. Some "fast" encoders don't look at all the detail in the music and use less complex algorhythms and therefore the quality is poor when you compare the same file at the same bit rate encoded in a higher quality encoding method.
That's my bit done
The compression rates are all dependant on what encoders you use. For example....a 192Kb MP3 will most likely sound the same as a 160Kb AAC encoding. For that reason I use M4A AAC at 160Kb and the quality is pretty damn good.
Also, you have to look at the encoding quality. Some "fast" encoders don't look at all the detail in the music and use less complex algorhythms and therefore the quality is poor when you compare the same file at the same bit rate encoded in a higher quality encoding method.
That's my bit done
vlc said:You'd need to set it to the maximum bit rate that was used in the vbr, and this would result in a lot of wasted bits basically. Any less than that and you would lose (more) information. I haven't seen a tool which would tell you the max bitrate used in a vbr file though. To be sure you don't lose anything you'd have to use 320 kpbs, or as high as your software allows.
I got this mp3 file which realplayer reads as being of VBR 109 quality, tho i need to convert it to a non-vbr format, tho dont know what kbps setting to use, eg- 112, 96 etc?
As for whether to use cbr, vbr, flac or whatever, if it sounds ok to you on your equipment then its ok, and anything "better" is a waste. There are people in the world who buy audiophile quality main leads to plug into dirty domestic ringmains, so if you think the emperor is starkers feel free not to buy the same suit!
victormeldrew said:
As for whether to use cbr, vbr, flac or whatever, if it sounds ok to you on your equipment then its ok, and anything "better" is a waste. There are people in the world who buy audiophile quality main leads to plug into dirty domestic ringmains, so if you think the emperor is starkers feel free not to buy the same suit!
I remember a while ago, one of the 'high level' Hi-Fi mags writing a review comparing digital optical cables..... and they say they could here the difference between them. Madness.ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
As for whether to use cbr, vbr, flac or whatever, if it sounds ok to you on your equipment then its ok, and anything "better" is a waste. There are people in the world who buy audiophile quality main leads to plug into dirty domestic ringmains, so if you think the emperor is starkers feel free not to buy the same suit!
Couldn't agree more.
The Dude said:
As for whether to use cbr, vbr, flac or whatever, if it sounds ok to you on your equipment then its ok, and anything "better" is a waste. There are people in the world who buy audiophile quality main leads to plug into dirty domestic ringmains, so if you think the emperor is starkers feel free not to buy the same suit!
Couldn't agree more.
It's called Homeopathic Hi-Fi
flossythepig said:
As for whether to use cbr, vbr, flac or whatever, if it sounds ok to you on your equipment then its ok, and anything "better" is a waste. There are people in the world who buy audiophile quality main leads to plug into dirty domestic ringmains, so if you think the emperor is starkers feel free not to buy the same suit!
Couldn't agree more.
It's called Homeopathic Hi-Fi
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff