Categories: Misc / DotNet / Java / Coder / Linux / PHP Ask - La ask - La Answer

Is CBR and more "reliable" than VBR?

I've seen several posts saying or implying that VBR not only takes more processing power and therefore more battery life, but that it also tends to create more potential for songs not playing correctly (i.e. skipping forward, etc.) What's the general attitude toward this? Is CBR considered a "safer" or more reliable encoding method, or is VBR just as reliable?

I'll be using the newest 30Gig iPod if this makes a difference.

Thanks,

Larry
[484 byte] By [lalittle] at [2007-11-9 12:19:26]
# 1 Re: Is CBR and more "reliable" than VBR?
CBR 320 is the gold standard. I use the LAME encoder, with the
--alt-preset standard setting, which averages to about 192 kb/s, and is VBR. I personally can't tell the difference between this and CD quality.

If you have the HD space, go ahead and use 320 CBR--but if you're looking for the best bang for the buck, use a VBR--why do you want to be encoding at 320 kb/s, and substantially increase your file size, if you're not going to be able to hear the difference?

Probably the best way is to do a direct comparison--encode at various CBR rates, try VBR, and compare...
dmt1 at 2007-11-15 17:22:31 >
# 2 Re: Is CBR and more "reliable" than VBR?
I'm sure I can get a sound quality that I'm satisfied with for casual listenning. What I'm really concerned about is compatibility or "reliability." What I want to avoid is encoding a whole bunch of CD's just to find that VBR is more prone to problems than CBR. What's your opinion in this respect?

Thanks,

Larry
lalittle at 2007-11-15 17:23:31 >
# 3 Re: Is CBR and more "reliable" than VBR?
I have had absolutely no problems with VBR whatsoever, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it strongly over CBR--reliability hasn't been an issue at all.
dmt1 at 2007-11-15 17:24:40 >
# 4 Re: Is CBR and more "reliable" than VBR?
I just did some experimenting with various CBR and VBR encodes and transferring them to the iPod. Using Media Center 9, I noticed that between the first two songs on one album (Madonna "Ray of Light"), where one song goes directly into the next, the end of the first song was just slightly clipped when using VBR. I tried playing with several settings (high quality, encode while ripping, etc.) and found that the iPod always had the same problem at this point.

I then tried a few CBR rips of the first song and found that as long as the first song was a CBR rip, the skip did not happen. The little "click" problem between songs was still there, but at least the transition didn't miss any beats.

In other words, there was definitly a downside to using VBR in this particular case. It seems that at the end of a track, the VBR encoding causes the VERY end of the song to be skipped. This is usually not apparent since most songs fade out at this point. The problem only presented itself when one song went right into the next. I'm going to try another album, but the results with "Ray of Light" were 100% consistent.

Update: I tried Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon (track 1 goes directly into track 2) and noticed the same thing. While the CBR files still have a short gap between the two songs (along with the click) the VBR versions actually miss a little bit of the ending of the first track when the seam hits -- i.e. the CBR version is not seamless, but it is "more" seamless than the VBR version.

It should be noted that Media Center AND Media Player both had a short gap in between songs as well (even with the "gapless" setting in Media Center.) I am quite disappointed in this -- i.e. I had thought that the only downside of mp3's was the slightly lower quality. To discover that none of these players (most importantly the iPod) can play "continuous" songs without ANY interruptions is very disappointing. Is there any way around this?

Thanks,

Larry
lalittle at 2007-11-15 17:25:34 >
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]