Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 256 vs 320 (Read 5766 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

256 vs 320

Hi all!

I just wanted to know why I should encode at 320 instead of 256 (which is cd quality)? Any good arguments? I just wanna know any good arguments so I can decide =)

cyaz

256 vs 320

Reply #1
Why do you think 256kbps is CD-quality? It's not (you probably got that idea from r3mix.net?). There are many cases  (mostly transients/attacks) when MP3 is not transparent even at 320kbps.

There are even more cases when there's audible quality increase from 256->320kbps...
Juha Laaksonheimo

256 vs 320

Reply #2
mp3 is not subband coder - so
if you're coding on bitrates over than 200
you're not have quality much higher.

If you want to lissen realy fine
quality sound - use MPC (MP+)
format.

If mp3 format so impotent for you
use -abr 200

256 vs 320

Reply #3
Quote
Originally posted by t_vitaly
mp3 is not subband coder - so
if you're coding on bitrates over than 200
you're not have quality much higher.
I don't quite agree with this. MP3's quality does increase pretty nicely still from 200->320kbps. Another thing is, that it can't reach as high quality as MPC, but MP3's quality does scale at high bitrates.
Juha Laaksonheimo

256 vs 320

Reply #4
Quote
Originally posted by JohnV
I don't quite agree with this. MP3's quality does increase pretty nicely still from 200->320kbps. Another thing is, that it can't reach as high quality as MPC, but MP3's quality does scale at high bitrates.


ok, ill take a look at MPC, im mostly concerned with quality, even though my current speakers/soundcard/ears (hehe) can't hear any difference between a 128 kbit or a 320 kbit mp3 =)

But lets for the sake of an example say that 256 is cd quality (only hypothetically) then why would i need 320? (because 320 isnt cd quality either???)

256 vs 320

Reply #5
how much can you buy for 10$ compared to 12$?
If what you want to buy costs 10$ what can you get for 12$?



Jan.

256 vs 320

Reply #6
how to understand this Jan? I don't get it 

256 vs 320

Reply #7
Some more idioms......

Why is it that if someone tells you that there are
1 billion stars in the universe you will believe them,
but if they tell you a wall has wet paint you will have
to touch it to be sure?

:confused:

256 vs 320

Reply #8
Quote
Why is it that if someone tells you that there are 
1 billion stars in the universe you will believe them, 
but if they tell you a wall has wet paint you will have 
to touch it to be sure?


Heheh, well I wouldn't believe the bit about the stars either.
There's more like 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone.

But it doesn't really matter, from a practical point of view.  Only the golden-eyed pretend they can count them ;-)

ff123

256 vs 320

Reply #9
Quote
Originally posted by p0w4h
But lets for the sake of an example say that 256 is cd quality (only hypothetically) then why would i need 320? (because 320 isnt cd quality either???)


Well for one thing, I don't think I'd even say that MP3 at 256kbps is CD Quality even hypothetically.  I'd just say, it can be "high quality" and leave it at that.

However... even when you encode a file at 256kbps cbr, there are many frames which use more than 256kbps via something called the bit reservoir.  Basically what happens is it accumulates extra bits that where not used in preceding frames and stores them for use later if another frame needs them.  This works fairly well, but it is not as good of an approach as just picking the bitrate you need per frame (VBR) instead.  The reason for this is because there are some practical restrictions and limitations on how the bit reservoir can be used.

So the reason you see 320kbps frames, and why you should allow them, is because these are probably the frames that normally would have used more bits from the bit reservoir if you were encoding with CBR, but it more than likely wouldn't sound as good as it is going to with by just using a 320kbps frame instead.

 

256 vs 320

Reply #10
ahh thanks, that explains it =)