experiment:
track: Biosphere - Disparu
flac -8 bitrate: 267kbps
vorbis aoTuVb5.7 q8(~256kbps) bitrate: 208kbps
nero aac q0.66(~250kbps) bitrate: 75kbps
vorbis aoTuVb5.7 q9.4(~392kbps) bitrate: 347kbps
nero aac q0.97(~400kbps) bitrate: 91kbps
I ... really don't understand what that means. What are you trying to accomplish that produces the above files?
Edit: On further reflection, I think I get it. Adding file sizes to the above results will probably be extremely helpful. I suspect you aren't reporting average bitrate for the produced files.
is the average bitrate
I do not know how it is called. but should be more compressed than cut. (m.b lossless part. i don't know )
Do you have file sizes for each file? Also, how long is the track?
146 seconds
If you are asking if there are situations in which lossy compression can be less efficient than lossless compression, then the answer is yes.
Given that several media player programs exist that mis-report average bitrates, I think no further insight can be had until we have the files' sizes.
foobar2000. I have already deleted the files and their sizes can not lead.
the average bitrate is correct.
You can calculate it by multiplying on the seconds
Those are indeed very strange bitrates. What kind of music/sound is it? Can describe the sound? Maybe you can upload a small part of it (<30seconds).
I noticed that some good lossless codecs compress files with low volume. This track is one of them.
file (http://download1.loadfile.ru/1242397510/Biosphere_-_Disparu.flac) (20 sec.)
in lossless vbr because of the heterogeneity of data. in lossy seems that vbr is due only to the use of different cuttings. vorbis bitrate always aligns to the average of the selected level of compression, regardless of the track itself (excluding silence). so I wanted to mention and that is as correct
but in the practical application of aac always sounds like it dry