Skip to main content

Notice

If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: TVBR vs CVBR (Read 7432 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TVBR vs CVBR

Hi,
After a lot of abx, i will convert all my music to aac 224k.
160 is the lower for me, i can abx easly at 128, 192 is good, so for safer i choose 224).
And i will keep the lossless files of course ;)
I try tbvr and cbvr and i can't listen the diferrence....
So, what is better tbvr or cbvr ?
(itunes + qaac)

Sorry for my bad english)
Thanks


Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #2
Like i say, at 128kps i can abx almost all the musics (lag of high frequencies) , at 160 kps, it's much better. and at 192, fully transparent for me.
But to go 'safer', i choose 224k...
256 is overkill i think

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #3
I meant the difference between 96kbps CVBR and TVBR that is aprox 96kbps, is almost negligible.

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #4
I'm afraid there's not a listening test at that high bitrate and the results may not reproduce the results from 96k tests, so you'll have to make own ABX of both modes at this bitrate to be sure. But I bet you won't hear any difference as whatever mode at this bitrate is in the main transparent.

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #5
My collection is 320go of flac.
with CVBR 224: 240 kps
with TVBR 224: 230 kps
Since i don't hear difference, i'll go with TVBR

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #6
TVBR is typically the better of the two given both are pretty much the same sound quality wise (some claim CVBR 'might' have a tiny advantage) but TVBR generally gives smaller files so it's more efficient which makes it the overall better of the two.

I think where CVBR can come in handy at times is at lower bit rates like 96kbps as it seems to limit the encoder from having the bit rate drop too low as looking through my collection, which is 96kbps TVBR (Apple AAC encoded with Foobar2000 QAAC), 53kbps is the lowest and 121kbps was the highest although the average bit rate over all of the files is 93kbps.

but like you said in your post above... you can't really tell the difference so you might as well go with TVBR since it generally uses less bit rate.

there was one song I encoded not long ago that there was one part in a song (when the singer said a certain word at one part in the song) that I could tell the difference between TVBR and CVBR (with CVBR being better but the bit rate was noticeably higher than the TVBR file) but that was at the 96kbps setting and the bit rate between the two tracks was about 20-30kbps between TVBR and CVBR if I recall correctly which probably explained it. but at your super high bit rates I doubt that would occur because at 224kbps is already a bit overkill as it seems, given tests around here, 192kbps is about the max dang near everyone would need.

if you don't mind me asking...

what headphones are you using and how old are you? ; I say that because it seems only those quite young can hear the super fine detail or maybe it partially comes back to fancy headphones etc.

also, when you ABX the music @ 128kbps and 160kbps etc is it something you can detect fairly quickly or does it take a good amount of effort to notice differences between say 128kbps to 160kbps? ; I am sort of wondering what you personally would consider the 'sweet spot' of bit rate? ; it almost seems 160kbps might be your sweet spot given what you said.
For music on-the-go I suggest...
-Opus @ 96kbps (or... 64kbps minimum, 128kbps maximum). *preferred choice*
-AAC(Apple) @ 96kbps (q45 TVBR (or CVBR)) (or 128kbps (q64 TVBR) maximum). *secondary choice*
-MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) (or v2 (190kbps) as a alternative/maximum). *third choice*

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #7
I'm 40 years old.
My setup is:
Cambrige audio Dac Magic Plus > Cambrige Audio 851A >Monitor Audio Silver RS8 or Sennheiser HD600 (all with high quality cable).
I can hear frequency until 19800hz.
128 kps is very easly to abx: no high frequencies
160 kps is harder, but i can abx with a lot of attention.

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #8
@david-lisb

"I can hear frequency until 19800hz."

someone correct me if I am wrong, but ain't that unlikely to still be able to hear that kind of frequency at 40 years old?

"128 kps is very easly to abx: no high frequencies
160 kps is harder, but i can abx with a lot of attention."

I imagine it's because of your $300 headphones that enables you to notice more details?

I am just curious whether you can still notice that 128kbps to 160kbps stuff with a more typical/average set of headphones?

Thanks for the info.
For music on-the-go I suggest...
-Opus @ 96kbps (or... 64kbps minimum, 128kbps maximum). *preferred choice*
-AAC(Apple) @ 96kbps (q45 TVBR (or CVBR)) (or 128kbps (q64 TVBR) maximum). *secondary choice*
-MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) (or v2 (190kbps) as a alternative/maximum). *third choice*

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #9
I imagine it's because of your $300 headphones that enables you to notice more details?

My $300 IEMs only go to 18KHz :D I am 41 and can only hear to 15KHz, also would be nice to see some results of the ABXing from @david-lisb :)

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #10
@probedb

Yeah, I heard something about 15KHz being typical for those in our age bracket. like I don't know how accurate YouTube is but when listening to one of those YouTube videos that supposedly shows the KHz my cut off point was pretty much 15KHz, maybe a hair over that at best on my Klipsch Pro-Media PC speakers. that's why I wondered whether the 19.8KHz claim seems a bit high because ain't that more typical for someone about half our age to hear?

p.s. ill be 39 years old in October.
For music on-the-go I suggest...
-Opus @ 96kbps (or... 64kbps minimum, 128kbps maximum). *preferred choice*
-AAC(Apple) @ 96kbps (q45 TVBR (or CVBR)) (or 128kbps (q64 TVBR) maximum). *secondary choice*
-MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) (or v2 (190kbps) as a alternative/maximum). *third choice*


Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #12
I have made a new try with foobar:
tone://18000,10
tone://19000,10
tone://19800,10

I can easly hear 18khz, 19 khz is a bit harder and 19.8khz is very my limit (at very high volume)


Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #14
I learn new things about fb2k all the time :-o
Seems to be a hold-over from Winamp.
Has been working in Winamp since at least 2000, that's when I came across it.

Another handy link was linein://, not sure if that works in fb2k

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #15
19.8KHz would be high for a teenager :D I think I used something like https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_frequencycheckhigh.php

Based on your link... 15-16kHz is where I can hear sound depending on volume on my Klipsch Pro-Media speakers with the one where the guy is saying each frequency as it descends.

as he's saying the frequency, I don't hear nothing as he's saying 22k, 21k, 20k, 19k, 18k, 17k, until he reaches 16k I can hear, but it's fairly faint, and 15k is more noticeable especially if I have the volume a bit lower as 15k seems to be my general cut off but with volume a bit higher I seem to be able to hear 16k but it's fairly faint as I don't feel confident enough to claim I am hearing anything beyond 16kHz. so that should be a good ball park figure for me. but I wonder if it's possible I could hear a bit more with some decent headphones or not?

on a side note... I see that the site you linked to suggests Superlux HD668B for budget headphones. anyone have any experience with these? ; because it seems those are quite reasonably priced ($44.90) as I am just wondering whether it's a noticeable upgrade vs your average pair of headphones. like enough of a difference to justify shelling out nearly $50 as I figure if there is barely any difference, it's not worth it but if there is a clear difference then it's worth it. that's why it would be nice if I could test these in person as then I would know.

p.s. looking at the Klipsch Pro-Media 2.1 speakers on Amazon it shows, "31 Hz to 20 kHz frequency response range" ; I got the 4.1 setup which I am assuming is basically the same as I don't even have the 4 speakers in use as it's just two with the sub. but anyways, given that info I am assuming my speakers are capable of outputting the higher frequencies, but I just can't hear them assuming that test site is accurate.
For music on-the-go I suggest...
-Opus @ 96kbps (or... 64kbps minimum, 128kbps maximum). *preferred choice*
-AAC(Apple) @ 96kbps (q45 TVBR (or CVBR)) (or 128kbps (q64 TVBR) maximum). *secondary choice*
-MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) (or v2 (190kbps) as a alternative/maximum). *third choice*

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #16
Also remember those are pure tones, they'll be lost in music etc so your cut-off is likely to be even lower. I prefer IEMs so no experience of over-ear phones.

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #17
I read that TVBR can sometimes give an unreasonably too low bitrate. This is true?

Re: TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #18
I read that TVBR can sometimes give an unreasonably too low bitrate. This is true?

In terms of a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to you, ill leave that for someone else to answer. but to give some comments...

it seems with TVBR the bit rate can vary a bit more wildly (up or down) where as CVBR the bit rate is more stable around your selected bit rate. so I would imagine it's possible CVBR might be the 'slightly' safer option for sound quality, especially for lower bit rates (say something around 96-128kbps and less).

also, there are occasions where TVBR can output larger files than CVBR at same bit rate. but over a wide range of music, TVBR will almost certainly be a bit smaller than CVBR on average which is why I prefer it since it's a little more efficient but maybe has a chance to be a tiny bit worse on sound quality once in a while. but it's not common enough for me to worry about and is likely brief enough (like if there are slight sound quality drops it's likely very brief in a random song) not to be a real concern for me.

basically... using TVBR or CVBR is largely a personal preference thing since it appears the differences are very minimal in general as I don't think there is any definitive conclusion on which is overall better even though I imagine some users around here prefer CVBR while others prefer TVBR.

bottom line... if your a little paranoid with sound quality, on a side of caution, CVBR is probably the overall safer choice.

p.s. I tend to see AAC (like standard AAC-LC) to be good enough from 96kbps (q45 TVBR) and higher as I am confident the average person would not complain even at that bit rate since the sound quality does not obviously sound worse than the lossless source file on typical-ish sound equipment the average person is likely to be using and I think this is especially true if a person is not really young and has a bit of age on them (which throughout ones life, they won't be very young for all that long). plus, I was always of the mindset that if someone has to start focusing quite a bit to spot sound quality differences between the lossless and lossy file that basically tells you the lossy file is easily 'good enough' overall when your just enjoying the music like is typical when listening to music (as it's not like one can easily notice the sound is off just from casually listening without comparing to the lossless source file etc). or for my basic minimum suggestions for the following encoders (which should be safe enough for most people)... Opus = 96kbps (although 64kbps is a good alternative, especially if your low on storage space, and is still close enough to the 96kbps range), AAC = 96kbps+, MP3 = v5 (130kbps).
For music on-the-go I suggest...
-Opus @ 96kbps (or... 64kbps minimum, 128kbps maximum). *preferred choice*
-AAC(Apple) @ 96kbps (q45 TVBR (or CVBR)) (or 128kbps (q64 TVBR) maximum). *secondary choice*
-MP3 @ v5 (130kbps) (or v2 (190kbps) as a alternative/maximum). *third choice*

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020