Skip to main content
Topic: Apple TVBR vs CVBR (Read 15167 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Apple TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #25
TVBR sometimes understates bitrate, too much, eg:  :-\

78kbps (TVBR -V91) vs 146kbps (CVBR -v192)
102kbps (TVBR -V91) vs 144kbps (CVBR -v192)
100kbps (TVBR -V91) vs 150kbps (CVBR -v192)
83kbps (TVBR -V91) vs 161kbps (CVBR -v192)
87kbps (TVBR -V91) vs 150kbps (CVBR -v192)

But sometimes it is overpriced, although this is not a problem. The average bitrate of CVBR is 10kbps higher.

Re: Apple TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #26
like a any "t/vbr", the qaac is source depending. in my examples avarage bitrate V91 is 208.

Re: Apple TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #27
I suggest that this is not a safety setting. No lower limit like with CVBR.

Re: Apple TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #28
good luck!

Re: Apple TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #29
TVBR and CVBR have roughly the same quality as of 2012.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,97913.0.html
In my analysis in Audacity, at least with Green Day "Maria" I've found CVBR 320 encoded more information for the first some 4.5 seconds, and then switched to the equivalent TVBR (same samples). So there is a point where they can be the same (but not always). The model is a bit flawed too since 288 CBR delivers better fidelity than CVBR 256, IMO. It may be better than TVBR in some cases but historically CVBR has been about staying within range; it's much different from Opus's CVBR which is not nearly as good as VBR. The way I see it, in concept, TVBR is supposed to be the better choice with the higher bit rates if necessary but apparently it isn't.

 

Re: Apple TVBR vs CVBR

Reply #30
If bitrate drops a lot, it only becomes a problem when you can hear something wrong on these low bitrate parts of the file. Otherwise it's only efficiency and that's a good thing.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020