# Solved: MP3 (320KBPS) Or MP3 (VBR)



## TW.87 (Dec 30, 2005)

Hello,

For audio that I store on my computer, I want the best quality audio files, and I don't care what the file-size is. So, with that in mind, should the files be converted with a constant bit-rate of 320KBPS or a variable bit-rate?

Which format of conversation would guarantee me the best possible audio quality?

Any tips or help would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## parasolution (Sep 23, 2006)

I use 192 KBPS VBR. I also use EAC to rip the disc with a LAME encoder. 

Not sure if the this opinion has changed, but most thought that anything above 192kbps on a computer/portable player was overkill. But if you want a quality rip, use EAC with a LAME encoder, both are free, just google for it.


----------



## fairnooks (Oct 1, 2007)

True, at 320 constant or variable centered around 320, no difference. Even at 192 you have to have golden ears that few of us possess to tell the difference. I've seen a couple of tests with renowned and self-appointed audiophile experts and overall they failed to tell the difference between a 160 variable (I think, might have been 192) and 320 so you have it covered by far.


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

unless you are archiving a back up 320KBPS is overkill in my opinion.
For personal use I use 160KBPS VBR, if its only to load on my MP3 player then then 192 constant is more than adequate (if I'm ripping it myself I will go with the 160VBR though). As already mentioned you have to have both good ears and good equipment to notice the improvement with higher bit rates.


----------



## cwwozniak (Nov 29, 2005)

TW.87 said:


> I don't care what the file-size is. ... Which format of conversation would guarantee me the best possible audio quality?


If you want to keep the same sound quality as the source material, have you considered using lossless compression like FLAC?


----------



## vladimir604 (Feb 6, 2008)

I can agree, that starting with the 192, it doesn't make a big difference- if it is 224 or 256 or 320.

On the other hand, i still don't have the reasonable answer for question- which type 320 cbr or 320 vbr is a better choice.

Personally i use cbr encoding- but i can't give any proof that it's better. (well, maybe more mb gives an impression, that the sound will be better too)


----------



## TW.87 (Dec 30, 2005)

Thanks very much for the tips, everyone!

So, am I right in saying that with the 320KBPS constant bit-rate, I'm essentially getting the best quality I can get?


----------



## MysticEyes (Mar 30, 2002)

TW.87 said:


> Thanks very much for the tips, everyone!
> 
> So, am I right in saying that with the 320KBPS constant bit-rate, I'm essentially getting the best quality I can get?


Yes.


----------



## vladimir604 (Feb 6, 2008)

TW.87 said:


> Thanks very much for the tips, everyone!
> 
> So, am I right in saying that with the 320KBPS constant bit-rate, I'm essentially getting the best quality I can get?


Yes, on the other hand You can get even better quality using such lossless compression like FLAC- as cwwozniak suggested.

But, files codded with lossless compression will need far more space than mp3 at 320cbr.


----------



## parasolution (Sep 23, 2006)

What are you trying to do, are you archiving files? If so, I would use FLAC, as its a lossless format, but has some compression. 

This way, you can convert the FLAC file to different lossy formats, at different bit rates at a latter time. Thus, if you want to store many files on a portable player, you can convert the FLAC files to 128kbps or if you want to stream to your audio receiver you can make files at a higher bit rate.

You don't want to convert files to different bit rates using a lossy format, such as MP3, you want to work with a lossless file such as FLAC.


----------



## TW.87 (Dec 30, 2005)

I was looking at using FLAC as suggested, but according to the website, that format is not supported with iTunes, which is the music player I prefer to use.

If I was to use FLAC, though, what is the process of getting music from a source CD to the computer in that format? Is there a particular method to rip the tracks from the source CD to FLAC?


----------



## parasolution (Sep 23, 2006)

Again, need to know what you are trying to accomplish. If its simply to playback on iTunes, just rip in MP3. Its quick, its simple and its takes up much less space than FLAC files. For example, a 4 minute 192kbps/vbr is around 6 MB, but the FLAC is almost 27 MB. Some people like to playback live/concert recording in FLAC, as its lossless. For me, I keep a large FLAC collection, nearly 750GB's, but its all for archival purposes. I use those files to rip to different bitrates, depending on how/where it will be played.

iTunes doesn't directly support FLAC and I don't know if there are workarounds. FLAC files can be played on Windows Media Player, WinAmp and also Yahoo's Music Jukebox, as well as several others.

To rip FLAC files, you need a software program that can use the FLAC encoder, for example EAC (which is general considered the best and most accurate). After you configure EAC and downloaded the appropriate FLAC program files to EAC's folders, EAC will rip your CD to FLAC. I use EAC with another program called Mareo and the LAME encoder for MP3. Thus when I rip a CD in EAC, Mareo will instruct EAC to not only rip the disc in FLAC, but it will also make an MP3 file in the bitrate I choose. 

If you're serious about quality, take a visit to the hydrogenaudio forums. Lots of info there.


----------



## TW.87 (Dec 30, 2005)

Okay, I think I'll stick with 320KBPS in MP3. By the sounds of the information here, there's no going wrong with that.

Thank you to everyone for the advice! I really appreciate it!


----------



## cwwozniak (Nov 29, 2005)

TW.87 said:


> ... iTunes, which is the music player I prefer to use.


I believe that Apple has their own lossless format called AIFF and I also believe that iTunes supports ripping CDs to AIFF format.


----------



## TW.87 (Dec 30, 2005)

cwwozniak said:


> I believe that Apple has their own lossless format called AIFF and I also believe that iTunes supports ripping CDs to AIFF format.


Is there a difference between AIFF and Apple Lossless Encoder?

I just ripped a song using Apple Lossless Encoder and it's an 'M4A' file that plays in QuickTime. When it plays in QuickTime, it is louder, but when I add that exact file to iTunes, it seems to go back to the volume of the original MP3 (320KBPS) song that is already stored in iTunes. Is that just the volume leveling that iTunes does?


----------

