No matter these details: you can be pretty sure you can be totally satisfied when using very high bitrate what kind of ever when it comes to encoding 'normal' music. So it's natural that it can be better or worse when it comes to specific situations.īitrate by the way can be maximal (more than 320 kbps) no matter VBR or CBR due to bit reservoir.
#Mp3 320 kbps code
CBR works different when it comes to code details. My variant is based on the VBR code, improves some things also for sharp transients, but basically inherits the VBR behavior. For situations of sharp transients especially in electronic music CBR320 can be best as was shown here recently for an extreme killer sample. As for tonal problems (for instance a long-stretched voice in a song which dominates the music at that point) I can recommend my Lame3995o variant. You have to accept though that there are (few) exceptions.Īs for the exceptions things can be in favor for the one or other variant. With this in mind using V0 yields identical quality as using CBR320 or my Lame3995o variant with high bitrate Q settings. One reason is that for many kind of music even V5 works very well. It's difficult to tell which setting works best in the very high bitrate range for any kind of music. Seems LAME's older psy model (the one in 3.97 and older) produced 320k CBR files that used a lot of padding and were more likely to yield significant savings if you used mp3packer. I believe that there is no lowpass filter applied at 320k CBR (at least by LAME 3.98 and later) because it has plenty of data to work with and the global gain probably won't be adjusted too much just to accommodate it at that bitrate, which is probably why there's not much padding. The average bitrate remained at 306 kbps - 319 kbps. I found some 320k CBR files of some Adventure Time soundtracks and tried to use mp3packer on them, and most did not have any real reduction in size.
However, this is not necessarily always the case. It's my understanding that thanks to the bit reservoir, a 320k CBR file might be of higher quality than -V0 but that in practice, few would notice and that it's more correct to use -V0 and let the encoder decide because more often than the additional bits available to the reservoir being of use, the encoder will have no use for the rest of a frame and insert useless padding to keep the user (who requested 320k CBR) happy, or encode data that's not terribly important to perceived quality just because it has the room to store it. Obviously when it starts getting obnoxiously low, like 64kbps, then I can tell. With regards to those two formats, for me personally, Ive never been able to tell the difference between those two, at any bit rate. Quote from: rutra80 on 11:13:03 Thanks to bit reservoir native V0 files may be of higher quality than (repacked) CBR 320 files. Obviously the 320 MP3 is a higher quality bit rate than the 256 AAC.