Yes, with good enough equipment and knowing what you're looking for, you'll hear but probably at worst would mark it off as a difference - nothing significant - maybe slightly unpleasant just being aware of it.Īnd don't be a douche - "despite how incredible you want us to believe your hearing is". Once again, as I said initially, unless you're looking specifically for the artifacts created by the compressed format, you won't really distinguish it "feel" wise. My point was very simple and just something I wanted to point out. Ignoring the fact that your claim is patently false (there are people who can routinely spot artifacts in 320kbit mp3 or otherwise in normal music samples, despite how incredible you want us to believe your hearing is), the logic that a failed ABX test (however you try to define what a "failed" ABX test is) can somehow prove it, is fundamentally flawed.Īlso, I don't see why you're trying to argue. Quote from: greynol on 22:40:42 You're arguing that no one can tell the difference between -V0 and 320 and are suggesting ABX tests can be used to prove it. I am known to have extraordinary hearing and I've confirmed these results to myself. I swear to you that if you hear it, it's placebo affect.ĪBX testing, which you can do in Foobar2000, would prove me right.
As a matter of fact, it's difficult to tell the difference even between FLAC and MP3. Just use V0 in Foobar and it'll be perfect. In summary, there is no really perceivable difference between V0 and 320 CBR so I wouldn't even worry about it. I doubt there's anyone that would be able to hear the difference between the two regardless of the level of equipment unless there are strong measures in place to make that difference more distinguishable. Also, the difference in sound quality between the max 320 KB/s and V0 (which is at around 244 KB/s) will not be noticeable. To answer your question simply, TECHNICALLY CBR would be better but VBR saves you even more space by only using your selected bitrate when necessary, rather than applying it all throughout, even when there is barely even any sound. you may be able to get more information by searching for those (using the built-in Google bar) than by waiting for users who feel like retreading the same ground again. There have been several past discussions on the two settings, on which LAME settings are generally transparent, on ABXing, etc. The overall quality of -V0 is likely to be on a par with or better than -b320.Īnyway, both settings might be more than you need the way to check this is to, as suggested, perform ABX tests on these and lower settings across a representative set of tracks from your library.
…this saves bits from being wasted on regions of audio that are not complex enough to demand 320 kbps it may also enable regions that demand more than 320 kbps to receive the extra bits via the bit reservoir.
Quote that s why i thoguht its better to have 320 kbps cbr because thats always 320kbps the same, i thought that if i convert it in vbr 320kbps ,that i could get than a smaller bitrate like 256kbps or.
I just can download the music in mp3 320 cbr Īnd also i don t have in the foobar converting options(converter setup) the ability to convert my music in mp3 320kbps vbr That s why i thoguht its better to have 320 kbps cbr because thats always 320kbps the same, i thought that if i convert it in vbr 320kbps ,that i could get than a smaller bitrate like 256kbps or. Is it possible that if i convert an album in mp3 320kbps vbr, that i will get a smaller bitrate than 320kbps? If its better to convert it to mp3 320 vbr, can you tell me a few softwares which are good for converting in mp3 320 vbr I wanted to ask is in my case better to convert the music to mp3 320 kbps cbr or 320kbps vbr? I convert the music from flac to mp3 320kbps cbr with foobar2000 On whom i listen to music via usb stick(mp3 320kbps cbr) I have a hifi system marantz mcr 502 with speakers