Obviously Variable Bit Rate is more efficient than Constant Bit Rate.
Anybody argue that "I'd NEVER use VBR?"

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:45:20 -0800, bobb wrote:

Obviously Variable Bit Rate is more efficient than Constant Bit Rate.
Anybody argue that "I'd NEVER use VBR?"

There was a time when not all players supported VBR, so I guess that
could be a deal-breaker if your favourite player didn't support it. I
don't know if that's an issue any longer, though.

Scott

In article ,
bobb wrote:

Obviously Variable Bit Rate is more efficient than Constant Bit Rate.
Anybody argue that "I'd NEVER use VBR?"

There can be conditions where you would not use VBR but it's generally
an improvement.

Some devices that play MP3s from a disc don't have enough of a buffer to
keep the disc speed matched to the varying bitrate.

Some VBR encoders aren't that great. Fraunhofer's (iTunes) is barely
variable. Many obsolete encoders will glitch up on VBR.