MP3 - Part II - CBR vs VBR

[bobb]

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

[Scott Gardner]

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

[Kevin McMurtrie]

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.