CBR vs. VBR

[OuTpaTienT]

VBR can actually provides more bandwidth per channel, so it is quite capable of sounding better than a CBR. Remember, a 320kbps CBR is really only 160kbps X 2 (left & right).

[AMD kicks]

So VBR can have up to 320kbps for each channel?

[bhess]

which is best for cramming more songs on a 16mb mp3 player chip?

[AMD kicks]

I want to know what people like better, CBR or VBR. I encode my mp3s at 320kbps CBR and VBR set to 100%. I use Win2k and MusicMatch and a 32X ext Backpack Cdrom. I like VBR now more than CBR. The music seems to sound more dark and rich with VBR which I like more than the tradition linear, detail, CD-like sound of CBR. I know that VBR has a lower average kbps than CBR, about 225 vs 320(on my mp3s).

[JayMan]

In my understanding, VBR will change the bitrate as needed, meaning one channel may require 128Kbit while the other needs 220Kbit, but later in the song it may be the opposite, it dynamically changes the bitrates to suit the need. CBR "stereo" will split the bitrate, e.g. 320kbps = 2x 160kbps as outpatient has said, so thru parts of the song it may be using more data then required, but may also use less meaning lowered quality. BUT CBR "joint stereo" works alittle like VBR, the total bitrate will stay constant, but can be split dynamically between channels, so instead of 2x 160, it may be 120+200 etc...
Bhess, i would have to say VBR at a lower quality.

JayMan