naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: variable bit rate

Subject: Re: Re: variable bit rate
From: "Jeffrey D. Daub" <>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:37:41 -0800
 From my understanding, variable Bit Rate options -- one pass or two 
pass VBR are common settings for various MPEG compression schemes, 
usally pertaining to compression of Quicktime video. I have never heard 
of using it for Audio formats like MP3, but I have also never messed 
with the MP3 compression settings and any of my converters.

Aside for converting stereo audio and 5.1 surround mixes to Dolby 
Digital (AC-3) for DVD authoring purposes, I don't have much personal 
use for other compressed audio codecs like MP3 grade MPEG . From my 
understanding, the new iPods prefer the iPod Codec settings that come 
with the new version of Quicktime Pro, which appears to be AAC 
compressed audio (48kHz) linked to video transcoded to the H.264 video 
Codec, 320X 216 aspect ratio, Millions of colors @696.09 kbits/sec on 
this particular file I am looking at for reference, which I exported 
from QT-Pro.

In general, while I have experimented with various bitrates for 
compressed audio, I am guessing VBR may not be appropriate or applicable 
for most nature recordists' needs -- at least from my understanding of 
its intended context and purpose.

All the best,

Jeff Daub



oryoki2000 wrote:

>"1GDW"  wrote:
>  
>
>>Is [variable bit rate (VBR)] something we should be exploring?
>>    
>>
>
>VBR is most commonly used in a form of MP3 compression.
>MP3 throws away a large portion of the original file
>to make the MP3 version much smaller.  Sometimes an
>MP3 file is only 15% the size of the original. MP3 is 
>fine for casual use, as in a portable music player,
>or to speed up downloads from an online sound library.
>
>MP3 is not recommended if critical listening, scientific 
>use, or commercial production is planned.
>
>Most, but not all, modern MP3 players know how to decode 
>an MP3 file that uses VBR.  I've read that Apple's iTunes 
>doesn't get along with VBR.
>
>If your goal is reducing file storage requirements, take
>a look at FLAC, the Free Lossless Audio Codec.  A FLAC
>version is usually only 50% of the size of the 
>original recording.  Unlike MP3, a FLAC file can easily
>be converted back into the original WAV format without
>loss of data.  
>
>Unfortunately, most music players don't understand FLAC
>format.  So the FLAC file has to be decompressed into WAV
>format before most players can use it.
>
>--oryoki
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get 
>fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/PMYolB/TM
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU