Higher quality MP3?

[Mr. Dipity]

Still, I'm not even sure if most/any mp3 codecs know how to handle 24 bits or >44.1.

Mpeg layer 2 can do it. It's what you are listening to when you listen to most DVDs.

[brokemusician]

The winning combination: 192K static with VBR up to 320K, encoded with LAME with the high-pass & low-pass filters disabled (using the Razor-LAME skin).

I don't get it, I thought you either had to with VBR or static? Plus with VBR I was only able to go up to 192K(Using EAC and Lame) but going static I could go up to 320K. So far the 320K static is winning the contest. Am I missing something?

[fremitus]

i personally do not agree with VBR on much of anything. at a higher bit rate it is hard to grasp, but at lower thresholds it is so blatantly obvious in the high end (reverb tails, cymbal decays) that it just can NOT be trusted. anything below 192 is shit. but for simply getting music out there 128 is fine and acceptable to 95.6% of the people who listen to music (not the people who record it). At 128 you can expect a 1/10th ratio for filesize. that's just sick. if you don't think your losing much, then i have a set of auratones to sell you. FLAC is an excellent option and AAC (apple's proprietary lossless compression) is very good as well, but is by no means destined to become a standard. the best thing to do is to mix something and take the time to listen to a whole slew of them. do it on the same speakers you mixed on and take some notes. then tell us all what you think...

[brokemusician]

Is there an advantage to 320kVBR over 320K static?

[apropos of nothing]

Is there an advantage to 320kVBR over 320K static?

File-size.

VBR should cut the file size almost in half.

I can hear the artifacts in 128-160. I usually can't with stuff encoded at 192 and up.

[brokemusician]

Is there an advantage to using 320k VBR over 320k static sonically?

[apropos of nothing]

Theoretically, 320 static should be better than 320 vbr. Practically though, I haven't noticed a difference.