v0 vs 320

davwuh · Post by **davwuh** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:37 pm

I notice everyone in the dubstep scene seems to request 320's, why no love for v0? v0 peaks at 320 when it needs to and reduces size when it doesn't need 320, thus making it a smaller file size... lots of dubstep DJ's always ask me for 320's over v0, but I usually up v0 because its my preferred format, but people tend to turn their nose up at it without even being sure what it is...

it'd be cool if people got into v0 more, 320's just a waste i reckon

thoughts? opinions?

dubstepper360 · Post by **dubstepper360** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:41 pm

ive never heard of v0 man

7" · Post by 7" » Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:42 pm

Dubstepper360 wrote:ive never heard of v0 man

neither do i

ashley · Post by **ashley** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:24 pm

whats that like? a sandwich spread or summat

Its all about WAVS - stupidly high quality even for bare silence

kion · Post by **kion** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:36 pm

You talking Variable rate? What's the point tho - most people got super fast connects these days so makes no odds saving a few k tbh.

ytee · Post by **ytee** » Tue Jan 08, 2008 9:37 pm

Never heard of this v0.

davwuh · Post by **davwuh** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:57 am

yeah its variable but at the highest quality... its just annoyin that people ask me for 320's when i send out v0's which i always rip my tracks to, when v0 is essentially the same as what you'd get in 320 but for smaller file size

djg · Post by **djg** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:59 am

in my opinion, the less compression the better.

deflax · Post by **deflax** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:09 am

Well I think it is unable for (most of ?!) us to determine any differences in quality between V0 and 320 CBR.

This topic is best explained at the hydrogen audio wiki:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame

which also includes a nice chart

quietmouse · Post by **quietmouse** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:11 am

Yeah, this is something that always struck me as weird of the dubstep community. Every other scene I've been involved in uses vbr - some combination of aps, ape, v0, v2, what have you - but not dubstep. 320s all the way for these fellas. Whatever though?

rekordah · Post by **rekordah** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:17 am

So any of u fellas gona step up and us what it is exactly?

U never know, u might find that the reason why u don't find much of it in dubstep is because most ppl don't know what ur on about.

two oh one · Post by **two oh one** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:19 am

"Oi, giz a 320, innit" has a better ring to it than "Sir, may I be so bold as to ask if I could procure a copy of a variable bitrate encoded mp3 file of this track"

rekordah · Post by **rekordah** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:37 am

It took me enough time to figure out how encode to mp3 let alone variable bitrate mp3s

Surely ecoding to 'v0' requires a non-freeware encoder aswell.

davwuh · Post by **davwuh** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:56 am

two oh one wrote:"Oi, giz a 320, innit" has a better ring to it than "Sir, may I be so bold as to ask if I could procure a copy of a variable bitrate encoded mp3 file of this track"

yeah but "v0" sounds even better than both

davwuh · Post by **davwuh** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:57 am

+ i did explain it in the first post

two oh one · Post by **two oh one** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:01 am

Davwuh wrote:+ i did explain it in the first post

Maybe they thought you had abbreviated Vorbis Ogg?

Davwuh wrote:yeah but "v0" sounds even better than both

No, vinyl sounds better.

spiro · Post by **spiro** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:08 am

two oh one wrote:No, vinyl sounds better.

and we have to conclude that thats what we want to the break of dawn . . .
it must be a big pluss that dubstep people dont know all this details!
we don´t care, we want vinyl . . . or something else that just works!

relaks · Post by **relaks** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:04 am

the consensus seems to be that 320's pack more bass weight.

however, I still have love for v0

rob_booth · Post by **rob_booth** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:32 am

I upload all my shows in -V0- lame setting.

Ok:

-b 320. This is the strongest setting for MP3, with the lowest risk of artifacts. With the exception of a few situations, quality is rarely better than the highest VBR profiles (-V0 for example). However, 'archiving' music using a lossy format like MP3 is never recommended – no matter how transparent the resulting files might be. The alternative is to use Lossless formats like WavPack, FLAC etc. that allow true archiving bit for bit like on original CD.

So, 320 is overkill.

VBR: variable bitrate modes goal is to achieve a fixed level of quality using the lowest possible bitrate.

VBR is best used to target a specific quality level, instead of a specific bitrate. The final file size of a VBR encode is less predictable than with ABR, but the quality is usually better.

The rule of thumb when considering encoding options: at a given bitrate, VBR is higher quality than ABR, which is higher quality than CBR (VBR > ABR > CBR in terms of quality). The exception to this is when you choose the highest possible CBR bitrate, which is 320 kbps (-b 320 = --alt-preset insane), but this produces very large filesizes for very little audible benefit.

4linehaiku · Post by **4linehaiku** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:31 am

rekorder wrote:It took me enough time to figure out how encode to mp3 let alone variable bitrate mp3s

Surely ecoding to 'v0' requires a non-freeware encoder aswell.

Nope it's free
http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.php

I certainly can't hear any difference between the two, and I rip all my music to v0, but I am assured that for playing out purposes, 320s do slightly better.

v0 vs 320

v0 vs 320

Who is online