From: "Gary Britt" 

So encoding at the max bitrate of 320 won't really isn't worth it?  What
about error correction did you have that turned on or not?

Thanks,

Gary

"Dave Ings"  wrote in message news:4421c04f{at}w3....
> My two cents:
>
> I believe the real world difference between variable and fixed bit rates
> disappears as the bit rate increases. At low encoding (storage
constrained)
> rates there may be some audible merit to using variable. But since I
favour
> simplicity over complexity, and since storage is now so cheap, I favour
> fixed rate encoding at reasonably high rates.
>
> When I ripped my entire CD library, about 4 years ago, I used 192 fixed
rate
> MP3. If I were doing it again today, I'd use 256 fixed rate MP3. I don't
see
> any value in encoding rates higher than that, especially given the ways in
> which I typically listen to music.
>
> BTW I used 192 because I could definitely hear the difference between 128
> and 160, and although I couldn't hear any improvement with 192 it gave me
a
> margin of error. Similarly I'm not convinced 256 is actually audibly
> different in most circumstances, but disk is so cheap these days why the
> heck not?
> --
> Regards,
> Dave Ings,
> Toronto, Canada
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:4421b08b{at}w3....
> When ripping an audio CD to MP3 file format is it better to use constant
> bitrate or variable bitrate?  What about if you are ripping to WMA file
> format.  Is it better to use constant bitrate or variable bitrate?
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5