Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 160 ABR vs 192 CBR? Which is better? (Read 3933 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

160 ABR vs 192 CBR? Which is better?

This question is from an argument I'm having with a friend of mine who thinks that 160 ABR sounds better than 192 CBR.  I personally don't really notice a difference but I'd like to hear any opinions from the folks on this forum.

160 ABR vs 192 CBR? Which is better?

Reply #1 –
Neither. Use 192 ABR!

But really, the 192 CBR will likely sound better - maybe not enough to clearly ABX - but remember that it will be consuming 20% more bytes on average. So if you could be "prove" that 192 CBR sounds better than 160 ABR, then just use 192 ABR - same filesize as 192 CBR, but higher quality (due to VBR effect).

160 ABR vs 192 CBR? Which is better?

Reply #2 –
I encode mostly metal, and I can assure you that 192kbps CBR sounds better than 160kbps ABR. ABR isn't sufficiently better than CBR to be better at lower bitrates. It is, however, better at equal bitrates.