Can You VBR? (is VBR a technical restriction for you?)

So, I want to find out who VBR’s and who CBR’s.
I don’t care for anyone who ABR’s. >_>

2 parts.

Part 1: Can you VBR? (yes or no; if no, then why not?)

VBR technical restrictions (such as a software player (really codec) cannot play VBR or a hardware device cannot VBR) should be less and less of an issue with today’s ever-growing technology.

CBR would be a preference if you plan to stream (internet stream or even DLNA; internet streaming can suffice with lower than 320 kbps).
CBR would be a preference if you use old software/hardware that cannot read VBR (circa 1815 A.D.)
CBR would be a preference if you’re hoity toity.
There’s other reasons, I’m sure.

VBR is aimed at constant quality.
CBR is aimed at constant bitrate.
This is an old story.

Let’s get to brass taxes: Can you VBR?
Not: Do you prefer VBR or CBR.

But for those of you who CBR, I would like to know if you are technically incapable of VBR’ing.

I just want a more informed consenus on whether or not people can VBR when it’s available.
I know a lot of people are limited in the knowledge of things about software and codecs and stick to ancient (outdated, deprecated, abandoned) software/codecs. Usually, this is a clear sign of convenience (who wants to learn something new, anyhow?). Or IOCSPD (Internet-Obsessive-Compulsive Self-Proclaimed Disorder).

Answer:

Yes or no; if no, then why not?

Part 2: The Ancient Battle (now in 2014)

Answer:

V0 vs. 320

I’ve picked Yes (on all accounts).
Been encoding at V0 for a few years, though I still have some stuff encoded at 320 CBR which I wouldn’t bother to re-rip because: 1) I’m too lazy to do that and I can’t virtually hear a difference in sound-quality between V0 and 320; 2) The CD has too many scratches, I would likely end with a faulty (+worse) encode.

I do stream/release my piano arrangements at 192 CBR, to me it seems a decent compromise between bandwidth usage and sound quality.

Neither anymore. I WAV or I ALAC. I occasionally AC3, sometimes DTS. I don’t FLAC, I don’t APE, and I most certainly do not OGG!

I can, but I don’t. Nout wrong with VBR, although I used it only a couple of times for recording talk radio stations. As for music I’ve switched from ATRAC to mp4/AAC. [If Sony weren’t so ham-fisted with their policy on digital rights with Mini-Disc, they could have had a much wider consumer base, but that’s another story]. I found that mp3 compression always corrupts the beginning and end of tracks. If anyone disbelieves or is unaware of this just try ripping a music CD containing tracks that segue. Then reverse this procedure by burning a CD from the mp3s – the result will demonstrate the glitches. Or if you’re familiar with a wave editor, load the original ripped WAV file and the mp3 file, comparing the two, paying attention to the duration of the file and the beginning and end parts of the waveforms. I’ve tried a number of mp3 encoders, and they all screw-up. I found Sony ATRAC and Yamaha Twin VQ to be the best in the face of overwhelming evidence on countless web sites stating in no-uncertain terms how superior mp3 is over Twin VQ and ATRAC. However, if using an old mp3 player, the issue may be academic. And who’s going to give a crap in a hundred years?

AC-3 and DTS, the Pepsi and Coca-Cola of the digital audio link world were developed to carry compressed audio data from a source to a digital amp by utilising the available uncompressed bandwidth of a 48000Hz stereo link – basically getting 6 channels of audio across 2. Bloody witchcraft or simply crap.

When I began downloading music seven years ago I didn’t even know the difference between 128 and 320. After being here a couple of years and sharing stuff that I ripped it was in MP3 CBR-320. These days I rip in FLAC and if someone wants the MP3 version I give them VBR-V0 or CBR-320 if they demand it.