Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)

[greenday1987]

Definitely gonna check this out on my V2 instillation

[Zak]

I'm genuinely curious why this is so important to people...

If I look at the bitrate value of a given song and it says 128k, I know it isn't going to sound great. If it says ~256k I know it's going to sound pretty good.

What is gained by replacing the actual or average bitrate with an arbitrary number that represents a preset that might be used when encoding with one specific encoder implementation? Is it just an aesthetic preference, or am I missing some obvious benefit or additional information that it provides?


Also noticed that without Show Encoding Quality checked, the Editor properties tab shows:

Bitrate: 213k VBR (V2)

With the same option checked, the Editor properties tab shows:

Bitrate: V2

The space is there regardless, so there's no real reason not to always show both values in the Editor. I'm also inclined to make the same argument for the details in the Track Info panel, because even at its widest all of the details still fit into the narrowest allowed panel width.

[Steven]

@Zak, I personally agree with you about that setting but the setting has not been located in a promenant place and i expect only people who care about it will find it and set it.
MB will only show the value if for lame encoded files if the quality parameter was used when encoding

[paq]

What is gained by replacing the actual or average bitrate with an arbitrary number that represents a preset that might be used when encoding with one specific encoder implementation? Is it just an aesthetic preference, or am I missing some obvious benefit or additional information that it provides?

One reason could be consistency. Say you have an album which was encoded using a variable preset, and you want to make sure all tracks used the same setting, V1 or V2 and so on... Then you wouldn't be able to tell by only looking at the bitrate. And as I understand Stevens comment, it's not the preset that might have been used, it's either the preset used or no information about the preset at all. Am I correct?

And to some visually, it might be less abstract than "~241k". I say as long as it doesn't replace anything and is something optional - why not?

[greenday1987]

It's far more aesthetically pleasing and nicer for the OCD in me to be able to see the preset value