CBR vs. VBR indication

[FtMgAl]

This is my biggest complaint at the moment (more will come later I'm sure    )  I just did a comparison and found two duplicates that had the same duration and the same names and the same tags and the same bit rate and were 99.9% for content. The only difference was one file length was only 75% of the second one. Playing them the difference in quality was obvious. The short one was recorded with a variable bit rate and the long one was a constant bit rate. A column for this would have been helpful.

[Admin]

This is my biggest complaint at the moment (more will come later I'm sure    )  I just did a comparison and found two duplicates that had the same duration and the same names and the same tags and the same bit rate and were 99.9% for content. The only difference was one file length was only 75% of the second one. Playing them the difference in quality was obvious. The short one was recorded with a variable bit rate and the long one was a constant bit rate. A column for this would have been helpful.

we think about this, but it not so simple some codecs don't give us such information.

[hsei]

I support getting as much information as feasible. In this case the duplicates differ mainly by size. It would be helpful to have at least an indication (e.g. background colour) of great deviations. Primary task of similarity is to identify almost identical files. Ranking duplicates with same content and different quality in a second step is a non-trivial task. Comparing bitrate, size etc. is not always reliable especially for reencoded material.

[JMThomas]

What ever gets done for CBR vs VBR should also include some indication that a file was encoded in a loss less manor.  Think about .wma files -- it's most difficult to tell what the encode was thinking when it did its job.

[Admin]

We add some information from decoders in future.