320kbps mp3's

to my understanding the easiest understanding is the higher the number the better the quality. Also the bigger the file size. They will all play on any computer with out problems. A mp3 is a mp3, the kbps is how much data is being played. 256 kilobytes per second as opposed to 320 kilobytes per second. Now mp3's are compressed to make them smaller (look it up), so no matter the transfer rate you are going to lose some quality. The only way to not lose quality is to use a lossless file (FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio, ALAC/Apple Lossless). But basically it depends on what speakers you are using, if your using regular speakers then you probably wont notice, if your using monitors then you will notice a little.

Also to my understanding VBR(variable bit rate) compresses different parts of songs at different rates, unlike CBR (constant bit rate) Just compresses the song the same all the way across the board. The difference is VBR is more dynamic, CBR is just constant across the board. There is also ABR(average bit rate) which is a mix of the two kinda.

Mess around with the other stuff as that is mainly preference. Bottom line is that no matter the bit rate you choose it will play on computers fine. Higher the number the better the quality. lossless is even better but the bigger the number the bigger the file.....

Someone told me 256 kbps is the best compromise - lose a little quality but gain more playability on more puters.

Bit rate generally doesn't matter. File type does. MP3 is more "universal" than AAC (though that is changing).
If an application can play an MP3 or an AAC file, it can usually play them at any bit rate in that format.
256 is the best compromise between quality and file size, not quality and compatibility.
AAC is generally higher quality at lower bit rates, so a 128 kbps AAC - 4GB file will be same quality as a 160 kbps MP3 - 5GB file.
(This is a general statement using the iTunes MP3 encoder. Other codecs are better quality so don't jump on this people)

As I just read on a different site, CBR is what garageband uses to encode MP3's unless you check VBR. I don't think there is a big draw back to using VBR as opposed to CBR. What I read that I found interesting, is in CBR if there is no sound it is taking up as much space as full on music. So with using VBR if there is no sound it runs a smaller bit rate and when the music is in full swing the bit rate is higher. So its really up to you. Encode using both CBR and VBR and use which one sounds best to you. I would think that it would slightly depend on what music you are producing.

Also still reading up on it, VBR should produce the same sound quality if not better with a smaller file size then CBR. There are really different sides to the argument you will have to just use what you think sounds the best and works the best...

http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/163747
read up on this forum, both sides of the argument. I think I am going to start using vbr more....

Also still reading up on it, VBR should produce the same sound quality if not better with a smaller file size then CBR.

Actually, VBR will almost always be larger (at least with iTunes).
Songs encoded with VBR will use that bit rate as a minimum (unless it is complete silence).
It will go higher than the set bit rate (therefore larger files) if the sound goes up.

oh my bad....

I thought that the bit rate was a cap, not the minimum. I just did a little test with a track that was about 90 seconds and the difference was .4mb. The VBR file sounded slightly more dynamic and more full.... good call chris

looking on my file info the total bit rate on the tracks are as follows : compressed at 192mbps
CBR: total bit rate = 192,000
VBR: total bit rate = 225,000

so that would technically confirm that the VBR would be the better quality.... with a larger file, not a smaller one..... VBR seems like a more efficient compression then CBR