IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame, codec comparision
Menedas
post Sep 20 2013, 08:39
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 37441



I'm using Nero AAC with -q 0.5 to encode my music. Now I rethink the use of AAC because of compatibility and because a friend told me Lame is now nearly the same efficient than AAC. I've searched to find a prove for that, but all threads I could found are from around 2008 or in higher or lower bitrates. So my question is, is it true that Lame 3.99r MP3s with the same file size of around a Nero AAC 1.5.4.0 with -q 0.5 does have the same quality? Seems like Lame with V3 is around the same filesize.

This post has been edited by Menedas: Sep 20 2013, 08:58
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Sep 20 2013, 08:53
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1050
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



Being a more modern codec, AAC is generally more efficient than MP3. Whether files encoded with Nero AAC or LAME show a big difference in quality depends on the bitrate regime you're in, and the quality of the encoder. I would ask the question the other way around: "What bitrate do I need to achieve the same quality?". At low bitrates Nero will likely need slightly less bitrates, but after a certain threshold, when both codecs are transparent, both encoders will be on-par with each other at all bitrates. Nero will likely reach the point of transparency at slightly lower bitrates, though I never conducted a thorough listening test of either codec to determine my transparency threshold and confirm my latter statement.

This post has been edited by Kohlrabi: Sep 20 2013, 08:55


--------------------
Ceterum censeo Masterdiskem esse delendam.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post Sep 20 2013, 09:34
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11664



I would prefer Nero 180k over mp3 . In some cases it will yield higher quality than 320k mp3 due limitations of the format (pre echo). There is also an inefficient handling of HF frequencies in mp3 that may or my not be audible. I think also mp3 may have poorer performance in the form of ringing (like on the angels fall 1st sample & lead voice) .

If maximum compatibility isn't paramount I'd go with MPC / AAC / vorbis for 180k encodings.


--------------------
Wavpack -b450s0.7
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Pulstar
post Sep 20 2013, 18:38
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 26-January 10
Member No.: 77550



You could also assign higher bitrates to the music that you deem more important. A lot of us keep an excess of music that we seldom listen to. For example I use 64kbit HE-AAC for a lot of VGM that I hardly load up.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Sep 20 2013, 18:59
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



Shootouts over the last couple of years have given me the impression that Nero has fallen behind. If I were to encode my collection as AAC, I'd probably use QAAC (Apple). I don't think I'd be going out on a limb in saying the current version of Apple AAC will reach transparency at lower bit rates than any current or future MP3 encoder, across the board.

I would never have said that a few years ago.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Menedas
post Sep 20 2013, 20:31
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 37441



Is it possible to use QAAC with something like foobar?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Sep 20 2013, 21:14
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1085
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



QUOTE (Menedas @ Sep 20 2013, 12:31) *
Is it possible to use QAAC with something like foobar?

https://github.com/nu774/qaac/wiki/Examples...nt-end-examples


--------------------
/lwAsIimz
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Menedas
post Sep 20 2013, 21:41
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 11-November 06
Member No.: 37441



Thanks wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd September 2014 - 08:39