IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Quicktime TVBR vs Nero AAC
pgm86
post Jan 26 2011, 09:32
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-March 10
Member No.: 78677



hi guys, what's the general consensus between the two? which is better for encoding using vbr? thanks
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Jan 26 2011, 11:21
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 2072
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



Well, the best way to answer that question would be for you to conduct your own series of blind ABX tests. What works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another. We don't have your music, equipment, listening environment, tastes, or ears.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Steve Forte Rio
post Jan 26 2011, 11:55
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 4-October 08
From: Ukraine
Member No.: 59301



(Sorry for my extremely bad English)

In my opinion Quick Time and nero has about the same quality, but QT has a little more flexible VBR mode, so in some cases it can give a little higher quality.
But at the same time QT has such problems like limiting of signals with high level (close to 0dbFS) which results in dynamic range compression.

Also QT has a problems with bad-quality resampling at low bitrates.

Considering all these factors I would recomend you to use Nero
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Centauri
post Jan 28 2011, 00:02
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 9-June 09
Member No.: 70521



'Extremely bad English' laugh.gif

I wish I could instill English that 'bad' into several of the people I have the misfortune of knowing. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Centauri: Jan 28 2011, 00:05


--------------------
Altec UHP336s/Sennheiser eH 150s/AKG K171s & q113 tVBR AAC...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pgm86
post Feb 5 2011, 07:16
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-March 10
Member No.: 78677



concerning about qt's dynamic range compression, does this problem apply to the newest quicktime?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Feb 7 2011, 03:54
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



Since I can use NeroAACEnc with foobar while applying the new R128 audio standard I've got to say my vote goes for that :S
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lvqcl
post Feb 7 2011, 16:31
Post #7





Group: Developer
Posts: 3362
Joined: 2-December 07
Member No.: 49183



You can use Quicktime AAC in foobar2000 too. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Feb 8 2011, 01:05
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



QUOTE (lvqcl @ Feb 7 2011, 07:31) *
You can use Quicktime AAC in foobar2000 too. laugh.gif


You're saying there's a commandline encoder for QuickTime I can just download? Because I'm using Ubuntu Maverick with WINE and foobar2000 to do the volume normalizations and converting with NeroAACEnc. For some reason LAME wouldn't work with WINE it kept giving me demands for various extra files, doesn't matter since AAC is superior anyway.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
list
post Feb 8 2011, 02:20
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 7-September 10
From: Argentina
Member No.: 83667



QUOTE (SamDeRe81 @ Feb 7 2011, 21:05) *
QUOTE (lvqcl @ Feb 7 2011, 07:31) *
You can use Quicktime AAC in foobar2000 too. laugh.gif

You're saying there's a commandline encoder for QuickTime I can just download?

http://tmkk.pv.land.to/qtaacenc/
but it needs quick time installed
for me, @ >128 kbps QT gives much better results than Nero

This post has been edited by list: Feb 8 2011, 02:23
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Larson
post Feb 8 2011, 07:34
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 131
Joined: 27-March 09
Member No.: 68422



there is also qaac that does the job

http://sites.google.com/site/qaacpage/

it's up to you wether to use qtaacenc or qaac, they both require Quicktime installed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Feb 8 2011, 08:33
Post #11





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



QUOTE (list @ Feb 7 2011, 17:20) *
for me, @ >128 kbps QT gives much better results than Nero

Samples and logged ABX results, please!

Perhaps the Nero developers may find it useful, no?


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nowings69
post Feb 8 2011, 14:06
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 22-December 09
From: nicyoume
Member No.: 76223



QUOTE (Steve Forte Rio @ Jan 26 2011, 19:55) *
(Sorry for my extremely bad English)

In my opinion Quick Time and nero has about the same quality, but QT has a little more flexible VBR mode, so in some cases it can give a little higher quality.
But at the same time QT has such problems like limiting of signals with high level (close to 0dbFS) which results in dynamic range compression.

Also QT has a problems with bad-quality resampling at low bitrates.

Considering all these factors I would recomend you to use Nero

yes i gess so too
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
punkrockdude
post Feb 8 2011, 15:00
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 244
Joined: 21-February 05
Member No.: 20022



QUOTE (greynol @ Feb 8 2011, 08:33) *
QUOTE (list @ Feb 7 2011, 17:20) *
for me, @ >128 kbps QT gives much better results than Nero

Samples and logged ABX results, please!

Perhaps the Nero developers may find it useful, no?

I also find Quicktime to be a lot better than Nero around 128kbps. It's easy to hear when you compare so that's why I haven't done an ABX.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
list
post Feb 8 2011, 15:13
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 7-September 10
From: Argentina
Member No.: 83667



and what about qt CVBR mode?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
list
post Feb 8 2011, 15:26
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 7-September 10
From: Argentina
Member No.: 83667



Ok, here i took some samples at about 128 kbps
nero 1.5.4 -q 0.40 -lc
qtaacenc --cvbr 112
www.mediafire.com/download.php?ffj8cm332bq7a7e

This post has been edited by list: Feb 8 2011, 15:26
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SamDeRe81
post Feb 8 2011, 20:22
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 24-November 10
Member No.: 85992



Alright so you think if I encode to 190 AAC I should use NeroAACEnc or QuickTime?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
list
post Feb 8 2011, 21:40
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 7-September 10
From: Argentina
Member No.: 83667



QUOTE (SamDeRe81 @ Feb 8 2011, 16:22) *
Alright so you think if I encode to 190 AAC I should use NeroAACEnc or QuickTime?

i would use QT smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Feb 9 2011, 07:16
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 2072
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (punkrockdude @ Feb 8 2011, 07:00) *
I also find Quicktime to be a lot better than Nero around 128kbps. It's easy to hear when you compare so that's why I haven't done an ABX.


ABX tests are needed, it doesn't matter how "easy" you think it is to hear as you could very well be suffering from the placebo affect. Proper testing is required before anyone makes subjective audio claims, period. That is in the TOS (specifically TOS #8) that everyone agrees upon when joining the site. So proper test results are needed from both you and list before any audio quality claims can be taken seriously. That and the Nero devs would like to know the performance of their encoder and just what samples their encoder is having issues with. That way they can fine tune their encoder so that Apple's is not "much better" and comparing the two won't be so "easy to hear."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
list
post Feb 9 2011, 14:06
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 7-September 10
From: Argentina
Member No.: 83667



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Feb 9 2011, 03:16) *
ABX tests are needed, it doesn't matter how "easy" you think it is to hear as you could very well be suffering from the placebo affect. Proper testing is required before anyone makes subjective audio claims, period.

Sorry, i didn't know that.
QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Feb 9 2011, 03:16) *
... so that Apple's is not "much better" and comparing the two won't be so "easy to hear."

They work different as what i can hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Feb 9 2011, 14:11
Post #20





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



kc2002 just explained that any claim of difference in quality is worth nothing until evidenced by a blind test. Otherwise, expecting to hear differences can cause the listener to hear them where they don't exist.

This post has been edited by dv1989: Feb 9 2011, 14:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
list
post Feb 9 2011, 14:29
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 7-September 10
From: Argentina
Member No.: 83667



QUOTE (dv1989 @ Feb 9 2011, 10:11) *
expecting to hear differences lead you to hear them where they don't exist.

No, i was not expecting to hear any difference. Once i disided to include the qt aac in my gui and make some simple tests using it for video series, and i surprised when i saw the difference at first sight. So i decided to try also with some of my music.. and i said: woow there is a difference. Easy to hear at 128kbps.
Im not audio tester, i only noticed a difference and decided to share it here. (i thought people know that difference) so was i wrong? unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Feb 9 2011, 14:38
Post #22





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



You're missing the point. When you were comparing the two codecs, did you know which was which? If so, your claim is not objective. Claims of audible differences in sound quality are of no use unless they are backed up by objective evidence gathered in a blind listening test. Subjective claims are proscribed by this site's rules, which users must (at least tacitly) agree to while creating an account.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Feb 9 2011, 16:44
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 2072
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



QUOTE (list @ Feb 9 2011, 06:29) *
and i said: woow there is a difference. Easy to hear at 128kbps.


I can assure you that any difference you think you heard was not there as you don't have my equipment. Only proper audio quality judging can be used on my system with my Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable ($1,000), pair of AudioQuest K2 terminated speaker cables ($17,000), properly broken in tube amp ($23,000), 48" quad speakers with 45 lb magnetic drivers ($46,700), and Ailenware desktop with external sound card ($7,600) running the Microsoft Zune PC software. I say: Wow, there is a huge difference in listening to audio with what you have and my system is a million bagillion times better than yours. It is so easy to hear that blind testing isn't required.

See why proper testing is needed before any audio quality claims are made? It doesn't matter if the difference is "easy to hear." You need proper testing to backup your claims, period. Don't like it? Well, those are the rules here which you and everyone else agreed upon. There is a reason why that is part of the rules and it is enforced here.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
list
post Feb 9 2011, 17:02
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 7-September 10
From: Argentina
Member No.: 83667



QUOTE (kornchild2002 @ Feb 9 2011, 12:44) *
QUOTE (list @ Feb 9 2011, 06:29) *
and i said: woow there is a difference. Easy to hear at 128kbps.


I can assure you that any difference you think you heard was not there as you don't have my equipment. Only proper audio quality judging can be used on my system with my Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable ($1,000), pair of AudioQuest K2 terminated speaker cables ($17,000), properly broken in tube amp ($23,000), 48" quad speakers with 45 lb magnetic drivers ($46,700), and Ailenware desktop with external sound card ($7,600) running the Microsoft Zune PC software. I say: Wow, there is a huge difference in listening to audio with what you have and my system is a million bagillion times better than yours. It is so easy to hear that blind testing isn't required.

See why proper testing is needed before any audio quality claims are made? It doesn't matter if the difference is "easy to hear." You need proper testing to backup your claims, period. Don't like it? Well, those are the rules here which you and everyone else agreed upon. There is a reason why that is part of the rules and it is enforced here.

After all, encoders will be used by 99% normal users with a normal hardware, right?
So, if you can't notice the difference with a high-end equipment, but other does with a simple hardware encoding a not simple movie. Is that important?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kornchild2002
post Feb 9 2011, 17:45
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 2072
Joined: 8-April 05
From: Cincinnati, OH
Member No.: 21277



I really don't understand what you are saying or the point you are trying to get across. There are rules in place that need to be followed, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. They are a fundamental part of this site and you can either follow them or not participate in the forums. You obviously aren't understanding the need for proper testing in order to backup or refute subjective claims.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: 29th August 2014 - 07:49