Skip to main content

Topic: Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame (Read 7713 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Menedas
  • [*]
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
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.
  • Last Edit: 20 September, 2013, 03:58:12 AM by Menedas

  • Kohlrabi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
Reply #1
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.
  • Last Edit: 20 September, 2013, 03:55:39 AM by Kohlrabi
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
Reply #2
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 -b350hhj0s0.7cc

  • Pulstar
  • [*]
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
Reply #3
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.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
Reply #4
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.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Menedas
  • [*]
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
Reply #5
Is it possible to use QAAC with something like foobar?

  • eahm
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
Reply #6

  • Menedas
  • [*]
Nero AAC -q 0.5 vs Lame
Reply #7
Thanks