Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Move from Nero to iTunes? (Read 6667 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Move from Nero to iTunes?

I use foobar and the latest nero @ 0.5.

I'm considering moving to itunes. Nero hasn't been updated in like 2 years, and itunes additionally has better integration. Thoughts?

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #1 –
If you encode at low bitrates then you may want to wait a few days to see the results of the latest listening test.

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #2 –
I think you have players confused with encoders.

Switching from NeroAAC to Apple AAC isn't going to make much difference, if at all.

I'd be more interested in finding out whether Itunes has all the features you need and use in foobar. Personally, I prefer foobar by a mile.

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #3 –
Additionally, most QuickTime AAC encoder updates (which is what iTunes uses to encode AAC files) actually don't improve encoder quality.  They are there for stability reasons, to fix bugs, etc.  I believe Apple's QuickTime AAC encoder receives the same amount of major updates (as in updates that improve encoding) as Nero's AAC encoder and that the last major update for QuickTime AAC was done 1-2 years ago (I have a hard time keeping track of these things).  Even then, more encoder quality updates don't always mean audibly better quality files.

As previously pointed out, the biggest change is going to be the move to iTunes from foobar2000.  You might be fine with the transition (especially if you use a different program for CD ripping) or it could drive you nuts.  Quite frankly, I don't think there is a program better than iTunes when it comes to syncing with iDevices but that is only one aspect.

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #4 –
Eh, wasn't the last nero release a stability release as well?

Is it still being developed, btw?

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #5 –
not really, it had some encoding improvements and changes as well. It restored high frequencies for 300+ bitrates for example.

Changelog:
neroAacEnc:
- Improved encoding of sample rates higher than 48kHz
- Solved compatibility issues with some hardware devices
- Write iTunes compatible gapless data
- Enabled preserving of very quiet high frequencies at high bitrates
- Write the encoder settings to metadata
- Executable size reduction

Is it still in development? Who knows; we've been wondering that for a long time now with no answer from Nero developers.

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #6 –
Fellow HA members mostly recommends and uses Nero AAC for encoding to M4A probably because it scored higher than iTunes in listening tests. If that's the case, why would you want to move to iTunes? A latest release or update doesn't always mean it has some significant improvements in sound quality, IMHO.
sin(α) = v sound/v object = Mach No.

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: SonicBooom! on
Fellow HA members mostly recommends and uses Nero AAC for encoding to M4A probably because it scored higher than iTunes in listening tests.


This was not at all the case. iTunes had a higher average rating, but not enough to be statistically significant, so they were effectively tied. Nero certainly wasn't better at 128kbps:

http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm

iTunes used to be worse than Nero at low bitrates because it didn't suport HE-AAC at all. Now it does. As was said, we will know in 2 weeks when the result from the current test WHICH CAN USE MORE LISTENERS, gets announced.

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Garf on
Quote from: SonicBooom! on
Fellow HA members mostly recommends and uses Nero AAC for encoding to M4A probably because it scored higher than iTunes in listening tests.


This was not at all the case. iTunes had a higher average rating, but not enough to be statistically significant, so they were effectively tied. Nero certainly wasn't better at 128kbps:

http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/s...8-1/results.htm

iTunes used to be worse than Nero at low bitrates because it didn't suport HE-AAC at all. Now it does. As was said, we will know in 2 weeks when the result from the current test WHICH CAN USE MORE LISTENERS, gets announced.


but that's from 2005. The last nero update came in like 2009. Even that one contained many improvements which were pretty much irrelevent to 0.5

iTunes from what I can tell is still being improved.
 

Move from Nero to iTunes?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: adlai on
but that's from 2005. The last nero update came in like 2009. Even that one contained many improvements which were pretty much irrelevent to 0.5

iTunes from what I can tell is still being improved.


So you're saying a conclusion based on no data at all is better than one based on data that might be outdated?