Text only | Text with Images

HydrogenAudio

Hydrogenaudio Forum => Listening Tests => Topic started by: M on 2009-03-21 00:24:25

Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: M on 2009-03-21 00:24:25
Now that Apple has finally enabled what appears to be Quicktime's highest quality encoding for the iTunes "Plus" preset, would it be worth conducting a listening test to determine the relative standings of the current contenders?



    - M.
Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: shakey_snake on 2009-03-21 01:14:46
Quote from: M on
would it be worth conducting a listening test to determine the relative standings of the current contenders?
I think, if previous listening tests are any sort of indication, it's very likely that they're all going to be transparent on non-problem samples. 

So then what are you wanting to compare exactly? Average filesize?
Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: kornchild2002 on 2009-03-21 05:06:10
Go for it if you have the ears.  Otherwise you probably aren't going to hear any difference between all three encoders.  I would be curious to see how the iTunes Plus setting stacks up to Nero and Lame.  I would still never use such a high bitrate setting as Nero produces transparent results at -q0.45--q0.50 for me but that doesn't stop me form being curious.

I think that you might have difficulties matching up the bitrates though.  From my experience, the iTunes Plus setting tends to produce files at around 280kbps while -V 0 averages files at about 260kbps.  I never tested Nero at -q0.60 but -q0.50 produces file at around 190kbps for me.  I don't know if a 20-30kbps difference would drastically affect things but it might be something to think about.
Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: Zarggg on 2009-03-21 15:31:23
Unless one of those encoders are horribly glitched, all my submissions would be 5.0
Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: dbAmp on 2009-03-21 19:56:25
Are we certain that the iTunes Plus setting is using VBR and not VBR_Constrained?
Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: Busemann on 2009-03-21 20:55:49
Quote from: dbAmp on
Are we certain that the iTunes Plus setting is using VBR and not VBR_Constrained?


iTunes Plus is VBR_Constrained @ 256kbps using the highest quality setting of the encoder.
Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: Donunus on 2009-09-18 10:47:18
Quote from: Busemann on
Quote from: dbAmp on
Are we certain that the iTunes Plus setting is using VBR and not VBR_Constrained?


iTunes Plus is VBR_Constrained @ 256kbps using the highest quality setting of the encoder.


Sorry for the ignorance... constrained meaning 256 minimum or 256 max?
Title: Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98
Post by: ShowsOn on 2009-09-18 12:51:44
Well I wouldn't be able to participate in such a test because all these settings will be transparent for me.

I wouldn't mind a new 128 Kbps test featuring LAME 3.98.2, the latest Nero AAC encoder and the new CoreAudio AAC encoder in OSX 10.6.
Text only | Text with Images