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: Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest) (Read 10403 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

I would like to know which is the best, Nero digital audio (latest) Nero AAC Codec 1.3.3.0
or iTunes (latest) 9 . Both have come really close earlier. I would like to compare the latest Nero AAC with iTunes AAC.
E.g Encoding music at 128 kbps CBR which of the two is better
and at 96 kbps CBR which is better
I would be interested in VBR values too.
I have heard Wma10 pro is highly efficient and would like to know it against Nero and iTunes at 128 kbps and 96 kbps respectively

I would be glad to know the results, probably after the listening test (if someone conducts soon)

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #3 –
Most people are probably going to hold off on conducting any new listening tests as a new version of the Nero AAC encoder is just around the corner.  I wouldn't be surprised if the newer iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder outperforms Nero AAC 1.3.3 as iTunes/QuickTime AAC is about one year newer.  One year is a long time for added improvements.

I haven't conducted my own series of tests and I won't until the new version of Nero AAC comes out.  No point in me spending weeks on listening tests when a new version of Nero AAC might be out by the end of the year.

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #4 –
Quote
Perhaps he is looking for an opinion from someone experienced with various artifacts with good hearing and equipment.

I know I always feel more comfortable when the more experienced members post their thoughts.


I too value the "opinions" of the more experienced members..That's precisely why I joined this forum..That said, even a less-experienced member like myself, knows that none of us share EARS or equipment...

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #5 –
iTunes uses Advanced Bitrate Recording (ABR) to do it's thing, which is nothing more than Constant Bitrate Recording (CBR) with a different name. Both are totally inefficient, and give you music files that are bigger than they should be. Nero doesn't play that game. By default, it uses Variable Bitrate Recording (VBR), giving you a more consistent, better-sounding file. So, by default, the latter has the edge.

Now if Nero could only work with Rockbox to get Nero gapless playback for their AAC format, they'd just totally rock.

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #6 –
Quote from: DP3_001 on
iTunes uses Advanced Bitrate Recording (ABR) to do it's thing, which is nothing more than Constant Bitrate Recording (CBR) with a different name.


ABR=average (not advanced) bit rate (not recording)
CBR=constant bit rate

iTunes indeed uses ABR if you choose CBR, but CBR is not just another name for the same. ABR lies in between CBR and VBR.

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #7 –
@DP3_001

Your general principle is correct. For a given quality, the filesize will generally be CBR > ABR > VBR i.e. a VBR file will typically be smallest. However, the rest of your post is a bit misleading.

- ABR is Average Bit Rate, and it's quite different from CBR. Have a look here for an explanation of ABR.

- iTunes has two basic encoding modes - CBR (which seems to be similar to LAME ABR as described in the link above), and VBR (which is really constrained VBR i.e. VBR with a defined minimum bitrate). Have a look at this thread for a fuller explanation.

Edit: Too slow!

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #8 –
Quote from: coolKarthik on
I would like to know which is the best, Nero digital audio (latest) Nero AAC Codec 1.3.3.0
or iTunes (latest) 9 . Both have come really close earlier. I would like to compare the latest Nero AAC with iTunes AAC.
E.g Encoding music at 128 kbps CBR which of the two is better
and at 96 kbps CBR which is better
I would be interested in VBR values too.
I have heard Wma10 pro is highly efficient and would like to know it against Nero and iTunes at 128 kbps and 96 kbps respectively

I would be glad to know the results, probably after the listening test (if someone conducts soon)


I think I will wait until the new version of Nero Aac releases. I am thinking to convert my 200gb+ music and 128 kbps with Nero Aac would be great I guess. As I do not own an Apple iPod, Nero should not be a problem. Can anyone enumerate the last listening test results please?

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #9 –
Quote from: DP3_001 on
Now if Nero could only work with Rockbox to get Nero gapless playback for their AAC format, they'd just totally rock.

Nero AAC plays gaplessly on my Rockboxed SanDisk e270.

 

Nero Aac vs iTunes Aac (latest)

Reply #10 –
Now that new Nero AAC 1.5.1 is out it'd be nice to test it compared to Apple true vbr AAC.