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 yadda yadda (Read 18617 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nero yadda yadda

guruboolez, just read this comparison and again a great job, thx a lot!

now i have some proposals:

1) you are doing so many great comparisons, its hard to keep tracking. would it be possible for you to create some small webpage pointing to your tests, like the one of rjamorim, so its easy to see whats going on and compare the results aso... atm it seems more to me your results are vanishing in the depths of the forum
if you cant make a own page, maybe you can create some thread carrying that info?

2) imho this test once again showed that nero isnt able to beat apple, it can come close but i never really saw it to be clearly better. isnt it time to move on?
your he-aac comparison showed that helix and coding technologies aac outperformed nero also at the he-aac level clearly

wouldnt it be more interesting to compare helix/ct to apple in the future and not always nero over and over again? (i know nero is well established (again is used in sebastians public test), but this doesnt mean that there arent better codecs)
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #1 –
Quote
wouldnt it be more interesting to compare helix/ct to apple in the future and not always nero over and over again? (i know nero is well established (again is used in sebastians public test), but this doesnt mean that there arent better codecs)[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349404"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When a codec is still being actively developed, I see no reason not to compare it over and over again.
Even though there's already a consensus that it won't par so well against others.
Who knows, one day it might really meet people's expectation(s).

Moreover, if a certain codec isn't included on a test, some people might call the test 'flawed' or 'unfair'.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #2 –
Quote
wouldnt it be more interesting to compare helix/ct to apple in the future and not always nero over and over again? (i know nero is well established (again is used in sebastians public test), but this doesnt mean that there arent better codecs)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349404"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, but to determine if the other encoders are better than Nero, you obviously have to include Nero. Comparing the results from a listening test with the results from another is not so simple because you most likely have different samples, different testers, etc.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #3 –
Quote
Quote
wouldnt it be more interesting to compare helix/ct to apple in the future and not always nero over and over again? (i know nero is well established (again is used in sebastians public test), but this doesnt mean that there arent better codecs)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349404"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, but to determine if the other encoders are better than Nero, you obviously have to include Nero. Comparing the results from a listening test with the results from another is not so simple because you most likely have different samples, different testers, etc.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349428"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

well, i am not interested in how nero performs, but what the best aac encoder is, and as nero isnt really able to beat apple, i am interested in comparing the new codecs to apple and not nero
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #4 –
Quote
well, i am not interested in how nero performs, but what the best aac encoder is, and as nero isnt really able to beat apple, i am interested in comparing the new codecs to apple and not nero [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349431"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

*pessimism detected*

Well, anyway, I don't think it's good to leave out Nero.
If Nero, like what you've said, won't be able to catch up w/ QT and/or Helix, then it's fine to make it a low anchor or something, no...?
And it's not like you're the one doing the tests so, let's just leave it to the tester's decision.

It's not that I'm a Nero fanboy or anything (heck, I rarely use AAC anyway...), it's just pretty subjective to tell that Nero won't be able, ever, to catch up w/ the other two.
Personally, I won't say an encoder's not worth mentioning if it's still under active development.
Yes, it's probably still far for Nero to catch up w/ the others and Garf's bickering on tests won't solve anything and that Nero's marketing's kinda misleading, but hey, I'm just trying to be objective.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #5 –
the point is most people, except maybe nero devs and enthusiasts, are simply interested in knowing what the best aac codec is (eg at 128kbps), cause they want to make encodes with the best codec available

we know nero isnt able to beat apple at 128
so it would be interesting to see how other, till now pretty rarely tested, aac codecs, like winamp perform compared to apple

all i am proposing to guru is that if he is interested in it he might want to use winamp in a next test (and propably skip nero), as there might be a big potential in it
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #6 –
Quote
we know nero isnt able to beat apple at 128


@Bond - There is a completely new AAC encoder branch (v3.1.0.x) used in current 128 kbps listening test, and I strongly believe this statement is not true - at worst, I am quite confident Nero and iTunes would be tied.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #7 –
An AAC comparison without Nero would be rather incomplete. Besides that, you are vastly extrapolating on results from one person. No one can conclude so firmly (as you do) that Apple is better than Nero from this test. No one, but guruboolez.
"We cannot win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

nero yadda yadda

Reply #8 –
Quote
... we know nero isnt able to beat apple at 128 ... [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349442"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Like stephan said, guru knows.
And yet, it's based on what's available at the time of the test; who knows about the coming months?

Quote
... all i am proposing to guru is that if he is interested in it he might want to use winamp in a next test (and propably skip nero), as there might be a big potential in it
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349442"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And you might as well skip a (probably) big potential in Nero's encoder.
Just keep in mind that Nero's AAC isn't as dead as FAAC.
It's gasping at the time, but still breathing nonetheless. =)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #9 –
again all i am proposing is that guru might want to consider using winamp aac in one of his next comparisons.


-----------


ivan:
well i was summing up the tests done till now, where most tests show that nero isnt able to clearly beat apple

the nero encoder guru used in this test is now little bit more than a month old (he wrote "I used the very new encoder released two weeks ago") but suddenly there should be a brand new nero codec available being tied with apple? come on

but yeah sebastians test includes the new nero codec and we will see how it performs and if the nero devs's standard argument against worse performance ("if a newer version would have been used it would have performed much better") is not again invalid
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #10 –
Quote
the nero encoder guru used in this test is now little bit more than a month old (he wrote "I used the very new encoder released two weeks ago") but suddenly there should be a brand new nero codec available being tied with apple? come on wink.gif


Ok, let me get the facts straight:

Nero 7 encoder used on the launch time contained new SBR encoder, as well as some tweaks to the current (old) LC core.

Encoder used in the test contains brand new LC-AAC core, rewritten from the scratch - that simply wasn't ready for the N7 launch time. For the purpose of this test, it has been "rushed-in"  and added for 44.1 kHz, LC, Stereo modes.

The reason is - these things need time - a lot of time, and I am sorry they cannot be delivered in the frames some might expect.

I am quite sure that Guru could find a difference in these two encoder branches if he is willing to test them

Quote
but yeah sebastians test includes the new nero codec and we will see how it performs and if the nero devs's standard argument against worse performance ("if a newer version would have been used it would have performed much better") is not again invalid


Exactly.

Look, I have no reasons to lie or make a spin here - purpose of my presence on this forum is to help and inform the people, and not something else.  If that is hard to believe, oh well.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #11 –
again all i am proposing is that guru might want to consider using winamp aac in one of his next comparisons, cause i am sure most people are interested in knowing and using the best codec available


no need to further discuss my views about how nero devs find excuses for the worse performance of their encoder compared to apple 
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #12 –
Quote
again all i am proposing is that guru might want to consider using winamp aac in one of his next comparisons.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349455"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And all I'm commenting is your 'other proposal' of not to include Nero's encoder on the next listening test.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #13 –
Quote
we know nero isnt able to beat apple at 128
so it would be interesting to see how other, till now pretty rarely tested, aac codecs, like winamp perform compared to apple
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349442"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Aa, but do "we" also know that Apple is able to beat Nero in the on going 128kbps listening test?
It will be interesting to see the results of the test, and then interesting to read your comments afterwards too.
Quote
the nero encoder guru used in this test is now little bit more than a month old (he wrote "I used the very new encoder released two weeks ago") but suddenly there should be a brand new nero codec available being tied with apple? come on

You clearly haven't at least been following the discussion here, cause it has been said many times we have a completely new codec used in the on going public listening test. Hope you are doing a better job on D9.. 
Juha Laaksonheimo

nero yadda yadda

Reply #14 –
Quote
You clearly haven't at least been following the discussion here, cause it has been said many times we have a completely new codec used in the on going public listening test.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349478"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The problem is that Nero has used that as an excuse for years now. "the next version" is always said to be a huge improvement, but then Apple's current stuff always beats it.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #15 –
Quote
The problem is that Nero has used that as an excuse for years now. "the next version" is always said to be a huge improvement, but then Apple's current stuff always beats it.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349484"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So?
Let them have their own excuses.

If their encoder is as good as advertised, then all is good.
If not, then I'll just use iTunes' or Helix'.

Simple as that. =)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #16 –
Quote
The problem is that Nero has used that as an excuse for years now. "the next version" is always said to be a huge improvement, but then Apple's current stuff always beats it.


Excuse me, but this is clerly an abuse of what I said:

- I claim that the Nero AAC Encoder 3.1.0.2 is completely rewritten (LC-AAC) and it does not use old LC-AAC codebase anymore for the 44.1 kHz, LC-AAC, Stereo mode (it uses it for other modes ATM, but this will change soon)

- I also claim that the Nero AAC Encoder 3.1.0.2 could be, at worst, tied to iTunes, and this is the result of the internal listening test - final proof (or proof that I am wrong) will be seen at the end of the public listening test - without this, we could just argue forever until someone comes up with some real scientific data

Now, I never use anything for "excuse"  - it is a fact that iTunes won over Nero over previous few LC-AAC listening tests and this is something that cannot be excused or ignored - but franky it has nothing to to with what I said.

I would personally like if Guruboolez could check the latest encoder (3102) out - I am sure he has it, it is probably just matter of his own time and resources and willingness to conduct such a test.

Last but not least - I am not visiting and posting on HA as the marketing/sales person of the company I work for - I am member of this forum long before I joined my current employer (and, funny enough, long before some people actually abusing information I posted here), and I certainly do not enjoy someone (Not Busemann, I just quoted him for misunderstanding what I said) twisting my words, especially if that person's credibility falls to reploying "We all know that Company XYZ is evil"... sorry, but that is just not the level of discussion I am willing to be part of.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #17 –
Just as a note for people curious about AAC and flash players, I encode stuff for my K750i using QT Pro 7.0.3, and 80kbps, 32khz, Stereo actually sounds really decent. iTunes doesn't allow you to set 32khz so you need to use QT player or something else. It's a CBR mode with a 15khz lowpass which seems to be a good match for the handsfree/earbuds that come with it. I think this is about as good as LC-AAC gets at this scale.

I experimented with the 96kbps 44khz VBR option earlier and a lot of tracks had really loud and obvious artifacting, even going up to 100kbps+ so i don't think they tuned that setting much if at all.

Can fit a good 90 minutes on the 64mb memory stick it came with. Unfortunately the solution works *just* well enough that i haven't bothered buying a new ipod yet to replace my last one which got stolen.

nero yadda yadda

Reply #18 –
Quote
- I claim that the Nero AAC Encoder 3.1.0.2 is completely rewritten (LC-AAC) and it does not use old LC-AAC codebase anymore for the 44.1 kHz, LC-AAC, Stereo mode (it uses it for other modes ATM, but this will change soon)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349498"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just out of curiosity - was older versions prior to 3.1.0.2 based on your old psytel aac code?

nero yadda yadda

Reply #19 –
Quote
Guruboolez
And compared to my beloved old aacenc32 v3.xxx "fast", the new encoder has no bloated bitrate anymore with some kind of sample/music and is able to produce the same kind of high quality.


And...

Quote
I could confirm that current Nero Digital HE-AAC profile is much better than the previous one I tested two months ago (less SBR artefacts/sandy noise). It's now clearly competitive with Coding Tech. encoder. I can't say from my short evaluation which one is better, but there isn't obvioulsy a big difference anymore.
A listening test would be nice.


Thanks Guru for your quick test - so, @Bond - I guess this means I don't really talk crap, do I?

nero yadda yadda

Reply #20 –
So Ivan, the Nero AAC encoder used by Sebastian in his test is newer than the encoder we have in Nero 7?

nero yadda yadda

Reply #21 –
Quote
So Ivan, the Nero AAC encoder used by Sebastian in his test is newer than the encoder we have in Nero 7?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349605"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

YES! Completely different, written from scratch, new codebase. BUT, it will be in the Nero7 in the near future.
Juha Laaksonheimo

nero yadda yadda

Reply #22 –
@guruboolez
ic, well i just wondered because afaik there is no single more or less representative listening test comparing ct with apple, or am i wrong? and no updates doesnt mean imho that it shouldnt be tested at least once
so i just was proposing that this should be done at least once so we know for sure

well i will propose this too for the follow up of sebastians test, if its not done i will have to test it myself (cant be i am the only one wanting to see such a comparison)

Quote
Thanks Guru for your quick test - so, @Bond - I guess this means I don't really talk crap, do I?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=349599"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

of course you didnt talk total crap, still we will have to wait for sebastians test to finish
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)

nero yadda yadda

Reply #23 –
Quote
@guruboolez
ic, well i just wondered because afaik there is no single more or less representative listening test comparing ct with apple, or am i wrong? and no updates doesnt mean imho that it shouldnt be tested at least once[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true. But when you perform a listening test there are several possible encoders that could be tested, especially for AAC. As tester, you must make some choice. For this test, I explained the principle: “I restricted the test to the most usable and interesting encoders”. There were no major update for CT LC-AAC since latest Roberto's listening test, and CT implementation [Real AAC] didn't performed very well two years ago. That's why I didn't include CT LC-AAC in this test, and prefered the new Nero Digital AAC encoder to any other stagnant contenders.

Quote
so i just was proposing that this should be done at least once so we know for sure

But I did it, this summer, at 96 kbps:
[a href="http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/VideoSon/MP3-WMA-AAC-OGG-qualite-kbps-evaluation-sujet-84950-1.htm]http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/VideoS...jet-84950-1.htm[/url]

nero yadda yadda

Reply #24 –
very interesting thx
seems real aac is on par with nero + is freely available 

couldnt find this comparison as you didnt post this on ha it seems? (thats why i propsed this central "guru's tests webpage"
I know, that I know nothing (Socrates)