yup...
wondering if a comparison between those two.. are made..
also if there`s done a pure mp4. test
between those encoder`s aviable..
should be interesting reading.. me think.
Why not just try both and compare? Some say Nero AAC has worse pre-echo than Psytel AAC in some situations, i haven't tested this, but, i couldn't care less if i just read opinions of others. I trust my hearing, not just others'.
(I hope you're not looking for graphs or something, since graphs mean nothing)
I said it - tested with PsyTEL AAC 2.15 -archive & Ahead MP4 from Nero 5.5.100 -audiophile, on the castanet2.wav sample (find on the HA server). ABXed several time, on different moment of the day.
Precisely
Why not just try both and compare? Some say Nero AAC has worse pre-echo than Psytel AAC in some situations, i haven't tested this, but, i couldn't care less if i just read opinions of others. I trust my hearing, not just others'.
(I hope you're not looking for graphs or something, since graphs mean nothing)
yup...
now.. personaly.. i give a big ####.. about white papers.
(a set of good ears.. is all that is required.)
but in conjunction with bao. there was question about a comparison
between nero mp4.. and psytel aac..
the sample i encoded with qt.
was the worst aac sample.. i ever heard.
the award for best audio tweaker
in ** years in a row: Q-TIP