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: Best quality settings (Read 18004 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

The -q argument accepts any floating-point number ranging from 0 to 1, but can the value you choose have an impact on coding efficiency?

Let's say, for example, that if the number is a multiple of 0.04, coding efficiency will improve. In other words, something like 0.64 would give better results compared to 0.63. Could something similar to this be the case for Nero AAC (or any other encoder)? I'm just thinking; maybe the algorithm used performs better when the number hits a certain milestone.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #1 –
Hm... What I can say is that I can ABX some difficult (for encoding) samples with -q 0.5, but I can't do it when quality level is set to 0.55

Maybe it is simply a limit for my ears
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Steve Forte Rio on
Hm... What I can say is that I can ABX some difficult (for encoding) samples with -q 0.5, but I can't do it when quality level is set to 0.55

Maybe it is simply a limit for my ears


I think it's just you

I don't expect sound quality to be affected (e.g. 0.55 vs 0.56), but I thought perhaps the encoder would find it easier to encode when the target quality setting is at a certain "milestone". (I was just curious to be honest.)

I guess we'll never know unless the source code is available to us.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #3 –
Or you could always run a series of personal encoding tests to determine which setting taxes your system more.  In this day and age, I doubt it really is that big of an issue especially whenever even an older Pentium M processor from 2005 can use modern day encoders (Lame mp3, Nero AAC, etc.) without really straining the system.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #4 –
Which quality of Nero AAC encoder can replace the mp3 shares in internet with 320kbps? I think, 0.75 is a good choice (I encode with it for self-using media library), isn't it? I haven't a high quality professional equipment and musical ears to hear a different between more higher quality, but there is a tradition to share mp3 exactly in maximum bitrate - 320kbps.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #5 –
Quote from: behemoth on
Which quality of Nero AAC encoder can replace the mp3 shares in internet with 320kbps? I think, 0.75 is a good choice (I encode with it for self-using media library), isn't it? I haven't a high quality professional equipment and musical ears to hear a different between more higher quality, but there is a tradition to share mp3 exactly in maximum bitrate - 320kbps.

It's not in terms of better quality.

But what is more transparent.

Using 320 KBPS just because it's "better quality" needs to have a myth debunked.

there is no point using that type of bitrate, you might as well just go full out lossless. It's just a waste of battery and hard drive usage  with 320 kbps on Portable players.

There is an ABX tester in Foobar you can use. Start out comparing 128 kbps v.s Lossless source file. if you pass, then continue with 160.
Once you fail the test, stick with that bitrate.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #6 –
Quote from: behemoth on
Which quality of Nero AAC encoder can replace the mp3 shares in internet with 320kbps? I think, 0.75 is a good choice (I encode with it for self-using media library), isn't it? I haven't a high quality professional equipment and musical ears to hear a different between more higher quality, but there is a tradition to share mp3 exactly in maximum bitrate - 320kbps.

People just used what the maximum was without any rational thought, "more is better", "I want max quality". So if thats your goal, go lossless and never be bothered with quality again. If you want as much quality as your ears can benefit from, then go lossy vbr and test what setting is best for you. 320kbit is hardly optimal in any case.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #7 –
Is this thread still going on?

If you want "maximum quality", just use q1.00. If you want a more optimal value, you probably want something between q0.45 and q0.60. ABX to find your threshold.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #8 –
I found that the "best: setting also depends on the type of music. I don't have much of an ear but even I can tell when I encode a heavy metal song. I found I have to use the highest quality for heavy metal songs to get decent results. But a standard pop song from the 80s I can use .55 and it sounds great to me.

So I think it also depends on the type of music as well

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #10 –
Stick with 0.50.

I noticed on the beatles remasters especially that 0.45 had a thin-sound to it, which 0.50 fixed.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #11 –
I would do a ABX test with tracks that you think would be hard to encode, starting from -q 0.40.

IMO -q 0.50 should be good enough for most music, but i have to admit that Nero AAC seems to be prone to cymbal smearing at low bit rates such as -q 0.40, which go away at q 0.50 - q 0.55. I find -q 0.50 to be a lot better then any 320kbps CBR Mp3 with electronic music that has very sharp transients, such as tracks from Kraftwerk's The Man Machine, Computer World and Electric Cafe.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #12 –
Quote from: adlai on
I noticed on the beatles remasters especially that 0.45 had a thin-sound to it, which 0.50 fixed.

Thin?  This sounds like a subjective placebo-based description.

ABX results please.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #13 –
Quote from: /mnt on
but i have to admit that Nero AAC seems to be prone to cymbal smearing at low bit rates such as -q 0.40, which go away at q 0.50 - q 0.55.

That's what exactly defines Nero encoder already for years. Metalic sound issues on drums (more particularly cymbals) was reported several times by you, me and another members http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=83246
But they don't manage to fix it during several years.

"We'll look into this for the next version", "We are working on it", "It will be fixed in next release", "Well, there was some regression" , "We'he already fixed it internally" ....... years and years.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #14 –
Which is considered the better codec then, the one in iTunes with the iTunes Plus setting (essentially 256 VBR) or Nero AAC set at q=0.65?  I tested a couple tracks and they both produced very similar filesizes and bitrates.  But we all know at those settings, the quality is transparent from the original recording for 99.9% of all listeners.  I don't have the tools/skills to analyze the waveforms the files produce to compare accuracy.

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #15 –
Quote from: consultant on
I don't have the tools/skills to analyze the waveforms the files produce to compare accuracy.

Analyzing waveforms will not tell you anything anyway. You need to listen to the files.
 

Nero AAC: Best quality settings

Reply #16 –
I set mine to 0.7. It seems like a sweet spot for me.