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: CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme (Read 4644 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Hello all.  Long time reader, first time poster.

My wife recently allowed me to buy an iPod, and I'm taking the opportunity to re-rip my entire CD collection (~150 CDs) to AAC.  I originally ripped my music to MP3 using LAME 3.90.3 and --alt-preset extreme.  The result was complete transparency to my ears, but at the cost of huge file sizes.  While I have plenty of space on my computer to house the collection, I only have 20GBs on my iPod.

I've been reading through the forums and have decided to give AAC a try.  (I also use iTunes for my default music player...)  Before I really get ripping, I have a few questions:

1.  Is Nero's "Transparency" preset really transparent for most people?  Have there been any objective tests conducted?

2.  Is it overkill for most people to use Nero's "Extreme" preset?

3.  Is VBR even the way to go at this point?  If not, would the QT Pro AAC encoder do a better job at CBR?  What is the sweet spot for CBR, 192KBps?

As you probably have guessed, I don't know a lot about the technology behind these codecs.  Please be gentle and treat me like a 5 year old child!

Thanks for any information you can supply.
MR

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #1 –
First, there's a lot of information in both the Wiki (Knowledgebase) and FAQ.

Try some samples of your favourite music (not too long) and compare them using a special tool such as ABC/HR.

Ad.1. There wes no such test. It would require many participants... There were some discussions: link
Next time, please use the search function.
Ad.2. Most probably it is, but it depends on the music.
Ad.3. It not possible to say. Nero's VBR can fail where QT CBR doesn't and vice versa. Apples and oranges.
Nero CBR is considered worse than QT CBR, but this could have changed, as Neroo AAC is in constant development.
ruxvilti'a

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #2 –
Use whatever option is most convient in usage for you. Quality differences are going to be on the edge of the percetible anyway. Assuming you aren't hooking up high end headphones and a headphone amp to that iPod, even 160kbps CBR AAC may be enough.

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #3 –
It really comes down to what you can hear.  If you'd like to be scientific about it, do some ABX testing on the ipod itself, perhaps by using this:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=23807

My test was more unscientific (I blindly renamed files then rated them), but I can't distinguish Nero "normal" VBR AAC (using NAACenc.exe) from WAV files using Shure E2C headphones.

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #4 –
Quote
I originally ripped my music to MP3 using LAME 3.90.3 and --alt-preset extreme.  The result was complete transparency to my ears, but at the cost of huge file sizes.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=242461"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I used that preset for a little while too and also thought the files were big. Then I switched to a lossless format and that put things into persepctive for me. 

I think the general consenus you're going to get out of this board is to test different songs/settings/formats and pick what sounds best to you.

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #5 –
For what it's worth, I switched from LAME 3.90.3 APS to iTunesAAC 192 for my iPod. I love the sound. I'm not crazy about AAC at 128 (which is the setting for the music store). I have not tested 160 much to see if there is a happy medium between 192 and 128. There may be but I am fine using 192. About 750 songs on my Mini and 4x that on my 15 GB iPod.

I'm going to take another look at LAME with 3.96.1 to see if the file sizes have shrunk while maintaining that great aps quality. MP3 still wins the compatability war.

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #6 –
You can fit about 275CDs encoded at 192kbps on a 20GB drive so why not just copy over the LAME MP3s? That should save you the time and hassle of re-ripping.

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #7 –
Thanks for all the respones and advice.

I've been busy re-ripping my collection to AAC using Nero's "Transparent" VBR setting.  So far, almost everything I've listened to is truly transparent to my ears.

One quick question for those in know.  Would ripping to 192KBps be more efficient than using Nero's VBR?  I ask because on some of my rips, the average file size is well over 192KBps (some are even in the 200s).  This surprised me as I thought that the "Transparent" setting hovered somewhere between 110-150KBps.  Anyone know what's going on?

If I do decide to go back and rip using 192KBps (CBR), should I use Nero's encoder, iTunes', or QT Pro's?

Thanks again for the advice.
MR

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #8 –
Quote
One quick question for those in know.  Would ripping to 192KBps be more efficient than using Nero's VBR?  I ask because on some of my rips, the average file size is well over 192KBps (some are even in the 200s).  This surprised me as I thought that the "Transparent" setting hovered somewhere between 110-150KBps.  Anyone know what's going on?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=243680"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In my experience the bitrate estimates in the Nero software are about 40-50kbs on the low side.  I use the 'streaming' setting for my iPod and that gives me somewhere around 140-160kbs.  The 'transparent' or 'normal' setting is usually 180-200kbs IIRC.  When I first started encoding to AAC I conducted some ABX tests and found that I could ABX the 'internet' setting but not the 'streaming'.

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #9 –
i haved used streamign since the odl psytell encoder.
word perfect for me
very seldom i cna hear a differencen

however i better  liek the bitrates form the psytel encoder
is ware ust above 128 o n average 112-140
Sven Bent - Denmark

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #10 –
EmuBite, unless you're planning to stream your files perhaps, CBR should be avoided.  It's bitrate inefficient.  Are those DVD's you buy CBR?  No they are VBR.  VBR = Good!   
Metaphorically speaking you don't want to tie the encoders hands by forcing it to use a set bitrate.  If a sample's complicated let it up the bitrate.  If it's encoding something simple let it drop the bitrate.  You'll always get the best quality/filesizes with VBR.
As for Nero's AAC encoder - it underestimates how much bitrate the file will use by quite a large degree.  And it's pretty much always been that way.  Don't know why they haven't corrected that.  Telling people it's going to use X bitrate and then always using loads more is pretty silly.
And if you're after transparency I reckon you might be able to do it at a lower bitrate than Nero's "Transparent" option as well.  I suggest you play around with Foobar2000 and do some ABX testing.  Personally I get transparency at a significantly lower bitrate than Nero's "Transparent" setting.  FAAC at Q120 is knocking on transparent for me!
But YMMV, so you really do need to do some ABX tests yourself.

Cheers.
 

CBR (192KBps) vs. Nero's Transparent & Extreme

Reply #11 –
The fact that you are getting such a high bitrate from Nero's transparent preset is added reason why you should consider using your "old" alt-preset-extreme files (256kbps). They should all fit on your 20Gb iPod if you have 150 albums. Obviously another format like AAC is more efficient but you can save yourself some time.