Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98 |
  |
Suggested for consideration: iTunes Plus vs. neroAacEnc vs. Lame 3.98 |
 Mar 21 2009, 01:24
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 964 Joined: 29-December 01 Member No.: 830  |
Now that Apple has finally enabled what appears to be Quicktime's highest quality encoding for the iTunes "Plus" preset, would it be worth conducting a listening test to determine the relative standings of the current contenders?
- M. |
 |
 
|
|
Mar 21 2009, 02:14
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: FB2K Moderator Posts: 4321 Joined: 1-November 06 From: Cincinnati Member No.: 37036 |
QUOTE (M @ Mar 20 2009, 20:24)  would it be worth conducting a listening test to determine the relative standings of the current contenders? I think, if previous listening tests are any sort of indication, it's very likely that they're all going to be transparent on non-problem samples. So then what are you wanting to compare exactly? Average filesize? 
This post has been edited by shakey_snake: Mar 21 2009, 02:16 -------------------- "It must be 'Take A Worm For A Walk' week!"
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2009, 06:06
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 2019 Joined: 8-April 05 From: Cincinnati, OH Member No.: 21277 |
Go for it if you have the ears. Otherwise you probably aren't going to hear any difference between all three encoders. I would be curious to see how the iTunes Plus setting stacks up to Nero and Lame. I would still never use such a high bitrate setting as Nero produces transparent results at -q0.45--q0.50 for me but that doesn't stop me form being curious.
I think that you might have difficulties matching up the bitrates though. From my experience, the iTunes Plus setting tends to produce files at around 280kbps while -V 0 averages files at about 260kbps. I never tested Nero at -q0.60 but -q0.50 produces file at around 190kbps for me. I don't know if a 20-30kbps difference would drastically affect things but it might be something to think about. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2009, 16:31
Post
#4
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 512 Joined: 18-January 04 From: bethlehem.pa.us Member No.: 11318 |
Unless one of those encoders are horribly glitched, all my submissions would be 5.0
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2009, 20:56
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 10-October 05 Member No.: 25035 |
Are we certain that the iTunes Plus setting is using VBR and not VBR_Constrained?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 21 2009, 21:55
Post
#6
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 730 Joined: 5-January 04 Member No.: 10970 |
QUOTE (dbAmp @ Mar 21 2009, 12:56) Are we certain that the iTunes Plus setting is using VBR and not VBR_Constrained? iTunes Plus is VBR_Constrained @ 256kbps using the highest quality setting of the encoder. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 18 2009, 10:47
Post
#7
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 224 Joined: 8-July 05 Member No.: 23210 |
QUOTE (Busemann @ Mar 22 2009, 04:55) QUOTE (dbAmp @ Mar 21 2009, 12:56) Are we certain that the iTunes Plus setting is using VBR and not VBR_Constrained? iTunes Plus is VBR_Constrained @ 256kbps using the highest quality setting of the encoder. Sorry for the ignorance... constrained meaning 256 minimum or 256 max? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 18 2009, 12:51
Post
#8
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 369 Joined: 28-June 02 From: South Australia, AUSTRALIA Member No.: 2421 |
Well I wouldn't be able to participate in such a test because all these settings will be transparent for me.
I wouldn't mind a new 128 Kbps test featuring LAME 3.98.2, the latest Nero AAC encoder and the new CoreAudio AAC encoder in OSX 10.6. This post has been edited by ShowsOn: Sep 18 2009, 12:52 -------------------- www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 13:40 |
