Nero Releases FREE Reference Quality MPEG-4 Audio Encoder, Nero Releases Command Line MPEG-4 & 3GPP AAC Solution Options

[Ivan Dimkovic]

I am pleased to announce the launch of FREE Reference Quality MPEG-4 Audio solution from Nero, in the command line form!

* First in the world FREE 2-Pass MPEG-4 AAC Encoder
* Support for mono, stereo and multichannel encodings
* Support for sampling rates up to 96 kHz, up to 32-bit Floating-Point PCM input
* Compression Ratios ranging from ultra high (58 CDs fit on one!) to High-End Audio (2.5:1), for absolutely perfect audiophile encodings
* Support for Embedded Album Art (Covers, Booklets, Lyrics!)
* Store Entire Audio Album in a Single .mp4 File with all the Features of an Audio CD embedded inside, but at a fraction of the space!
* Reference Quality MPEG-4 Audio Codec
* Fully Compatible with the Latest Version of the State-of-the-art MPEG-4 Audio Standard (LC-AAC, HE-AAC and HE-AAC v2)
http://www.nero.com/nerodigital/eng/Nero_Digital_Audio.html

This post has been edited by Garf: May 7 2006, 19:46

[br0adband]

I'd say 2 pass audio encoding is a bit ridiculous, both from a time perspective (taking twice as long) and from a quality perspective (how good do you think your ears really are, anyway?). Just seems like the same old situation I commented about here at HA a few years ago: "When is it really good enough?" If you want that kind of quality, lossless is the way to go for most people.

As for the time it takes to encode from some format to another, it's not two steps, it's three formats unless you're encoding directly from a WAV file:

1) The original source file (stuff like mp3, flac, alac, ogg, etc).
2) The in-between data file (temporary) created when the source file (#1) is converted to WAV format since almost all encoders require WAV files to work with to encode.
3) The output format of your choice.

So when reading the data from media like a DVD or wherever, the data is read, decoded to WAV (directly into RAM would be the best possible method for speed but I think the temporary files are still hitting the hard drive), then the encoding phase starts. It would be nice if it were possible to just transcode directly from one format to another, but unless the source is a real WAV file, it's always 3 parts.

bb

[ozmosis82]

I'd say 2 pass audio encoding is a bit ridiculous, both from a time perspective (taking twice as long) and from a quality perspective (how good do you think your ears really are, anyway?). Just seems like the same old situation I commented about here at HA a few years ago: "When is it really good enough?" If you want that kind of quality, lossless is the way to go for most people.

As for the time it takes to encode from some format to another, it's not two steps, it's three formats unless you're encoding directly from a WAV file:

1) The original source file (stuff like mp3, flac, alac, ogg, etc).
2) The in-between data file (temporary) created when the source file (#1) is converted to WAV format since almost all encoders require WAV files to work with to encode.
3) The output format of your choice.

So when reading the data from media like a DVD or wherever, the data is read, decoded to WAV (directly into RAM would be the best possible method for speed but I think the temporary files are still hitting the hard drive), then the encoding phase starts. It would be nice if it were possible to just transcode directly from one format to another, but unless the source is a real WAV file, it's always 3 parts.

bb

Thanks for that bb. Although my ears are quite sensitive when it comes to audio. I'm sure thousands have said it before and, of course, it's completely relative. I do see the point in staying away from 2-pass now though, so thanks again.

As for my ears, take a listen to "Going Under" by Evanescence. At around 0:15 into the song there's a pop as Amy's saying "bleeding." I noticed that when I first heard the CD and it drove me so mad that I actually found the sample in the WAV of the song (there was quite the spike in the sine wave) and smoothed it out, which goes quite against a purist's best interests, I know. Most listeners don't pay attention, but I actually listen to my music.

It's maddening actually. You have no idea how hard it was for me to break down and use lossy codecs. Alas, for convenience certain sacrifices need to be made.

I'm crazy, I know.

This post has been edited by ozmosis82: May 4 2006, 22:11