Thank you Garf 

I have settled on -lc -br 64000 -2pass

To be honest, I cannot ABX between this setting and iTunes 64kbps, but 2 pass vbr has got to be better ;-) and I am glad to get rid of iTunes.

#!/bin/bash

wine /home/phil/bin/neroAacEnc.exe -q .425 -if "$1" -of "$2"
atomicparsley "$2" -W --artist "$3" --album "$4" --title "$5" --tracknum "$6" --year "$7"
aacgain -r -c "$2"

aacEncode %f %o %{albumartist} %{albumtitle} %{title} %{number} %{$year}

Quote from: arman68 on 2006-05-06 23:14:28

I have settled on -lc -br 64000 -2pass

To be honest, I cannot ABX between this setting and iTunes 64kbps, but 2 pass vbr has got to be better ;-) and I am glad to get rid of iTunes.

I have not been able to ABX nero against iTunes using iTunes 128k VBR and q settings around 0.43 (or whatever it takes to get a similar bitrate to iTunes).  I'm wondering if others can?

ABC/HR for Java, Version 0.52b, 07 mai 2006
Testname: 

Tester: guruboolez

1L = C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.m4a
2R = C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.mp4

Ratings on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0

---------------------------------------
General Comments: 
---------------------------------------
1L File: C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.m4a
1L Rating: 4.5
1L Comment: not fully transparent: harpsichord is slightly distorted
---------------------------------------
2R File: C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.mp4
2R Rating: 2.5
2R Comment: "tremolos" and smeared
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:
C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.m4a vs C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.mp4
    11 out of 12, pval = 0.0030


---- Detailed ABX results ----
C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.m4a vs C:\MP3\NERO\S16_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_F.mp4
Playback Range: 00.000 to 11.255
    10:34:19 PM p 1/1 pval = 0.5
    10:34:22 PM p 2/2 pval = 0.25
    10:34:30 PM f 2/3 pval = 0.5
    10:34:33 PM p 3/4 pval = 0.312
    10:34:35 PM p 4/5 pval = 0.187
    10:34:38 PM p 5/6 pval = 0.109
    10:34:40 PM p 6/7 pval = 0.062
    10:34:44 PM p 7/8 pval = 0.035
    10:34:46 PM p 8/9 pval = 0.019
    10:34:50 PM p 9/10 pval = 0.01
    10:34:53 PM p 10/11 pval = 0.0050
    10:34:56 PM p 11/12 pval = 0.0030

ABC/HR for Java, Version 0.52b, 07 mai 2006
Testname: 

Tester: guruboolez

1L = C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.m4a
2L = C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.mp4

Ratings on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0

---------------------------------------
General Comments: ABX: first ~8 trials on beginning; last ~12 trials on the second part (pre-echo/smearing was easier to catch)
---------------------------------------
1L File: C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.m4a
1L Rating: 3.5
1L Comment: distorted and smeared
---------------------------------------
2L File: C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.mp4
2L Rating: 2.8
2L Comment: both distortions and smearing are more irritating this time
---------------------------------------

ABX Results:
C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.m4a vs C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.mp4
    16 out of 20, pval = 0.0050


---- Detailed ABX results ----
C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.m4a vs C:\MP3\NERO\S11_KEYBOARD_Harpsichord_A.mp4
Playback Range: 00.000 to 08.410
    10:42:14 PM f 0/1 pval = 1.0
    10:42:21 PM p 1/2 pval = 0.75
    10:42:31 PM p 2/3 pval = 0.5
    10:43:09 PM f 2/4 pval = 0.687
    10:43:13 PM f 2/5 pval = 0.812
    10:43:22 PM f 2/6 pval = 0.89
Playback Range: 05.681 to 08.410
    10:43:45 PM p 3/7 pval = 0.773
    10:43:48 PM p 4/8 pval = 0.636
    10:43:52 PM p 5/9 pval = 0.5
    10:43:56 PM p 6/10 pval = 0.376
    10:43:59 PM p 7/11 pval = 0.274
    10:44:03 PM p 8/12 pval = 0.193
    10:44:06 PM p 9/13 pval = 0.133
    10:44:14 PM p 10/14 pval = 0.089
    10:44:18 PM p 11/15 pval = 0.059
    10:44:22 PM p 12/16 pval = 0.038
    10:44:26 PM p 13/17 pval = 0.024
    10:44:30 PM p 14/18 pval = 0.015
    10:44:34 PM p 15/19 pval = 0.0090
    10:44:37 PM p 16/20 pval = 0.0050

Quote from: richard123 on 2006-05-07 21:13:55

Quote from: arman68 on 2006-05-06 23:14:28

To be honest, I cannot ABX between this setting and iTunes 64kbps, but 2 pass vbr has got to be better ;-) and I am glad to get rid of iTunes.

I have not been able to ABX nero against iTunes using iTunes 128k VBR and q settings around 0.43 (or whatever it takes to get a similar bitrate to iTunes).  I'm wondering if others can?

I just tried on harpsichord and succeed

If you use EAC, tags can be made with TG.EXE

c:\<path>\tg.exe %d --artist "%a" --album "%g" --track "%n" --title "%t" --genre "%m" --year "%y"

Seems to work ok.

I just tried on harpsichord and succeed

ABC/HR Version 1.1 beta 2, 18 June 2004
Testname: 128 AAC multic

1L = C:\96\27_harpsichord\2 itunes vbr 128.wav
2L = C:\96\27_harpsichord\3 q0435_2pass.wav
3R = C:\96\27_harpsichord\1 q0435_1pass.wav

---------------------------------------
General Comments:

---------------------------------------
3R File: C:\96\27_harpsichord\1 q0435_1pass.wav
3R Rating: 4.1
3R Comment: 
---------------------------------------
ABX Results:
Original vs C:\96\27_harpsichord\2 itunes vbr 128.wav
    1 out of 5, pval = 0.969
Original vs C:\96\27_harpsichord\3 q0435_2pass.wav
    4 out of 5, pval = 0.188
Original vs C:\96\27_harpsichord\1 q0435_1pass.wav
    5 out of 5, pval = 0.031

VBR + 2 pass doesn't work (and doesn't make sense).
Anyway, testing 2-pass on short samples should be avoided in my opinion (the bitrate distribution is quite different from what it should be while encoding the complete track with the same encoding mode).

If I understand you correctly. VBR+2 pass can have better bitrate  distribution on short sample but not on long ones (real life encoding 3-5 minutes).

In case anyone's interested in getting this all set up in Linux, here's a script I use to encode, tag, then replaygain:

Code: [Select]

#!/bin/bash

wine /home/phil/bin/neroAacEnc.exe -q .425 -if "$1" -of "$2"
atomicparsley "$2" -W --artist "$3" --album "$4" --title "$5" --tracknum "$6" --year "$7"
aacgain -r -c "$2"

Linux is actually on the way

(...)
* 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!
(...)

If you test a 10 sec long sample in two pass, the encoder would distribute the bitrate among 10 seconds only. In a "real life scenario", your ten seconds will be encoded very differently because the encoder would distribute th bitrate among 4 minutes (it's an example). In other words, the quality of a short part completely depends of the distribution of the whole file. That's why encoding a short musical moment as short sample instead as a short part of a bigger composition should lead to a different output, even if the input and the encoded setting are the same.

Quote

If you test a 10 sec long sample in two pass, the encoder would distribute the bitrate among 10 seconds only. In a "real life scenario", your ten seconds will be encoded very differently because the encoder would distribute th bitrate among 4 minutes (it's an example). In other words, the quality of a short part completely depends of the distribution of the whole file. That's why encoding a short musical moment as short sample instead as a short part of a bigger composition should lead to a different output, even if the input and the encoded setting are the same.

1) Well be carefull with neroaacenc you can choose 2pass period (in fact buffer). bitrate will be always constant on this period. It's an "streaming scenario" and "real life scenario". Bitrate repartition will be between pure CBR RC mode and pure VBR quality RC mode.

2) if 2pass RC mode is good then work on 10 secondes sample is really not a problem.

I'm just compared files generated by NeroAACEnc & NeroAACEnc_sse2 (Win2k & iP4 processor) at same settings (-cbr 192000) and the same source... after decode by NeroAACDec WAVs slightly different from each another... Difference about +-1
What encoder is better?... I'm understand what +-1 - is a ridiculous difference but...
...When I'm used FAAD for decode process difference rise to +-2... and iTunes decode leads to totally different WAV. 
What decoder I should use? 
...When I run NeroAACEnc & NeroAACEnc_sse2 under Win98SE... NeroAACEnc_sse2 ended at same result as NeroAACEnc_sse2 under W2k/WXP... but NeroAACEnc generated 3rd version different from NeroAACEnc_sse2 & NeroAACEnc under W2k... I'm think it is a math issue... little difference.. but this is a straight path to overflow... Or I'm little paranoid 

• Doesn't support HE-AAC
• Doesn't support HE-AACv2
• Doesn't support gapless decoding

Quote from: guruboolez on 2006-05-08 00:49:57

VBR + 2 pass doesn't work (and doesn't make sense).
Anyway, testing 2-pass on short samples should be avoided in my opinion (the bitrate distribution is quite different from what it should be while encoding the complete track with the same encoding mode).

If I understand you correctly. VBR+2 pass can have better bitrate  distribution on short sample but not on long ones (real life encoding 3-5 minutes). 

Maybe it would be better to check performance of VBR + 2 pass  on long samples. It is new encoder. Maybe something has chaged since  wma 2 pass.

Garf says that VBR+2pass hasn't sense but ......  it would be interesting and usefull to see (pre)abx test.

1) Well be carefull with neroaacenc you can choose 2pass period (in fact buffer). bitrate will be always constant on this period.

As for iTunes leading to an entirely different WAV, that's probably because iTunes either:

• Doesn't support HE-AAC
• Doesn't support HE-AACv2
• Doesn't support gapless decoding

• has an extra 10 sample delay at the beginning (last time I checked)

So please, just remember, 2 pass is for ABR.