IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nero Digital Audio+ 1.0.7.0 released, new version of the free nero AAC encoder
menno
post Feb 12 2007, 11:53
Post #1


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11-October 01
From: LA
Member No.: 267



A new version of the Nero Digital Audio+ package has been released on http://www.nerodigital.com/

The package can be downloaded here: http://www.nero.com/nerodigital/eng/down-ndaudio.php

Changes since previous version:

neroAacEnc.exe:
- Quality tuning for some bitrates
- Added support for 16 and 22.05 kHz samplerates for HE AAC
- Fixed HE AAC configuration problems for 5.1 files (at q=0.0)
- Temporary file handling fixed on Windows Vista
- Various speed optimisations

neroAacDec.exe:
- Small speedups
- Reduced memory usage

neroAacTag.exe
- No changes
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
goodnews
post Feb 12 2007, 13:38
Post #2





Group: Banned
Posts: 232
Joined: 20-January 06
Member No.: 27228



Thanks for this. BTW, Release Notes on your download page still reflect 1.0.0.2 release. Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jillian
post Feb 12 2007, 14:02
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 66
Joined: 29-April 06
From: Thailand
Member No.: 30166



Nero Digital Audio+ make me surprised.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Junon
post Feb 12 2007, 14:26
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 520
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Germany
Member No.: 34518



Sounds interesting, I like encoding using your AAC codec for my mobile phone. Keep up the great work!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Squeller
post Feb 12 2007, 16:15
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218



Thanks, glad to see there's development! Nero aac is my 2nd codec of choice. 2nd only, because I often need lossless cutting as with mp3directcut which I can't have in aac unfortunately yet...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
me7
post Feb 12 2007, 16:28
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 177
Joined: 23-August 06
Member No.: 34375



QUOTE (menno @ Feb 12 2007, 11:53) *
Changes since previous version:

neroAacEnc.exe:
- Quality tuning for some bitrates


Which bitrates? Give us some more info, please.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ssjkakaroto
post Feb 12 2007, 18:49
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 203
Joined: 22-May 02
Member No.: 2096



Thx for the update. wink.gif


--------------------
Allegari nihil et allegatum non probare, paria sunt.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ozmosis82
post Feb 12 2007, 19:21
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 26-March 06
From: Edmonton, Canada
Member No.: 28860



Thanks menno.

Unfortunately, the iTunes/iPod gapless playback issue has not yet been resolved. I downloaded the new version of the package and tested it out with a couple of segueing songs--still no gapless playback in iTunes.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jarsonic
post Feb 12 2007, 20:41
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 30-September 01
From: C-ville, VA
Member No.: 83



Yeah, Menno, I'm sure you're probably tired of hearing about it, but what is the status of the iTunes gapless issues with Nero-encoded AAC files? Is it something you can fix, or is it something that Apple will have to address?

Any reply from you or someone else on the dev team would be greatly appreciated, if only to nip the question in the bud. smile.gif

- h.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Feb 12 2007, 20:53
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: 3-January 05
From: Argentina, Bs As
Member No.: 18803



-q 0.3 gives variable bitrate average at approx. 80 kbits
-q 0.3 -lc gives 128

is it ok? if it's then would it be normal to use something like -q 0.2 -lc (should give approx 80 ) to compare it to abr -br 80000 for LC 80 kbit/s ABR vs VBR blind test?

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MuncherOfSpleens
post Feb 12 2007, 21:27
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: 25-October 05
From: Florida
Member No.: 25360



QUOTE (IgorC @ Feb 12 2007, 14:53) *
-q 0.3 gives variable bitrate average at approx. 80 kbits
-q 0.3 -lc gives 128

is it ok?

Oh no, not this discussion again. wink.gif

To address your question, I'm rather certain that this is normal and expected behavior, and you should use a lower quality setting to achieve ~80 kbps with the -lc switch.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Diow
post Feb 13 2007, 00:16
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 4-June 06
From: Ponta Grossa,PR
Member No.: 31450



Is there how to add tags with EAC or just can be add tags to the file with the comand-line?


--------------------
Sorry for my bad english.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Diow
post Feb 13 2007, 01:11
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 94
Joined: 4-June 06
From: Ponta Grossa,PR
Member No.: 31450



QUOTE (me7 @ Feb 12 2007, 13:28) *
QUOTE (menno @ Feb 12 2007, 11:53) *

Changes since previous version:

neroAacEnc.exe:
- Quality tuning for some bitrates


Which bitrates? Give us some more info, please.

I'm encode a lot of music with both versions [1.0.7.0 and 1.0.2.0] and all them are bit identical, just see an very apreciated increase on speed of encoding.I Will Encode from now on with this version, wasting less time to the job. rolleyes.gif This is an good improvement, I Just Want to See The Function "Tagging" in the encoder, this will be very usefull, nothing of "neroaactag.exe" with that borings comand-line, i sometimes think to stick for ogg but mp4 sound better at the range ~32 to ~112 to me. tongue.gif


--------------------
Sorry for my bad english.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
menno
post Feb 13 2007, 08:59
Post #14


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11-October 01
From: LA
Member No.: 267



Regarding the quality tunings, this should be all HE AAC bitrates between 56 and 72 kbps. These tunings take a lot of time, we hope to give you some more in the next release.

Regarding the iTunes gapless stuff, this is not included, I have no idea if it will be in any next version.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirGrey
post Feb 13 2007, 09:46
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 11863



That's good somebody is still working on encoders smile.gif
Thanks !

Nowdays, with mobile phones and streaming, he-aac became interesting option, I think.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
sketchy_c
post Feb 13 2007, 13:16
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 105
Joined: 18-December 06
Member No.: 38800



Thanks for the update, menno. Been enjoying the new release so far.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Feb 15 2007, 06:39
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



This may be slightly OT but this codec sounds too amazing at 64 kbps for there not to be any flash DAPs on the market that support it (and I don't mean mobile phones)! Does anyone know if these will ever make an appearance and, if so, do you have an approximate timeframe? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Firon
post Feb 15 2007, 08:24
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 830
Joined: 3-November 05
Member No.: 25526



The problem is the CPU power required to decode HE-AAC. It's much higher than LC-AAC and MP3.

This post has been edited by Firon: Feb 15 2007, 08:25
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirGrey
post Feb 15 2007, 09:37
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 11863



>>The problem is the CPU power required to decode HE-AAC. It's much higher than LC-AAC and MP3.
Seems that you are wrong.
If I remeber correctly, decoding he stream with the same bitrate is a bit more power consuming, but decoding 128Kbit mp3 or aac requires more power than any he aac stream...
Menno, can you comment this ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Junon
post Feb 15 2007, 11:40
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 520
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Germany
Member No.: 34518



QUOTE (SirGrey @ Feb 15 2007, 09:37) *
If I remeber correctly, decoding he stream with the same bitrate is a bit more power consuming, but decoding 128Kbit mp3 or aac requires more power than any he aac stream...

That's incorrect. Increasing bitrates don't impact power consumption as much as the usage of SBR. Have a look here. Of course these are only four processor examples, which aren't representative for every available AAC decoder, but they're a good starting point to see how much processor power is needed as soon as SBR comes into play.

Edit: I forgot to add that these are full-power examples. They don't apply to the SBR low-power profile.

This post has been edited by Junon: Feb 15 2007, 11:42
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kef
post Feb 15 2007, 11:58
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 2-December 05
From: Netherlands
Member No.: 26157



QUOTE (SirGrey @ Feb 15 2007, 10:37) *
>>The problem is the CPU power required to decode HE-AAC. It's much higher than LC-AAC and MP3.
Seems that you are wrong.
If I remeber correctly, decoding he stream with the same bitrate is a bit more power consuming, but decoding 128Kbit mp3 or aac requires more power than any he aac stream...
Menno, can you comment this ?


Well, I did some decoding speed test, which should imply how power consuming the decoding process is, and I got the following result. All encoding/decoding tests are done with nero aac encoder v1.0.7.0 and foobar2000 v0.9.4.2

AAC LC Q=0.40 decoding speed ~190x realtime
AAC LC + SBR Q=0.25 decoding speed ~90x realtime
AAC LC + SBR + PS Q=0.15 decoding speed ~80x realtime

To get a more accurate test I should probably have used the same bit-rate and forced the different modes but I'm in a hurry and I'll do it later if necessary. Anyway from this simple test, it looks like SBR really _is_ taking a lot of cpu cycles unless the actual bit-rate has a huge impact on decoding speed.

/Kef

<edit>
I did the same test again but now at the same bitrate (64kbps) and the results are the same
</edit>

This post has been edited by Kef: Feb 15 2007, 12:14
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SirGrey
post Feb 15 2007, 16:11
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 11863



>>Junon
Hmmm.
Yep, the page you provided, show that there is no practical difference between mp3 and aac and there is a significant one (almost >2 times) between he aac and lc aac.
This means, that memory and registers reading/writing times became unimportant and I was wrong smile.gif
>>Kef
PC encoding/decoding times are not representative in this case, because sometimes even the whole song can be loaded in L2 processor cache laugh.gif (this is not, what really happen, of course)...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
vinnie97
post Feb 15 2007, 20:28
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 472
Joined: 6-March 03
Member No.: 5360



Ah yes, the power conundrum. Are mobile phone CPUs more powerful, robust and further along than that of DAPs (it would appear the answer is yes)? If so, is that because managing communication is a more processor-intensive task than simply playing back media files (I think I answered my own question)? ;)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ckjnigel
post Feb 17 2007, 20:51
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 12-October 01
Member No.: 278



Thanls to menno (& Ivan?).
I wish there were an enthusiast who can code a player for HE-AAC on the Nokia N800 Internet Tablet ***sigh***
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Waterfall
post Feb 21 2007, 18:35
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 1-June 06
From: Ukraine, Kiev
Member No.: 31351



Any quality improvement for LC-AAC?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 14:28