Quicktime TVBR vs Nero AAC Options

[pgm86]

hi guys, what's the general consensus between the two? which is better for encoding using vbr? thanks

[db1989]

kc2002 just explained that any claim of difference in quality is worth nothing until evidenced by a blind test. Otherwise, expecting to hear differences can cause the listener to hear them where they don't exist.

This post has been edited by dv1989: Feb 9 2011, 14:25

[list]

expecting to hear differences lead you to hear them where they don't exist.

No, i was not expecting to hear any difference. Once i disided to include the qt aac in my gui and make some simple tests using it for video series, and i surprised when i saw the difference at first sight. So i decided to try also with some of my music.. and i said: woow there is a difference. Easy to hear at 128kbps.
Im not audio tester, i only noticed a difference and decided to share it here. (i thought people know that difference) so was i wrong?

[kornchild2002]

and i said: woow there is a difference. Easy to hear at 128kbps.

I can assure you that any difference you think you heard was not there as you don't have my equipment. Only proper audio quality judging can be used on my system with my Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable ($1,000), pair of AudioQuest K2 terminated speaker cables ($17,000), properly broken in tube amp ($23,000), 48" quad speakers with 45 lb magnetic drivers ($46,700), and Ailenware desktop with external sound card ($7,600) running the Microsoft Zune PC software. I say: Wow, there is a huge difference in listening to audio with what you have and my system is a million bagillion times better than yours. It is so easy to hear that blind testing isn't required.

See why proper testing is needed before any audio quality claims are made? It doesn't matter if the difference is "easy to hear." You need proper testing to backup your claims, period. Don't like it? Well, those are the rules here which you and everyone else agreed upon. There is a reason why that is part of the rules and it is enforced here.

[list]

and i said: woow there is a difference. Easy to hear at 128kbps.

I can assure you that any difference you think you heard was not there as you don't have my equipment. Only proper audio quality judging can be used on my system with my Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable ($1,000), pair of AudioQuest K2 terminated speaker cables ($17,000), properly broken in tube amp ($23,000), 48" quad speakers with 45 lb magnetic drivers ($46,700), and Ailenware desktop with external sound card ($7,600) running the Microsoft Zune PC software. I say: Wow, there is a huge difference in listening to audio with what you have and my system is a million bagillion times better than yours. It is so easy to hear that blind testing isn't required.

See why proper testing is needed before any audio quality claims are made? It doesn't matter if the difference is "easy to hear." You need proper testing to backup your claims, period. Don't like it? Well, those are the rules here which you and everyone else agreed upon. There is a reason why that is part of the rules and it is enforced here.

After all, encoders will be used by 99% normal users with a normal hardware, right?
So, if you can't notice the difference with a high-end equipment, but other does with a simple hardware encoding a not simple movie. Is that important?