Hello everyone

I'm about to start ripping my collection for portable use and I was curious that which implementation of AAC is of a higher quality; Apple or Nero?

I'm planning to use 192kbps bitrate for my files and many of my source files are WMA lossless files

I'm not planning to use iTunes for my media management (I use Zune software for that) but if iTunes' encoder is of a higher quality, then I'd rather use iTunes to encode my files. If Nero is better, then I'd use dBpoweramp to encode my files in AAC

So which implementation is better?

Thank you all in advance

You are really the only one who can answer this question. Download foobar2000, encode a couple of tracks (I suggest starting down at 128kbps VBR), and run some blind ABX tests to see what is right for you. Everyone has different equipment, different music, and different ears.

I highly doubt that you will have issues with either encoder at -q0.5 (Nero AAC) or 192kbps VBR (iTunes AAC). You may want to hold off until Apple releases QuickTime 7.6.3 (and iTunes 9) as, according to some posts here on Hydrogenaudio, it appears to provide higher quality than QuickTime 7.6.2 (the current version that iTunes uses).

Lastly, it sounds like you are using a Zune. Is there any reason why you want to use AAC? The Lame mp3 encoder will probably be able to provide the same quality results at the -V 2 setting or lower. Just something to think about as mp3 is still the "universal" lossy (mp3, AAC, WMA, etc.) format. I know that Zunes can playback AAC files without issues (there was an older issue with Nero AAC, it has been fixed) but you never know if you will end up getting a different DAP down the line. You might also do something different with those files such as play them back on a car stereo system, a DVD player, home theater system, or possibly some other device. AAC compatibility has drastically increased over the years and it is my lossy format of choice (I use Nero's AAC encoder at -q0.5) but it isn't on the same level as mp3.

As I said, I think you would benefit from conducting your own set of blind ABX tests to determine which encoder (and which bitrate, 192kbps VBR might be overkill for you) is right for you.

keep in mind also that with Zune AACs higher than 320 kbps will be converted to wma audio. As it regards Apple AAC vs Nero AAC both are basically equal in quality,are on par. New Apple AAC and Nero AAC expected anytime soon on Windows too (iTunes 9 should be out on 09/09/2009).

Apple has just released a major update to OS X and its AAC encoder which is getting a lot of praise. I expect it to be superior to Nero AAC at the moment (but I can't test it because I'm on Windows).

EDIT: I also expect Nero AAC to catch up when they release their next version in the comming months

I'm pretty sure Apple will release the new encoder with iTunes 9 on Windows next week and i think true vbr will be present too.

So waka i think you should wait if your on Windows for iTunes 9 and the new encoder to arrive.

True VBR will be in QuickTime, it has been in the past couple of QuickTime releases for Windows. The only thing is that iTunes dosn't have access to it and making one true VBR file takes a couple steps (along with losing track tags). This may or may not change on Windows, we will see what Apple does on the 9th of September.

A couple of years ago, when I was still on Windows, I used a script with dbPoweramp or Foobar that would wrap the Quicktime Encoder and make it batch scriptable. You had to record a macro, that would be played back for each iteration. Can't remember all of this exactly, in any case it was a little clunky, but doesn't it work anymore? Tag preservation was not handled by Quicktime itself but the calling application.

Since you're on Windows and not already using iTunes, you should just go with Nero. If there is any substantive quality advantage in iTunes AAC (i.e. outside rare outlier cases), it is of far less magnitude than the difficulty you would have in actually using it compared to Nero, given your situation of non-Apple use.


Do you mean itunesencode.exe? IIRC it hasn't worked since several iTunes version ago and Otto42 is not maintaining it. But yeah it was a very handy app back when it worked.

No, that was after my time. It was some kind of macro freeware, that recorded the steps of one manual recording and then generated a repeatable script.

I am not sure. I know that dBpowerAMP used to be able to encode QuickTime AAC files way back in the day (I think this was around 2005). Might have to conduct a little research regarding the script you are talking about as, to my knowledge, there isn't anything like that for Windows (now).

Thank you for your help

I did think about using MP3 (Lame encoder @ 256kbps) due to its universality but I ended up going AAC since it is a modern codec and the support is getting added to all the new devices coming out. All my devices at home are AAC compatible (Computer, PS3, Xbox 360, Phone) so that works out for me

I dont plan to use any specific device with these AAC files; I'm just encoding my CD collection and I want portable good sounding files for future use with any device. I'm also a classical music fan so I want the files to be of a good fidelity (in my case, I found the bitrates from 192kbps and up to be sufficient for a high quality file that is also not too big)

I have an iPhone that syncs with my Mac. On my Mac, I use iTunes AAC encoder at iTunes Plus setting and I did install the Snow Leopard. But I'm moving to PC as my primary platform (I'll keep the Mac as a server and iPhone sync station) so I'm encoding all CDs that I were lazy doing so!

I can hold off till the new iTunes comes out but is it worth the wait. Has there been any study comparing the two codec at different bitrates? Any improvements to Apple's AAC that Nero lacks?

I'm new to all of this so thank you for your patience

There is a discussion about QuickTime 7.6.3 AAC improvements located here. From what some users say, it looks like QuickTime 7.6.3 is worth the wait. However, since you have Snow Leopard on your Apple computer, you could just use a script or program (such as XLD) for QuickTime AAC encoding. That way you could get true VBR QuickTime AAC encoding now without having to wait and see what Apple does for Windows (which they may or may not support true VBR through iTunes).

Then again, you could go with Nero AAC (at -q0.50) on Windows. I find that the Nero AAC encoder does a very good job at -q0.50, I also think that the current iTunes AAC encoder (which is QuickTime) at 192kbps VBR constrained does a pretty good job. So either way I think you will be fine. You just may want to hold off to see what Apple does for iTunes on Windows.

I am not sure if you have considered this already, but it might be good to rip once to lossless, e.g. FLAC or Apple Lossless, and to take the lossless files as a basis for converting to AAC. That way you would be really future proof because you could convert again with any new version of a lossy codec without having to re-rip from CD. Also, you could more easily play with bit rates or quality settings in the encoders.