As of now I am using Quicktimes AAC encoding and I find it a real pain to transcode from FLAC --> AAC with foobar. (By the way, this program is awesome I love all the plugins. - Thanks Guys) Anyway, my question is which do you prefer Nero AAC or Quicktime AAC encoding? Why? What settings/switches/birates?

Actually, after I "discovered" foo_nero plugin for foobar2000, going from flac to nero aac couldn't be easier. Just choose nero encode as the format type, choose how to encode in the config page, drop the flac files in the playlist and convert away.

@ mdmuir: What birates/switches do you use?

I prefer QT/iTunes.... because Nero doesn't support OS X.

Nowadays, I mostly work from my PowerBook, so I've opted to use QT 6.5 LC AAC @256kbps. It's still a reasonable filesize for archiving onto DVD+R's (as I find lossless to currently be impractical on OS X), and I can't ABX it from the original PCM sources. Not yet, anyway

I go to file/preferences/diskwriter/output format/nero encoder/settings/check use m4a for extension/configuration/preset/dropdown select/VBR-Stereo transparent.

Then drop my flac filelist in the foobar window and run conversion. It has been working just fine.

@ mdmuir: Thanks. You've been a big help. I'll give it a try.

At the moment, I'm using Nero AAC w/iTunes on my Powerbook. I just rip/encode on my pc server, then transfer the AAC files over to my laptop and go from there. Obviously it'd be easier for me to use QT/iTunes, but there are a few reasons I don't do this:

1. Lack of VBR encoding.
2. The likelyhood that Nero is much more tuned for problem cases (plus I know the developers and have a pretty decent level of assurance that they are commited to both quality and technical innovation (e.g., gapless MP4 playback, HE implementation, etc., etc.)). This is particularly important to me since a good chunk of my music is the type of stuff that causes problems for encoders which have not been tuned for extreme cases in any significant sense (I'm not saying QT hasn't either, just that I doubt it has to the same degree.. unfortunately I'm so busy these days I don't have time to really test this).
3. Not directly related to QT, but rather the fact that I don't trust iTunes ripping (admittedly I've never run into problems with it, and I wouldn't have a problem recommending it to people who just "want music on their computer", but I'm more picky than that). Once this becomes an issue, it kind of mitigates any convenience factor that the QT/iTunes/OS X integration offers. If I have to resort to ripping with something like EAC to be satisfied, I might as well go the extra mile and use Nero also.

Just my take on it..

Oh, and I use the same process mdmuir uses for encoding.

I agree with you on that front, in that I also don't trust iTunes' ripping methods. However, since I unfortunately don't have access to a PC at this time (and VPC is just too damn slow to be practical), I've been ripping CD's using the paranoia library, which was ported to OS X. Seems to be a good compromise for those of us who can't use EAC. Now if only I could get VBR encoding as well....

EDIT: In case anybody is wondering about the "error correction" capabilities in iTunes, I can report that it has not worked at all on any of the problem discs I have thrown at it. Such discs still rip with audible errors and pops, and this occurs with both my firewire DVD+RW and built-in DVD/CD-RW drives. Thus, in my experience, it cannot be compared to the capabilities of EAC or cdparanoia.

I am doing aac coding for my iPod. I have been hearing about problems with nero's compatiblity. True?

I'm in the same boat as blessingX. Nero isn't available for OS X, so I can't try it out. Good thing Quicktime is so good. Since I have an iPod, file size is important. I had been using 128kbps, but recently switched to 160 mostly for paranoia reasons. I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between the two in a portable environment.

Since iTunes implemented error-correction in its ripping, I've only had one CD rip with a problem. I've actually done a few CDs that were heavily scratched with no problems.

For severe disc issues (say CDs w/scratches from the library) I've found iTunes handles some scratches better than EAC (or at least less audible pops even if the data may be less "correct"). This may be because of lesser error correction or because my Mac and PC do not share the same drive. Not sure, but a really scratched recent Philip Glass disc ripped fine for 3 tracks, EAC did an admirable job with 2 others, and iTunes came out on top for the last. All problematic three tracks had pops though, just the degree changed.

And in case anyone is wondering from my above post, I have a PC, but it's old and I don't plan on spending any more money (read Nero) on any software for the Windows platform.

I don't encode much AAC these days but when I do, I prefer QT AAC in iTunes since its free.

I'm often using Nero AAC-HE 64 kbps .aac files to stream example music tracks to my friends. Interesting to see whether QT will get AAC-HE support anytime soon. I hope so, because that would definitely push the AAC-HE adaption.

Nero seems to have currently a faster development pace than QT, so if it keeps up, I'd expect Nero to exceed QT in quality also in the 80-128 CBR AAC-LC area during this year. At higher bitrates situation is pretty even.

Are the iPod rumors about Nero's compatibility true? The only reason for me to encode in AAC for my iPod. There no sense to use Nero's if there still problems with it.

Thank You for all the replies
- Mike

I transcode from FLAC to Nero AAC (transparent) using dbPoweramp and it couldn't be easier. Oh and you can convert on the fly using Sveta Audio instead of iTunes.

Fairy

Nero AAC files work fine with my iPod. There was a problem with the first release of iTunes for Windows not accepting Nero files, but that has been fixed in current releases. The only problem just now seems to relate to using Soundcheck (Apple's replaygain) with Nero files (See this thread)

I get round this by telling foobar to use replaygain during the conversion.

Sorry if this post has already been covered, I haven't had time lately to keep up with the HA forums. Anyway, here's my question:

What is the current state of quality comparing QT 6.5 AAC encoding versus Nero 6.3 AAC and mid bitrates, specifically 192kbps? I bought my iPod in October last year and at the time it was pretty much the consensus that QT encodes were better quality than Nero's. As Nero has had several updates since then, is this still true?

The reason I ask is that encoding in QT/iTunes is complicated at the moment, specifically because I do not trust the ripping engine in iTunes and Apple's SoundCheck is not a good implementation of replaygain. So I must:

1. rip to WAV using EAC secure or PlexTools
2. run WaveGain on the WAV files in album mode
3. drop the WAV's in iTunes and manually tag them
4. encode in iTunes

If Nero's AAC encoder is up to par with QT now, that makes my life so much easier. I have not even tried using Nero yet for AAC, but it could be a near perfect solution (in combination with foobar) for my needs. I am using only 192kbps for AAC for a good quality vs. size balance on my iPod. I'm not using AAC for home stereo use (FLAC or MPC for that).

I've no info on the quality aspects, however, I do much the same process at the moment, with one exception. I have lately been converting the M4A before tagging them and then tagging the resulting M4A's later using Tag&Rename 3.0, which now supports them. Reason? Tag&Rename is just easier to use, IMO. The allmusic.com lookup function is great, and the tags it adds to the M4A's, so far, have worked perfectly in iTunes.

I should clarify my tagging procedure. I actually tag the WAV's in iTunes before converting, but only the artist/album and total track number. After encoding in iTunes I add individual track number and other tags. I wasn't aware of Tag&Rename, I'll have to check it out. Sounds like it might simplify things a little. Do the tags created by Tag&Rename also work in iPod properly (if you have one)? I'm not 100% sure if Apple is tagging according to the MP4 standard or not. I have noticed a few times editing tags in foobar that the edited tags do not show up in iTunes.

Doesn't anyone who uses Nero take advantage of the VBR presets? I have been using normal: high preset, which produces files sizes of 140-190 kbps.

I have not seen an official test, but the stated quality of AAC (seen on these boards) is a 30% improvement over MP3 which would mean this setting is roughly equivalent to LAME alt preset standard. Again, no one has tested this yet.

I encode with Nero AAC primarily because it has VBR and that it's development pace is faster than QT. Nero AAC's devlopment has also been going for long time if you include Psytel. Plus I like the way Ivan and menno visit this board and use listening tests conducted here and other user feedback to improve their codec. This kind of commitment is most appreciated. I use the extreme preset mainly because I'm insane (I don't think there's anyway I could ABX a 'normal' encoded file versus an 'extreme' encoded file).

What version of foobar and iTunes are you using? I haven't had a problem using the more resent versions, though there were problems in earlier versions.

Means that I can use the transcoding, masstagging and freedb functions in foobar to tag all my M4A files before importing to iTunes. (And the tags work fine on my iPod as well)

(Though I've never had a need to edit tags in foobar after they have been imported into iTunes, if thats what you're trying to do)

Pretty sure it's not 100% standard tagging that iTunes uses. Anyway, the tags produced by Tag&Rename in M4A and M4P files work completely with iTunes/iPod. Everything shows up properly. T&R added iTunes support in 3.0.

What do you use to stream? I recently suggested to a friend that he switch the format for his streaming radio from MP3 to HE-AAC, but when I asked in #foobar2000 for any programs that can stream in this format, I received a reply that there are none at this time.

Well, for live AAC-HE streaming I think you are out of luck at the moment.
I meant simply http streaming of .aac aac-he files.

Some time ago Chencho was beta-testing a HE AAC streaming solution developed by Mayah. I wonder if they already made a product out of it...

I use QT for my AAC encoding now, since like others have mentioned, I am on OS X.

I was under the impression that iTunes error correction was CDParanoia, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Like Dibrom, I don't exactly trust iTunes ripping capabilities. But I don't feel like keeping my Windows XP comp around just to rip. Plus encoding in QT I lose gapless playback. Setting the fadout in iTunes to 0 seconds seems to work on some albums but not all. I haven't had any real problems ripping used discs though, haven't tried a heavily scratch one yet.

I really wish there were a way to create lossless backups in OS X easily, sort of like EAC ripping to single wav with cue sheet. And gapless playback. Thats all I need. Anyone tested EAC under VirtualPC. How about on Linux on WINE? I hear WINE is being ported to Darwin so I am definately interested in that. (Counter-Strike on my Mac!)

Quality wise my hearing is not that great, or maybe I am just not tuned like you guys but I have tried ABX'ing a huge variety of formats at different quality settings and I can only pick out low bitrate LAME (<=96kpbs) or older implementations of mp3 encoders, like blade. So for AAC I use the default 128kpbs in iTunes.

Why just today I was thinking of a way to get rid of my PC I keep around just for EAC/Nero AAC and thought of trying virtual PC out with EAC. I don't know how directly it relies on hardware for ripping. I second the question of EAC + Virtual PC

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the latest listening test from rjamorim call quicktime the overall winner, beating nero CBR? - and later on (no date specified, october 2003 I estimate) Guruboolez did a personal comparison between nero VBR and quicktime CBR and still considered quicktime better. (of course that last one was a subjective call, not a 'scientific test'.)

notes:
- 'beating' is a harsh term, the two turned out to be quite closely matched, usually the difference between end results fell within the errormargins.
- Obviously itunes has improved little since then, while perhaps nero is now 1000% better.
- as I've come to understand it, quicktimes 'CBR' really also is sorta-vbr, nero just uses less rigid restrictions on bitrate limits
- due to compatibility reasons (read: I have an ipod) personally I'm only interested in LC-AAC.

Perhaps someone with good ears and a copy of nero would be willing to do a quick listening test? Say 128kbit? Or (Menno? Ivan?) has nero not improved much audio-quality-wise since the test?

This, in fact, will happen within the next few weeks. A full listening test between (about) six different AAC encoders will be taking place shortly.

Only nero provide a HE AAC encoder, enough said.

Soren

I was using Nero's AAC codec, but I'm going to have to vote for and be switching to QuickTime since Nero's codec keeps producing songs (maybe about 3 out of 15 albums encoded that I've noticed so far) that crash my 3rd gen iPod with firmware 2.1. I was using the audiophile setting with 2.*.*.9 and then bumped it down, but it still causes certain mp4s to crash the iPod... just different ones now. (It seemed to be better in previous versions, but maybe I'm encoding more stuff)

Also I used foobar to transcode and mass tag, and I echo the problem the previous person here mentioned about some tags not showing up in iTunes. Many of the Genre tags I masstag are missing in iTunes, as well as when I transcode with foobar, most songs that have Japanese in the title encode to mp4 ok with foo_nero, but upon tagging them the file turns into just 1_ with no file type and foobar spits out an error. Yet if I convert to mp4 with an english name and then rename the files from the Japanese tags, it works perfectly.

It's because of annoyances like these that I'm going to try switching to QuickTime.

lol

i rip/encode on my G4-400 and (now) transfer the files to my PC server. i USED to listen to iTunes tunes by turning on my G4 and listening in the living room, but i realized eventually that seeing as how the Athy is on all the time (and not in use most of the time) that it'd be best just to run it with iTunes running minimized.

so i guess that makes me an iTunes user. however, since the AAC format (or rather, audiocoding) really hasn't stopped changing in Nero, i'm just using iTunes AAC @ 128 for now. iTunes(/quicktime) may have a large team behind it, but it doesn't seem to be changing much (unless there's something i'm not aware of), whereas Nero has a nice dedicated programmer who always seems to be improving things thanks to this forum .. so if and when these two events coincide: Nero AAC being as good as it can nearly possibly get (beating Quicktime in the process, granted that hasn't happened already) ... and i get (afford) a silent pc (ha ha ha) i'll re-rip all of my music to one final format. i think. i hope. iTunes + Nero AAC

Real Producer 10 includes an HE AAC encoder developed by Coding Technologies. Get it free from the Helix Community.