after winning a used 2nd gen 20 gig ipod on ebay, I've been fooling around with aac encoding. From fiddling around with an older version of nero's aac codec (I'll get the newest version later this week) I encoded files from lossless via foobar. Now, so far I've found a few things

1. at "transparent" setting, the file size for my sample (uncle tupelo's "sandusky") was ~4.3mb. The lame aps mp3 was ~6mb, and the lame ape mp3 was ~6.7 mb.

2. Soundquality was odd. I could easily tell the lossless file from the lossy ones. The aac file seemed "drier" than the mp3 files, but the difference wasn't that great.

3. aac audiophile results in file sizes ~7mb

Now, I've a few questions about nero aac

1. how is compatability with the ipod? I've heard that some people have had nightmares with it, and I've also heard that people can play them fine.

2. how do you get gapless encoding via nero?

3. what are your opinions on the the "transparent" "extreme" and "audiophile" settings?

Waiting to find out myself. Most posters here say its fine now.



You don't. Best you can hope for is gapless playback, with the right player - but not on the iPod yet.



Been asking the same thing myself. Not too many ready to offer their opinion. I would try all 3 and load them on to your iPod and test them. I use transparent and it sounds great on iTunes on my PC. Waiting for my ipod mini to test myself.

What version of Nero AAC encoding are you using? The latest is 2.6.1.9

Are you referring to the "Transparent" preset or to any setting with Nero's AAC?

In any case, how did you determine the quality differences between the lossy and the original files? I hope it was through ABXing (although I suspect you didn't) (what is ABX?). In any case, I'd say the probability of an untrained person actually hearing a difference with these presets is quite slim...

no, I didn't use any blind tests. and yes, I'm referring to "transparent." From my experience, the lossless files were the most "bounding." The acoustic guitars were warm and bounceful. The ape lame mp3 preserved most of that, while the aac file was a bit drier (and 1/3 smaller).

oh yes, anyone on the differences between the nero aac verions?

Sorry to say this again (seems like I'm doing it every other day) but...

The Hydrogenaudio TOS #8 clearly states that:

"Any statement about sound quality must be supported by the author responsible for such statements by a double blind listening test demonstrating that he can hear a difference, together with a test sample. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, subtracting two files and so on are definetely not considered as valid evidences of sound quality."

The short of it is, your comparisons between Nero AAC, Lame APS, Lame APE, and original PCM WAV file are completely invalid and unfounded. You could have the worlds greatest ears, but unless you ABX test codecs, you will be affected by the placebo effect. It's highly unlikely you're hearing any differences at all between all the tracks. Lame APS particualrly has been tested more times then you can imagine and has been tweaked so hard that it's unlikely to produce noticeable artifacts on most 'normal' music unless you very sensitive to artifacts (unlikely unless you've been trained to detect them).

I would almost bet money that the 'Transparent' preset will be (at the very least) enough for your needs. However, the only real way to know is to do an ABX test for yourself.