first off, this site is an amazing resource. i've spent several hours over the last week or so browsing and searching through the various topics.

i have a question. is there a "real good" reason for using nero over itunes for encoding?

from reading the various listening tests, they appear to be essentially equal in "quality" of encoding. nero aac files appear (although it's difficult for me to tell, because of the age of some posts) to need to be manipulated (renamed) before they will execute on an ipod (a negative). nero vbr appears to produce "slightly" smaller file sizes (a positive). itunes is supported by apple, nero by a smaller company (don't care). etc.

i have far from golden ears (mid 40's and seriously abused ears), and wouldn't know the first thing about being "trained" for searching for artifacting (after reading all the various abx tests, i don't think i'd want to either, because knowing me, i'd start listening for that instead of actually listening to the music itself).

encoded files are for ipod use (both ear buds and playing through "direct connect" to car stereo). music preferences lean to baroque/classical.

"kiss theory" would seem to point to just using itunes. i'm curious as to why so many use nero. after reading so many posts, it's possible i missed something that makes nero so much better that people would go through the (apparent) hassle of getting the files to work with the ipod.

thanks in advance for replies. they'd be greatly appreciated.

Well a lot of people on here wouldn't be satisfied with iTunes to do their CD ripping, instead insisting on using Exact Audio Copy in secure mode to ensure a 100% perfect rip. AFAIK Nero's encoder is more easy to set up with EAC than Apple's encoder, so that's that. Also with EAC's encoder settings you can specify the extension the encoded files will get, so the iTunes extension issue you raise is moot if you set everything up properly.

no. (in response to topic starter)

Perhaps a better way of saying it would be
"No, there really isn't a good reason to use Nero over iTunes, because it is you who is going to listen to the music you encode - Not the people with golden ears. It's a matter of personal preference, and some people just like to feel extra safe, or else they wouldn't be able to enjoy the music, as you pointed out yourself."

The way you said it just made you look bad. You shouldn't have responded at all if that "No" was all you had to say.

Sincere apologies to anyone who might be offended by this post.

i liked the concise answer better...

given the fact that the sq is essentially equal (as borne out by multiple listening tests)... and as previously admitted, i'm highly unlikely to be able to notice any difference there might be anyway...

alive's response is basically (one of) the reasons i asked this question. why do some feel "extra safe" using nero? what other rationale do people have? because for the life of me, i can't figure out (if you are using an ipod anyway) why someone would go through what appears to be a more difficult process. maybe i'm missing something here, which is why i'm asking.

in reference to joeshrubbery's response. but (searching, i knew i read about this somewhere, ah, here it is) this:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....p;hl=eac+itunes

appears to point out that there's no difference between eac and the itunes ripper. the only thing i think i might be not understanding there is that possibly the eac error correction is "better" than the itunes one? or did i misunderstand that thread entirely?

sorry i'm being a bit slow here. i'm trying to learn.

I agree 100%. Besides. iTunes has a better user interface. it is more user friendly.

Nero's encoder is convenient if you're transcoding on the fly from lossless to AAC using foo_dop in foobar2000 or something similar to send music to your ipod. If you're using iTunes to manage your ipod, there's no real advantage.

to a consice question a consice answer


Nero has never had a better ranking on any of HA audio listening tests, so feeling safe is completely irrational, and i have no idea why people would feel better by using it. In fact, *i* would rather trust apple more than nero.

If you use iTunes, use iTunes encoder.

If you don't use iTunes, use Nero AAC encoder.

The simplest answers.

I don't like iTunes, hence I don't use iTunes but I like AAC. I use foobar2000 and EAC with Nero AAC. Works on my iPod Nano and Zune. Just keep in mind to name the files with .m4a instead of .mp4. iTunes thinks they are movie files if you use .mp4

I even take the time to add album art to the files using Mp3tag. Zune is good for displaying album art...the Nano not as much.

The only situation I prefer Nero AAC over iTunes AAC is when I need to transcode music from my FLAC archive to my iPod. I then usually let Foobar encode in the range of 0.45 to 0.55. The quality is perfect to my ears and Foobar makes use of my dual core CPU.

Since I don't rip CD's with iTunes, I prefer to have EAC rip a CD image which I then mount with Daemon Tools to use iTunes AAC for encoding, usually either at 160 (most of the times) or 192 kbps (in rare occasions).

To me, both ways are absolutely satisfying.

I think people feel safer using EAC as their CD ripper instead of using Nero as their AAC encoder. Sure, many people want to support a smaller company so they use the Nero AAC encoder. Personally, I would trust Apple's iTunes/QuickTime AAC encoder over Nero simply because Apple is a bigger company so they probably have a larger development team, their encoder goes through much more criticism since Apple pushes their AAC encoder out there (iTunes Store, default ripping option in iTunes, etc.), and Apple was one of the first mainstream companies to push the mpeg-4 AAC format as a viable lossy format. Then again, that is just me.

EAC has much better error correction abilities than iTunes. This only matters if you are very picky about having the absolute most perfect rips and if your CDs might have dust or scratches on them. For CDs in good condition, the iTunes CD ripper will suffice.

I've never thought that way. Don't you know aoTuV or LAME?

The advantage of Nero that I think of is:
- CUI
- quality-based VBR
- HE-AAC
- no installer

But I have iPod+iTunes and happy with these.

Yes, I'm afraid you misunderstood that thread.

If your discs are in good condition, iTunes should produce error-free rips just as EAC should. The major difference between the two is that EAC is much more likely to let you know if there was a problem with a rip. Relative comparisons of "error correction" (a misnomer, since neither EAC nor iTunes performs actual error correction) between EAC and iTunes are worthy of their own thread. Based on my own observations, iTunes does not hold a candle to EAC.

My vote goes for Nero because the developers are closer to us. Additionally, I need HE-AAC because I do a lot low bitrate encodings (voice) with aac.
I like the aac format, I use it simply because I think it has some more future than vorbis. My next car radio will have he-aac support (lots already have, kenwood, sony). What I want to say is I'm not into the apple stuff. I don't know why I should need iBloat or an ipod. I mean, back in the 80/90s, it was bad enough running around with walkmen. Music whereever I walk? Bullshit.

Yeah, I know Lame, I have used it for years until now. I know that small (or independent) developers can produce the same or better results than a big name company. I don't have a problem with a small company or independent developer at all. I just feel that Apple has gone through a lot of scrutiny over the past couple of years and they continue to prove to people. That is all. Personally, I prefer a GUI interface of CUI, I have no need for HE-AAC (60GB iPod with a total storage space approaching 1TB), and I don't mind installing an application (with 2GB of RAM to spare and 400GB of hard drive space, I don't care). Then again, this is just me. I prefer Nero's quality based VBR abilities but I am happy with the results that iTunes produces.

This is just with my scenario, other people prefer other want different things out of their software and encoders. The Nero developers might be closer to us but that doesn't mean that Apple won't listen to us. They often listen to their customers and add improvements to their software and online music store.

For me the issue is the age of the listening tests and the fact that the nero encoder has had time for significant tuning.

The last test at I think 128 by Guru suggested Nero was superior to itunes but was done with classical music only.

So, based on available evidence, the answer is No but the evidence is old and may be irrelevant due to improvements in Nero.

This is a personal test posted recently that shows iTunes superior to Nero at 96 kbps (though I can't tell if their error margin bars overlap). The good thing about the test is that there were a lot of samples. And the standard deviance of iTunes ratings was better than Nero also. That is, there weren't any samples scored less than 3.0, more samples that scored 5.0, etc.

To answer the OP, if using iTunes &ipod, there is no good reason not to use it to encode AAC. As eveyone else already said, Nero is only more convenient if you use some other software to load your ipod. Or of course for non-ipod apps like streaming HE-AAC.

A couple of members (including myself) have uploaded samples that exploit a stereo positioning problem with QT 7. Samples that have sharp sounds or attacks slightly off-center (but not completely in one channel or the other) may cause flanging and an echo effect in the other channel. It's especially noticeable at 128kbps, but not much so after about 192-224kbps. If I remember correctly, somebody who works on Apple's encoder said this would be corrected in Tiger (OS X 10.5). Just something to think about.

If you listen to music with a lot of percussion, it might be worth doing some listening tests with QT to make sure you don't notice this effect. It's really bad on some acoustic jazz albums, especially stuff recorded/engineered by Rudy Van Gelder in the 1960s. On the few albums I've noticed it, I've simply upped the bitrate to 256kbps. Nero, on the other hand, doesn't have this problem.

Nero does VBR better, so in theory, it gets a better quality/size ratio.

What about that. Is this bug fixed yet?

Edit: just saw the post of Cygnus X1, that's what I meant.

In theory, yes, but if Lame is any example, extended tuning and tweaking is required. Whether or not Nero has demonstrated this yet has not been established in one of H/A's open listening tests.

I hope Guru will look at this sometime on some mainstream type music until the next big listening test.

Remember, Nero lost to Itunes on the 128 test despite having a much higher bitrate.

Good call.

That's for sure. I recently did a personal test with Nero and Itunes at 96 "ish".What originally sounded pretty good shows artifacts on careful comparison.

Then all you hear is the artifact, and its like nails on a blackboard.

Another thing nobody has mentioned yet: If you're using an iPod, Apple encoded files will be proper lossless whereas Nero's won't be.

Nero AAC files now playback gaplessly on both the iPod and in iTunes. You just have to download and install iTunes 7.1.1.5 or above. No firmware update is required for the iPod as all gapless playback is determined through iTunes.