Is there some guide that shows quality values that'll guarantee an output file with spectral band replication AND parametric stereo at 64Kbps and 96Kbps when using Nero Digital Audio 1.1.34.2?

I'm impressed with the sound of 64Kbps AACPlus v2 streaming audio on the internet and would like to produce fairly small compressed audio files with similar quality.

Thanx.

1) VBR (target quality) mode does not guarantee a bitrate. You can try values between -q 0.25 and -q 0.35
2) -hev2 forces usage of SBR+PS but it is not recomended as the default setting (autoselection depending on the -q ) gives better quality most of the times

Don't misinterprete the usefulness of HE-AACv2 at extremely low bitrates as an indicator for the format being supreme compared to the other AAC profiles in general. At bitrates of 48 kbit/s and above it's likely to cause worse results than HE-AACv1:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=42679

Even HE-AACv1 forfeits its supremacy compared to LC-AAC at bitrates of more than 80 kbit/s. That's due to it possibly introducing nasty artifacts while synthesizing high frequencies, although there's no serious need for processing the signal at 96 kbit/s anymore.

And add to good recommendations from qqf31416 and Junon that bitrates higher than 48kbps were not tuned for HEv2 (for the same reasons that Junon suggests - HEv1 and LC are better for higher bitrates)

Am I wrong in assuming that the web sites listed at http://www.tuner2.com are streaming AAC+SBR+PS? I believe they claim to be using CT's AACPlus v2 which CT says is AAC+SBR+PS. This link:

http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/aacPlus.htm (claiming AAC+SBR+PS)

appears on this link:

http://www.tuner2.com/about.html

Since the HA listening tests show PS produces worse quality audio at rates above 48 kbits/sec, is tuner2.com all screwed up if they're using CT's AACPlus v2 for streaming at bit rates higher than 48 kbits/sec?

It's all compromise to me. I know it's an illusion and I'm being fooled by a psycho-acoustic model. I'm just hoping (perhaps fantasizing) that I can rip fairly small files that I think sound very good (a subjective judgment) by using HE v1 or HE v2. I know using plain vanilla CBR MP3 sure won't do it at 64 kbits/sec. I thought of using HE v2 at 64 kbits/sec because it seemed to me (subjective judgment) that the audio streamed from web sites listed at tuner2.com sounded much better at 64kbits/sec than anything else I had heard before at that bit rate.

Thanks to all who have replied and I apologize for not responding sooner.

Your assumption is correct. From http://www.tuner2.com/makeyourselfready.html:


Not entirely screwed up, but their setting certainly isn't optimal. Depends on the bitrates they're actually streaming at, of course, e.g. HE-AAC v2 at 64 kbit/s is still way more reasonable than at 96 kbit/s.


A HE-AAC v2 file at 64 kbit/s certainly results in surprisingly good quality, no doubt. But AAC can perform even a bit better using its optimal profile for the given bitrate, hence HE-AAC v1 is the best possible setting for you.

To summarize things:
64 kbit/s --> -q 0.25 (HE-AAC v1)
96 kbit/s --> -q 0.34 (LC-AAC)

The actual average bitrates can vary depending on the music you encode.

OK, thank you very much. One reason I posted my question was that I kept getting HE-AAC v1 files at bit rates I was interested in ripping to. From what everyone has indicated, it sounds like I should be happy with the HE-AAC v1 files I get and not be so concerned with artifact-laden PS, even if the web sites listed at tuner2.com use it.

My other option is to rip to LC-AAC at 96 kbits/sec and get even better sounding results in a larger file. I didn't originally understand that a LC-AAC file would be better sounding than a HE-AAC file because it doesn't synthesize higher frequencies by generating some harmonics.

This has been very educational. Thanks once again to all who replied to my post.