hello everyone!

Well I have many types of latest codecs.Some of which include Nero Digital May2006, 1.0.7 Feb 07, July 1.1.34.0, 1.1.34.2 Aug 07, itunes 7.5, lame 3.98 beta 6, wma 10 pro. I have lot of music which I am planning to convert it to a lower bit rate without losing much quality. Since my HDD is only 40 gb I have to make the best settings to get good compression and best quality.

I want to use bit rates in the range of 64 to 96 kbps.Which should I use latest itunes 7.35 high anchor 96 kbps or latest Nero 1.1.34.2 HE AAC 64 or which other version of Nero?.Which gives better quality?

If I want to use lower bit rate less than 96 kbps I guess Nero is undoubtedly the best right? But itunes high anchor 96 came on top comparing with the latest Nero 1.1.34 (according to Sebastian's listening tests).

Please tell me which format would be suitable to use for high quality instrumental music Nero ~64 kbps or itunes 7.35 high anchor @96kbps or any other format...

And has anyone tested the latest itunes 7.35 @96kbps vs Nero @96 kbps which do you think is better?

Thank you

Regards
kar

In a listening test the high anchor is intentionally selected to be higher quality than the codecs that are the real subject of the test. If the high anchor had not come out better then the entire test would have been invalid.

If possible, choose any of these codecs at 96 kbps over anything at 64 kbps.

At 64kbps Nero HE-AAC will be the better choice.

At 96kbps I won't make a statement.

"High anchor" is not an iTunes profile or codec but a description of the goal of that encoder in the test setup.

I wouldn't bother with 64Kbs

96kbits is about the lowest I'd go. iTunes & Nero AAC and AoTuv Vorbis would be the obvious choices at this bitrate. It's just a case of you doing some ABX tests and seeing which one you like.

Surely if you can afford internet access in India you can afford another hard drive, no? I would strongly advise against reencoding you lossy files into such a low bitrate. I think you will regret it later on.