Full Version: Nero AAC Encoder version 1.0.7.0 - where to download?
Have mentioned that many users noticed February's encoder provides more encoding quality than the newest one. Where can I download February's 1.0.7.0 Nero AAC Encoder's release?
See your Private Messaging box.
Please report any sample that has worse quality in August than in February version in this thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=61724 !
So far there are only two samples available that show this and you need very very good hearing to hear differences.
So far there are only two samples available that show this and you need very very good hearing to hear differences.
QUOTE(muaddib @ Mar 20 2008, 16:23) 
Please report any sample that has worse quality in August than in February version in this thread: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=61724 !
So far there are only two samples available that show this and you need very very good hearing to hear differences.
Generally all Nero AAC samples starting from 320 kb/s have exceptionally high quality and are almost perfect. Other encoders are losing badly in terms of quality to Nero. But when it comes to compatibility with portable devices the clear loser unfortunately is Nero. Hopefully this will be fixed soon, because otherwise your codec is almost useless to me - my music collections are stored in lossless and i only need AAC for portable use.
you mean starting from 32 kb/s?
Public listening tests done so far have shown that Nero (and some other codecs) are of excellent quality at bitrates ~64kbps and also based on public listening tests most people can not hear difference on most samples at 128 kbps (using Nero or Lame or some other encoder/format).
And as I wrote in another thread that you started there is a workaround to make files encoded by Nero play on devices that initially refuses to play them (some iPods).
And as I wrote in another thread that you started there is a workaround to make files encoded by Nero play on devices that initially refuses to play them (some iPods).
QUOTE(smok3 @ Mar 20 2008, 17:02)
you mean starting from 32 kb/s?
I'm afraid no.
Quoted from another thread:
QUOTE(LitteL @ Mar 18 2008, 21:52)
I will stay for now with Easy CD-DA Extractor's AAC encoder at 320 kb/s. It works fine with my Sony Ericsson W810i phone and outperforms iTunes AAC and FAAC encoders as well. I've also noticed that constant bitrate outperforms variable bitrate in most cases when using lossy audio compression schemes.
(Note: bold formatting added by me)
oh, i thought easy CD-DA is using FAAC? 
QUOTE(smok3 @ Mar 20 2008, 09:10)
oh, i thought easy CD-DA is using FAAC?
I think they do, but they try to hide it. (using UPX compression on every DLL where they violate some open source license).
QUOTE(menno @ Mar 20 2008, 11:22)
QUOTE(smok3 @ Mar 20 2008, 09:10)
oh, i thought easy CD-DA is using FAAC?
I think they do, but they try to hide it. (using UPX compression on every DLL where they violate some open source license).
I see poikosoft seems determined to peeve-off more than just a couple of developers, then.
-brendan
Does anyone know if the older encoder performs better at low bitrates (30-70 kbps), because I use those for my phone's built-in music player.
I've noticed that when using the same quality setting, the new encoder seems to produce larger files with a higher average bitrate than the old encoder.
I've noticed that when using the same quality setting, the new encoder seems to produce larger files with a higher average bitrate than the old encoder.
QUOTE(sinspawn @ Mar 25 2008, 01:21)
Does anyone know if the older encoder performs better at low bitrates (30-70 kbps), because I use those for my phone's built-in music player.
I've noticed that when using the same quality setting, the new encoder seems to produce larger files with a higher average bitrate than the old encoder.
I've noticed that when using the same quality setting, the new encoder seems to produce larger files with a higher average bitrate than the old encoder.
August version should definitely produce better quality at bitrates < 96 kbps. That version was also used at public test http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-64-1/ where it won.
There were also changes in August version to provide better correspondence to quality-bitrate table provided at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=44310
QUOTE(muaddib @ Mar 25 2008, 02:52)
QUOTE(sinspawn @ Mar 25 2008, 01:21)
Does anyone know if the older encoder performs better at low bitrates (30-70 kbps), because I use those for my phone's built-in music player.
I've noticed that when using the same quality setting, the new encoder seems to produce larger files with a higher average bitrate than the old encoder.
I've noticed that when using the same quality setting, the new encoder seems to produce larger files with a higher average bitrate than the old encoder.
August version should definitely produce better quality at bitrates < 96 kbps. That version was also used at public test http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-64-1/ where it won.
There were also changes in August version to provide better correspondence to quality-bitrate table provided at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=44310
Thank you. The Nero HE-AAC encoder is the best thing since LAME came around.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.