Hi,

At 192kbps which one will be better for my music library?
LAME (3.98.2) MP2, "-V2",
Nero AAC (1.3.3.0, no longer available from Nero?), "-q 0.55",
or
iTunes (8 w/ QT 7.6), "192k vbr" (in fact it's abr)

I tried to ABX with foobar2k, but could not find difference
as far as I can tell. At this bitrate I don't see public listening test
or discussion on these codecs and encoders, may be they
are all similar? I just want to find the one for my music library
and wondered if any of these has any known issues (e.g. known
problem tracks, artifacts, ... etc.).
Or, just AAC codec is supposed to be still better (~25%)
that MP3 at this bitrate?

Thanks,
csp

I'd use MP3, as it's the most compatible of the options you've given.

Since you can't ABX the difference at that bitrate, I suggest you go with MP3 since it is the most compatible format.

I'd also go with MP3. Compatibility, too. When you least expect you want those songs portable and not all devices will play it, unless you choose mp3 (based on experience).

I suggest that you try ABX tests using lower bitrates/settings since 192kbps VBR is too high for you. There is no need to use a bitrate/setting that is higher than what your ears need.

Either encoder should suite you fine but I would go with Lame mp3 unless you plan on living in an Apple universe. Not that AAC is exclusive Apple technology, it is just that all of their hardware is compatible with AAC. I don't know what type of software you plan on using to playback the files or what type of portable hardware you plan on using.

Oh, the reason why there isn't a public listening test at these high settings is because many users struggle with 128kbps VBR listening tests. 192kbps VBR would be extremely difficult to ABX for proper listening tests without using killer samples.

I'd go for MP3 for the same reasons given above, but if you can't tell the difference between the different encoders compared to LAME at -V2, you probably don't need to go that high anyway. Grab LAME 3.98.2 and try -V3 or -V4 compared to the original source.

Cheers, Slipstreem.

Here are some things to consider in making your decision:

- What are you going to play the music on? (What formats does your player handle?)
- What are your quality requirements?
- How much storage space do you have?
- What are your potential future needs?

With a high-enough bitrate, any/all of these formats should be transparent (should sound exactly like the original). You've confirmed that with your ABX tests.

If you've got enough disk space, there is no harm in using a "higher than necessary" bitrate.

A lot of people like to keep a lossless archive and a lossy library for portable use.


I use MP3 because it's the most-universal "play anywhere" format. Since I'm mostly playing the music on my computers, and I have dedicated "music" hard drives with plenty of space, I just use -V0 and I've never done any ABX tests to find the "perfect" bitrate.

Hi All,

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

- I'm currently using iPod (iPhone) and most of time I listen to music on
portable device and car stereo. Previously I used to use 128k AAC w/ iTunes
encoder. Recently, I wanted to be on the safe side and it looks like 192k will be the
sweet spot as fat as quality and size are concerned (also psychosocially).
- But, could not decide which encoder to use at this bitrate, among the most
popular encoders listed above.
- Based on your responses, it looks like LAME seems to be the most favorable
option. Looks like at 192k all I've listed options seem to be equivalent as far as
quality is concerned.
- Probably I'll do the following CD --> EAC --> FLAC for archiving in external
hard drive, and FLAC --> LAME MP3 192k for my portable music play.

Thanks!
csp

Until page on nero.com is back, please use this one: http://www.audiocoding.com/nero_aacenc.html

Edit: online again!
http://www.nero.com/eng/technologies.html
http://www.nero.com/eng/technologies-aac-codec.html

Thanks! I was wondering what hppened to nero encoder. As you are the nero developer, maybe you can answer this question, which I've been always wondering. Is AAC still more efficient by ~25% (as Apple and other people say 128k aac ~ 160k mp3) than MP3 codec even at this high (192kbps) bitrate? (I mean, in principle, but not necessarily to human ears) Or AAC and MP3 efficiency may be similar at this rate?

csp

It is only about compression ratio and human ear. So do your listening tests and choose q that is best for you.

I would go with lame, only because mp3s are widely used. AAC is great though for smaller bitrates, again its up to you depending on the hardware you are using it for.

I was stuck with the decision as well a couple of months ago when i had to rip my 450+ CD collection. After ripping all of them to WavPack it took me a week to decide which lossy one to use afterwards.. i ended up encoding the lossless files to lame.

BTW, does anyone know a good site where people can share or show their CD collections? I know there are lots of vinyl ones, but it seems like no one gives a shit about CD Collecting.

Since we're talking about lossy compression, you really can't take human perception out of the picture. Human perception is the central focus of lossy compression!

One encoding scheme is "more efficient" than the other if you can get "equal sound quality" (to a human) at a lower bitrate. If both formats are equally transparent at 192kbps, you can't say one format is more efficient than the other (at that bitrate)... They are both transparent, both have the same percentage of compression, and the same file size.

With lossless compression, you can ignore human perception. Whatever format gives you the smallest file is the most efficient. (But, there might be other considerations besides compression efficency... You might not want 10% more compression if it takes 10x the CPU power/usage to decode and play.)

I personally don't find the need to use lossy very much as I have a lot of hard-drive space. The only place I do have the need for it is on my PS3. That's where I transcode my entire FLAC collection to Nero AAC -q 0.65. I have ABXed around there and can't tell the difference. Let me remind you I am playing these over a Sony Reciever and Home Theater. I personally would use AAC whenever you have the opportunity to otherwise if that option is not avaliable to you stick with MP3. Answering your secound question there is a website where people can share and show their CD collections. It's called:

http://www.discogs.com/

I have seen virtually every album from different genre's of music on there. Happy hunting!

Am I missing something here? As I read it, the OP tested the codecs against each other, not the original. He didn't say the codecs were transparent when compared to the original.

My advice: if you are keeping lossless, just use AAC since it is for Apple playback. You can always reconvert to a different codec or bitrate later.

Well, the OP previously said that they were using 128kbps iTunes AAC which would imply that it produced transparent results. They just wanted to go up to 192kbps VBR to be on the safe side.

However, I do not agree with your "You can always reconvert to a different codec or bitrate later." statement. In my opinion, the point of picking a lossy encoder is so that it can last you a good few years so that you can continue to listen to your music without having to re-encode to a new format once every 6 months. That way you can pick a format/setting now and won't have to worry about it until a new version of Lame comes out (once every 2 years), new version of Nero comes out (about once every 2 years), and Apple really updates their iTunes AAC encoder (no set time that I have seen). Then one can test the newer version of the encoder to see if it has any audible improvements over the previous.

I think it would be a waste if the OP were to go with AAC now only to find out that they have a few devices that are mp3 only and then they would have to go back and encode everything using Lame. I think that Nero AAC can provide great results but mp3 is still the "universal" audio format in that it is compatible with pretty much every audio player (DAP, car CD decks, DVD players, consoles, Blu-ray players, PDAs, cellphones, and now many digital cameras and camcorders) under the sun. AAC compatibility is growing and one would be pretty safe going with AAC if they lived in Apple's world. However, someone should examine all aspects here and look at all the devices they have and look at all possible scenarios where mp3 might be needed.

Why does mp3 get suggested over aac when the OP is 1) mostly listening on an iPhone and a car that presumably plays aac since it's what he's already using, and 2) encoding to FLAC? Compatiblity is offered as the reason for mp3 generally, but in this scenario we already know aac is compatible.

Secondly, (to the OP) I don't think you need to go higher than 128 kbps considering that it is apparently fine for you today and you say you're encoding to FLAC anyway. But of course we all have our reasons. I just don't understand the need for an additional quality buffer in this case (psychosocially?).

1. That is right now but no one knows their future. There was a time when the only portable player I had was an iPod and everything I had played AAC except for one thing: my car. It could play mp3/WMA/standard CDs only. I switched to AAC and then quickly realized that AAC would not fit for me so I switched back to using Lame. We don't know what the OP's situation is now (other than their iPhone) or what they will ever plan on doing in the future. mp3 is just more compatible with everything that is out there. No one will ever know when they are going to come across a device or software that won't work with AAC. I think that either Nero or iTunes AAC will provide great results for the OP but Lame just has that universal compatibility.

Some of the new Pioneer decks support AAC. I am not a car audio guy I just happpened to notice them while I was browsing around in the store a few days ago.

As far as my current 128k AAC music library (what I have right now) is concerned, it's originated from my previous Sony Walkman Phone which had tiny (256MB) internal memory and I decided to go with 128k AAC at that time as it saved space a lot compared to MP3 files. I tried to keep two low/high bitrate version of music libraries, but it was not very convenient to keep two so I just kept one with 128k AAC at that time.
And I kept this bitrate even after I switched to iPhone (8GB). Now, in fact I do have more memory so I thought that it's time to renew my music library with higher bitrate for next couple (or several) years. I'm not sure if I'll keep my current iPhone when my contract runs out in this year, my next music device is not necessarily need to be the iPod. The decision to go to higher bitrate is in some sense due to my psychological feeling too, but I guess that going to higher bitrate will relieve my feeling so that I can just enjoy music w/o worrying about the bitrate for a while.

Oh, as far as my car stereo is concerned, no my car cannot play AAC (not MP3 either) directly but I play iPhone with an adaptor right now. Hopefully my next car will be able to play MP3 (or AAC) directly.

Thanks,
csp

There are quite a few aftermarket decks that can play AAC files. Kenwood, Pioneer, and even Sony have decks that play AAC files (whether from a data CD or a direct USB connection to a mass storage device). I have a Kenwood deck installed in one of my cars that has a USB port on the front of it. It can play mp3, WMA, WAV, AAC, and one other format that I can't think of right now (not OGG but I think it can play mpeg-2 mp3 files). That was when I thought I was set with AAC as all my devices played AAC files: my PS3, iPod, Xbox 360, Wii, AppleTV, Zen, and Zune. I then purchased a 2009 Honda Civic last year. It has the 6 disc stereo that can playback standard audio CDs, mp3 CDs, and WMA CDs. I switched back to Lame mp3 as my new car could not playback AAC files. It wasn't that big of a deal as I could burn 6-700MB CDs (all CD-RW discs) that would last me for months on end. I now spend over 6 hours on the road each week and it was annoying having to switch out CDs. One CD would last me a little over a week.

I then purchased an iPod adapter so now my factory CD deck can control my iPod. So I switched back to AAC but this time went with Nero's latest encoder. So you just never know when AAC compatibility is going to come up and bite you. I thought I was all set using AAC until I purchased a new car and those files didn't work. I would have been fine had I cone with the Civic EX-L or the Honda Fit as those come with decks that can playback AAC files from USB devices (only, no AAC CDs). However, the Civic EX-L was just way too much money and I think the Honda Fit looks like a damn bug (I was also tired of having four door cars, I wanted a coupe).

That is why I still recommend using the Lame mp3 encoder to people simply because mp3 is universally accepted. I think that the Nero developers hit the nail on the head with their latest encoder but AAC just isn't compatible with everything out there. As the OP stated, their next phone may not be an iPhone. I know that the majority of cellphones on the market today work with mp3, AAC, and HE-AAC files but you just never know with some of these manufacturers.

That's a sound plan. Grab one or two 320gb small verbatim USB drives then flac or wavpack your albums. Space on portable players is not an issue much anymore so transcode to higher bitrates and enjoy. Use mp3 if you need the most compatibility, otherwise AAC (more efficient)

Great website!