AAC codec comparison...

[gamaD]

From the FAQ:
Nero Burning Rom ( Encode files in extras menu ) and accompanying Wave Editor allows both LC and HE AAC encoding. Alternative Nero AAC/MP4 plugins are available at cd-rw.org

On the cd-rw.org page I can choose Psytel's AAC or AudioCoding.com's which is based on FAAC. Anyone know how the AudioCoding.com AAC compares to Nero AAC or FAAC?

[DKDIB]

Gama wrote:
> Anyone know how the AudioCoding.com AAC compares to Nero AAC or
> FAAC?

Here is the last AAC listing test organized by Roberto Amorim:
presentation (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128v2/presentation.html);
results (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128v2/results.html).

[hans-jürgen]

Originally posted by gamaD
On the cd-rw.org page I can choose Psytel's AAC or AudioCoding.com's which is based on FAAC. Anyone know how the AudioCoding.com AAC compares to Nero AAC or FAAC? [/B] FAAC is the AAC encoder from Audiocoding.com, but whatever you do, don't use the outdated Nero plugin based on FAAC from the cd-rw.org page, because it's v1.17, and the current version is 1.24+.

See also http://www.audiocoding.com/modules/mydownloads/

[gamaD]

Thank you. On a side note, when I encode with nero plugin using foobar2000, foobar later reports in the properties dialog:
"tool = Nero AAC Codec 2.6.2.2"

i suppose this is the codec version?
is there a newer one? does nero update it in every new release of Nero Burning ROM?

[bond]

Originally posted by gamaD
is there a newer one? does nero update it in every new release of Nero Burning ROM?in a majority of their releases

also you might find robertos second aac comparison useful, which shows that nero and psytel (both developed by the same guy btw) were on par at the time the test was made. i wonder if neros lc-aac encoder has improved since than (its pretty weak compared to apple's encoder), as they mainly focused on stuff like he-aac...
find the comparison here (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.html)

[rjamorim]

Originally posted by bond
also you might find robertos second aac comparison useful, which shows that nero and psytel (both developed by the same guy btw) were on par at the time the test was made. i wonder if neros lc-aac encoder has improved since than (its pretty weak compared to apple's encoder), as they mainly focused on stuff like he-aac...
find the comparison here (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/aac128test/results.html)

That's actually my first comparision :)

And it's hard to say if Nero AAC-LC encoder improved. I would guess it didn't. It ranked closer to QuickTime in the second test, but it's worth taking into consideration that the first test compared Nero at CBR, in the second one it was at VBR (and, amazingly, it still lost to QuickTime CBR neverthless)

Of course, it's still better to trust your own years more than my tests when taking decisions on what to use.

[bond]

Originally posted by rjamorim
That's actually my first comparision :)yepa of course, the "second" was more related to "the other one" :)

And it's hard to say if Nero AAC-LC encoder improved. I would guess it didn't. It ranked closer to QuickTime in the second test, but it's worth taking into consideration that the first test compared Nero at CBR, in the second one it was at VBR (and, amazingly, it still lost to QuickTime CBR neverthless)indeed, still its good to point out the "difference" between the two. might get nero to tune their codec more if many people ask for it :devil:

Of course, it's still better to trust your own years more than my tests when taking decisions on what to use.true, as always :)