NeroAAC or QuckTime-AAC?

[Forteen88]

I wonder if anyone got some ABX-result, NeroAAC vs QuckTime-AAC, or personal recommendation which to use?

I noticed that QuickTime-AAC got a CLI too, 'qtaacenc',
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=152311

:thanks:

[b66pak]

another (more complex) CLI for QT-AAC is qaac (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154233)...
_

[Forteen88]

another (more complex) CLI for QT-AAC is qaac (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154233)...
_Great, thanks.
If I only knew if QT-AAC or Nero-AAC is better soundquality...
I should do ABX-test myself, but my headphones aren't that great :P

[Keiyakusha]

By the way interesting question. I can't hear the differences, bitrates that I'm using (higher than 192kbps) anyway to high for some ABX. So I prefer QT because I like more its bitrate handling (with tvbr). Nero produces oversized outputs, especially after it started to keep full frequency at high q.

[xekon]

IIRC if your using variable bitrate (nero -q) Then Nero wins, but if you are using constant bitrate then apple/QT AAC wins.

[sneaker_ger]

IIRC if your using variable bitrate (nero -q) Then Nero wins, but if you are using constant bitrate then apple/QT AAC wins.

Putting aside that you're pushing up a 15 months old thread, in the latest public listening test (http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/results.html) Nero placed only fourth behind QuickTime, Fraunhofer and Coding Technologies (in this order).

[xekon]

Doh! I saw the July, thought it was only a couple of months old, need to look more closely at the year, so sorry.

Thank you very much for the link though!