Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: 128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98 (Read 7936 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

hello WISHING MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE!

I would like to know Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

which is the best @128 kbps bit rate?

or any other codec at this bit rate?

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #1 –
With a bitrate of 128 kbps you're certainly out for encoding for a DAP. With a DAP you usually don't have the choice of all the codecs you mentioned.
I have good experience with Lame 3.98b6, but at a higher bitrate. It's great there and I guess it's great also at 128 kbps. Because of the quality and the universal usability of mp3 files I would give it a chance and do some listening tests. In case you're content I would use it.
In case you don't want to do some listening tests on your own I would consider AAC the most attractive choice - if your DAP plays AAC. Recently I encoded my music collection for my wife's iPod nano using iTunes @ 96 kbps, and I was surprised by the general high quality even at this bitrate. Nero AAC is fine as well though my personal preference is with iTunes (though I dislike the Apple strategy). I have no own experience with WMA Pro but I expect it to be great as well - in case your DAP plays it. You may also want to consider Vorbis which also is great at this bitrate.
lame3995o -Q1.7 --lowpass 17

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #2 –
2008: The year which all codecs will transparent below 128kbps

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #3 –
Quote from: coolKarthik on
...which is the best @128 kbps bit rate?
Listening Tests may be helpful to you.
Sorry for my poor English, I'm trying to get better... ;)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist."

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #4 –
I'm sure if there's a 2008 listening test at 128kbps, nearly all codecs will be tied. As for DAP's we're pretty locked in MP3 because that's what everything supports, and if moving to another codec you will have to buy an specific player that will play your chosen codec.

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #5 –
I'm interested in something similar - I'm in need to convert from FLAC/wav to mp3 or aac to use on my IPod.

People usually say AAC is advanced over MP3 but in what sense? Aren't the encoders more important than the formats?

I mean everyone knows LAME is a pretty good MP3 encoder (to say the least) and since I don't know if the free Nero AAC Encoder might be the BladeEncoder of AAC encoders, I don't know what to choose. So does AAC still have an advantage over MP3 when using LAME for MP3 and the free NeroAAC for AAC?

Would an 96Kbps AAC file sound similar to a 128Kbps LAME MP3 file? Would that also be the case for a 256Kbps AAC file and a 320Kbps LAME MP3 file? Or would at be only comparable at the same bitrates and an AAC might sound better here?

Can anyone get me some insight thoughts on this? Meaning how well does the Nero AAC work for AAC files and on what levels does it compares with LAME?

thank you very much and merry Christmas.

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #6 –
Quote from: soukusen on
People usually say AAC is advanced over MP3 but in what sense? Aren't the encoders more important than the formats?

No, older formats may have some deficiencies (like sfb21 problem in MP3).

Quote from: soukusen on
Can anyone get me some insight thoughts on this? Meaning how well does the Nero AAC work for AAC files and on what levels does it compares with LAME?

As k.eight.a says, Listening Tests may be helpful to you.

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #7 –
Yes, we here don't assume, we listen.
stimulating the audio nerve directly

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #8 –
Quote from: soukusen on
Would an 96Kbps AAC file sound similar to a 128Kbps LAME MP3 file?

At the last 128k test, AAC (Nero) and MP3 (LAME) came out tied, so no. Above 128k both are pretty much transparent for everything except specific 'problem samples'. I would assume that at 96k AAC performs better than 96k MP3, but I do not have any tests at hand.

AAC is heavily based on MP3 -  the format contains most of the MP3 'tricks' plus a few new ones mainly to address MP3's shortcomings (especially, that it's not very good at <96k bitrates). In theory, AAC should not be worse than MP3, but whether it is in practice depends on how well the psymodel in the encoder is tuned. As LAME has a far longer development history than Nero/Apple/CT's AAC encoders the result is not surprising.

128 kbps Nero AAC, itunes AAC, Wma 10 pro, Mp3 lame 3.98

Reply #9 –
Quote from: eofor on
Quote from: soukusen on

Would an 96Kbps AAC file sound similar to a 128Kbps LAME MP3 file?

At the last 128k test, AAC (Nero) and MP3 (LAME) came out tied, so no. Above 128k both are pretty much transparent for everything except specific 'problem samples'. I would assume that at 96k AAC performs better than 96k MP3, but I do not have any tests at hand.

AAC is heavily based on MP3 -  the format contains most of the MP3 'tricks' plus a few new ones mainly to address MP3's shortcomings (especially, that it's not very good at <96k bitrates). In theory, AAC should not be worse than MP3, but whether it is in practice depends on how well the psymodel in the encoder is tuned. As LAME has a far longer development history than Nero/Apple/CT's AAC encoders the result is not surprising.

There are two personal tests http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=54967

Here Nero and Itunes AAC 96 outperform or at least on par with MP3 128