what MP3 codecs does Nero use?
- Thread starter Soccerman
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I have heard it before but I found this:
Nero Media Player Preview which mentions it.
Nero Media Player's success in my opinion depends on it's ripping and copying features. Ahead has an excellent writing engine in the new Nero Burning ROM 5, but how will the Nero MP compete with rippers like Easy CDDA, EAC or Audiograbber? Nero MP will feature FhG MP3 encoding (limited?) already seen in the Nero Burning ROM. However, more and more people are realizing the excellent encoding quality of LAME which also is 2x faster than the FhG codec, and using it as their primary encoder. Nero MP will also have though competition from MusicMatch and other newbie targeted audio all-in-one tools.
LAME is looking good though.
Nero Media Player Preview which mentions it.
Nero Media Player's success in my opinion depends on it's ripping and copying features. Ahead has an excellent writing engine in the new Nero Burning ROM 5, but how will the Nero MP compete with rippers like Easy CDDA, EAC or Audiograbber? Nero MP will feature FhG MP3 encoding (limited?) already seen in the Nero Burning ROM. However, more and more people are realizing the excellent encoding quality of LAME which also is 2x faster than the FhG codec, and using it as their primary encoder. Nero MP will also have though competition from MusicMatch and other newbie targeted audio all-in-one tools.
LAME is looking good though.
I don't get you people, everyone's "yaw, LAME blows FhG away, ya!" All the reviews I've read show FhG much better at lower bitrates, and LAME starting to get into the action @ 235Kbit/sec. That plus at higher frequencies, LAME is pretty bad, bowing out long before FhG.
OK, Next I hear "LAME is 2X faster..blah...blah" whopdee! A frikkin celeron 464 can encode 5 minute songs in under 30 seconds @ 192Kbit/sec with FhG. I hate to think how fast a 1GHz T-Bird is.
OK, Next I hear "LAME is 2X faster..blah...blah" whopdee! A frikkin celeron 464 can encode 5 minute songs in under 30 seconds @ 192Kbit/sec with FhG. I hate to think how fast a 1GHz T-Bird is.
<< All the reviews I've read show FhG much better at lower bitrates, and LAME starting to get into the action @ 235Kbit/sec. That plus at higher frequencies, LAME is pretty bad, bowing out long before FhG. >>
Wow. I would be very interested in reading these. Can you post a link?
I have read the opposite. Here is the link:
linkified
Here is part of what it says:
"FhG is great and at bitrates 192 and up not too much different, but overall Lame gets great results at much lower average bitrates."
I think the mp3 format is fascinating.
My audio club, Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society, even participated in some blind testing of codecs for Sound and Vision, September 1999.
From what I can gather about the different codecs:
All are pretty good.
All have some songs they encode poorly.
LAME is the best overall.
My audio club, Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society, even participated in some blind testing of codecs for Sound and Vision, September 1999.
From what I can gather about the different codecs:
All are pretty good.
All have some songs they encode poorly.
LAME is the best overall.
LAME is the best overall right now.
-it's faster (it's actually optimized, FHG isn't AFAIK)
-the newer versions are of much higher quality then the ones in the reviews (we're up to 3.87, the last review I read was like .6 or maybe .5
-it's FREE!
the website is http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/
-it's faster (it's actually optimized, FHG isn't AFAIK)
-the newer versions are of much higher quality then the ones in the reviews (we're up to 3.87, the last review I read was like .6 or maybe .5
-it's FREE!
the website is http://users.belgacom.net/gc247244/
Actually, LAME's website is http://www.sulaco.org/mp3/. They don't release executables because Fraunhofer would litigate them to death if they did. But you can get Windows executables from this page.
MP3 Encoder Comparison : For your reading enjoyment. Honestly, I trust the Ars guys quite a bit, so I'm not quite sure what to think.
Found tutorials to RazorLAME & EAC here (Belgium).
Did my own tests once, a while back, w/ several encoders & bitrates, on a good system .. to make long story short, it's was not easy (for me) to differentiate between MP3s in a blind test.
I use/like Audioactive Pro) cuz it lets u batch encode overnight on high-quality setting - wake up w/ hard drive full of brand spanking new MP3s (ripped w/ EAC).
Did my own tests once, a while back, w/ several encoders & bitrates, on a good system .. to make long story short, it's was not easy (for me) to differentiate between MP3s in a blind test.
I use/like Audioactive Pro) cuz it lets u batch encode overnight on high-quality setting - wake up w/ hard drive full of brand spanking new MP3s (ripped w/ EAC).
RadBoy: How long does it take you to rip and encode a CD?? On my dual Win2K system, I rip CD's @ 10x, so about 30 seconds a song, bout 10-13Min to rip a CD, then on average about 30 seconds to encode each song @ highest level VBR.. So about 20-30 min later I have a CD ripped and encoded...
the best way? well a straight conversion without going through wave files would be the best. a music editing program might be able to do that (cooledit, soundforge etc).
other then that, you'd have to convert to Wave, then re-encode to MP3. the problem with this, is that first of all, if it's not a quality decoder your wave file won't be the exact same as your Mp3 (probably very close though). THEN you have to RECOMPRESS it to MP3, giving you the likelyhood of having even MORE problems to occur (even it it's at the same bitrate).
going straight mp3-mp3 might be better, in that the program (should) just go over the existing MP3 file, and edit it for 128 bitrate or lower.
other then that, you'd have to convert to Wave, then re-encode to MP3. the problem with this, is that first of all, if it's not a quality decoder your wave file won't be the exact same as your Mp3 (probably very close though). THEN you have to RECOMPRESS it to MP3, giving you the likelyhood of having even MORE problems to occur (even it it's at the same bitrate).
going straight mp3-mp3 might be better, in that the program (should) just go over the existing MP3 file, and edit it for 128 bitrate or lower.
Never sat down & done a CD like that. Usually rip (only) songs I like - to .wav ala EAC.
Have Plex UW - ripping demon. Use high-security setting in EAC, does twice, takes twice as long. EAC usually rips at ~14, but drive is rated 24. When I used AudioCatalyst, I'd tweak it back to 18, to be safe. Never find myself waiting for rips. Cranks.
Encoding is another story. Batch encode overnight - Audioactive Pro has 'speed' + 'quality' setting. More interested in *quality*, slower/longer. Del's source .wav after encoding. Encode everything to 256 (plenty space).
Had one (fairly new) CD that was erroring during copy. EAC found *one* spot & labled as 'questionable' (2 mins 24 secs to 2 mins 25 secs on 2nd track). It says, 'go back & look at that point on ripped file, & see if u can hear (any) artifacts.' I thot that was very cool. So, yes, if I have bad CD, EAC looks long & hard at it (which is what I want).
Have Plex UW - ripping demon. Use high-security setting in EAC, does twice, takes twice as long. EAC usually rips at ~14, but drive is rated 24. When I used AudioCatalyst, I'd tweak it back to 18, to be safe. Never find myself waiting for rips. Cranks.
Encoding is another story. Batch encode overnight - Audioactive Pro has 'speed' + 'quality' setting. More interested in *quality*, slower/longer. Del's source .wav after encoding. Encode everything to 256 (plenty space).
Had one (fairly new) CD that was erroring during copy. EAC found *one* spot & labled as 'questionable' (2 mins 24 secs to 2 mins 25 secs on 2nd track). It says, 'go back & look at that point on ripped file, & see if u can hear (any) artifacts.' I thot that was very cool. So, yes, if I have bad CD, EAC looks long & hard at it (which is what I want).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
AnandTech is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter