I am just getting started with ripping, etc and have a few questions that I hope someone can help me with. 1. Encoding mp3 using Nero 5.5.10 uses which codec ? 2. Nero offers an mp3 plugin, which they say uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can already create mp3 files. I may have gotten this ability when I purchased their mp3pro plugin (mistake). Any ideas?
nero gives you 30 days free to use the mp3 plugin. Now i don't know about mp3pro and whether that gives you the ability to basic mp3 encoding, but i would look at the free stuff that does even a better job. That would be the lame encoder and use the frontend razor lame.
Thanks. Does LAME do better at a fixed 320kbps rate? I have tried using EAC and LAME and it takes substantially longer to get through a CD.
Just act according to this http://cd-rw.org/articles/archive/mydeneaclame.cfm and you'll get magnificient results.
EAC (Exact Audio Copy) is considered to be 1 of the best programs for music. If you own a Plextor, then definatly use Plex Tools,lol Look at this tutorial for EAC for more help. http://www.ping.be/satcp/tutorials.htm Another great tool for music that was just released not along ago called AccurateRip= freeware. AccurateRip: http://www.accuraterip.com/ Shoey
Thanks. I have been using EAC/LAME and Nero to create some mp3 in 320 constant bit rate. The wav files created by EAC and Nero appear to be the same, at least in terms of size. The resulting MP3 from EAC/LAME is a little larger. EAC/Lame seems to sound a little better. Is the situation where lame is substantially better seen when encoding at <320kbps ?
To the best of my knowledge, nero CAN'T correct c2 errors during the cd extraction process nor correct upc/isrc in the write process. Remember that your drive(s) must be "capable" to correct c2 errors and correct upc/isrc. If you have the ability to record digital, then do so at 320 kbps (mp3). In most cases, a 320 kbps mp3 file should sound MUCH better than a 160 kbps mp3 file (if done properly). Shoey
kees: > Nero offers an mp3 plugin, which they say uses the Fraunhofer codec, but I can already create mp3 files. My Nero has mp3pro encoder (test version) and the only mp3 files I'm able to create are mp3pro (the name is still *.mp3). To find out if it is like this for you one possibility is to install mp3pro decoder plugin for winamp (http://www.winamp.com -> plugins). Winamp will show if a file is mp3pro or not. Players that don't support mp3pro will just play it as ordinary mp3 without noticing. Even Encspot thinks it is fastenc. > The wav files created by EAC and Nero appear to be the same, at least in terms of size. As wav file (same sampling rate/bit depth) 10 seconds of noise have the same size as 10 seconds of beautiful music or silence. The advantages of lame are error detection (in secure mode all errors are reported as suspicious positions) and error correction (if an error occurs lame reads the same position over and over again with reduced speed until it gets the same result several times (or it gives up = suspicious position). > The resulting MP3 from EAC/LAME is a little larger. Maybe because of tagging. > EAC/Lame seems to sound a little better. I doubt that there's an audible difference between lame and fraunhofer at 320kbps in general. There might be some problem samples where trained ears can spot a difference. > Is the situation where lame is substantially better seen when encoding at <320kbps ? Yes. --alt-preset standard (VBR@190-200kbps) is very high quality and best quality to size ratio mp3 has to offer. All higher bitrate settings won't increase quality much because of limitations of mp3 format. If you want even higher quality (and don't care about portable use) use MPC (Musepack) or lossless (Flac, Monkeys Audio).
The new Nero MPEG4 AAC audio plug-in is really nice but only Nero "compliant". What I mean simply is that you have to use Nerp products to convert, lol. I tested not long ago and the audio sounds realy nice, but you can only hear the high end "sound" from a high tech stereo. For now, stick with EAC& Lame Shoey
Shoey, Any MP4 AAC decoder should be able to handle Nero made AACs. At audiocoding.com you can find free decoders, like a WinAmp plugin.
Have to tried Nero's MPEG4 AAC audio plug-in and convert an mp3 file then try to play that file with another media player? Shoey
I'm sorry: mp3? mp4? what? If you are talking about AAC MP4s, there aren't many players for it yet. But a WinAmp plugin is.
I'm using Nero's MPEG4 AAC encoder to encode mp3 to mp4 but I can only playback the encoded files with NeroMIX. Can you encode mp3 to mp4 with WinAMP mpeg4 plugin, playback with WinAMP and actually burn the encoded files? If so, please provide a link to download the plug-in. Shoey
Shoey@2 Mar 2003 6:10 AM: > I'm using Nero's MPEG4 AAC encoder to encode mp3 to mp4 ... FYI: This is called transcoding and degrades quality. Why do you want to do this? > Can you encode mp3 to mp4 with WinAMP mpeg4 plugin, playback with WinAMP and actually burn the encoded files? For encoding AAC you can get free Psytel AAC encoder (made by the same guys who coded Nero AAC encoder) at RareWares: http://www.inf.ufpr.br/~rja00/aac.html There's everything you need for playback (plugins) and decoding. But again: If you want to use (or try) AAC encode from wav files directly extracted from CD. If you want to burn (audio) CDs better use uncompressed (or at least not transcoded) source, if you want to burn AAC files to a data CD for AAC capable hardware players: Every data CD burning software can do this.
tigre, These mp3 files I'm converting to mp4 are downloads from Napster (2 years ago) and the majority of them are at 128 kbps/not digital. I guess the proper method here would be to use EAC and decompress to wave, then convert to mp4? I'm trying to get better audio quality from these downloads>is this possible and how? Shoey
@Shoey: Re-compressing these mp3s with any lossy codec will be *BAD* for quality. To keep quality as it is just keep your 128kbps mp3 files. Again: Why do you want to transcode them to AAC/mp4? > I'm trying to get better audio quality from these downloads>is this possible and how? What's bad (or improvable) about their audio quality?
I understand your point concerning transcoding, but I'll play "Devil's advocate for a moment and ask a quetion(s). Say you wanna rip VanHalens greatest hits to mp3 (digital)at 320 kbps and your buddy does the same ripping mp4(digital) at 320 kbps. Of the 2 rips then burned to a cd-r, which one has better audio quality? Shoey
Shoey, AAC has the potential to ourperform MP4 and it pretty much does so too. AAC is not typically used as '320kbps' or any other fixed bitrate, since it is truely VBR. I would personally stick to our LAME & EAC guide and wait until some audio format has serious commercial support. If you seek maximum fidelity to your sound, then you should go for Musepack.
@Shoey: 1. Please excuse me if this appears rude or harsh to you - I don't want to be, and English is not my mother tongue. If I ask you questions in a reply I don't do this to show you that you're wrong or something like this but because I want to help you, either to get what you want or to understand why it's not possible. If I need more information than you provide in your question to give a valuable reply than I ask for it and I would appreciate if you give an answer. 2. As cd-rw.org said: "AAC has the potential to ourperform" mp3. It does for sure at bitrates around 128kbps and below right now (talking about best available AAC encoders), this has been proven in tests. For higer bitrates, especially 320kbps it has the potential for sure, but I can't tell if nero/psytel encoders are well tuned/tested for this. Lame has been tested a lot for these high bitrates, we probably know >90% of its problems/weaknesses, while this is not the case for current AAC encoders AFAIK.
Have you people read this - the author of Nero MP4 AAC plug interviewed: http://cd-rw.org/articles/archive/neroaac.cfm
