nero digital acc lc vs mp3

[sarmin]

what is best. i have a dvd that can handle both. the dvd can only handle acc lc. i want to know what is best in terms of speed,quality and compression.
need to know cause i'm going to burn my music in one of theese formats.

[celtic_druid]

Above 128k it really doesn't matter. If both are VBR, then most people can't tell the difference if you use a recent lame version for the mp3.

In terms of speed, there are fast mp3 encoders, like Real's helix encoder (formally Xing), lame 4.0alpha, etc. You generally gain speed at the expense of quality though.

Don't really get what you mean by quality and compression. Both mp3 and lc aac can achieve transparency, so neither really has a quality advantage. Quality at a given bitrate is a different matter, although as I said above 128k there really isn't much of a difference. That really leaves lc aac wiht the window of 64>128k.

As for speed. I would suspect that lame with -V # --vbr-new would beat Nero, but you would have to try it to know for sure. Also Nero isn't the only aac encoder out there.

[whitejremiah]

i dunno..........i can still hear differances in the audio at 128k....at least in my car but yea, unless your using a REALLY high end audio setup (for instance, my car audio system is all infinity speakers and amps at the moment so that would probably qualify...) and if your playing it at rather high volumes, you probably wont notice a significant differance either way...i cant say that i've used nero's audio conversion, cuz quite frankly everything else that they try and shove into that burning program is just kinda sub par....except the actual cd and dvd burning...that part is okay, i personally though, have no real use for aac because i dont have any hardware that supports it (other than the pc, of course) but i'd have to take a guess to say that at LEAST half the other aac solutions are probably far better than what nero has to offer, just going by their past history of subpar things they try and shove into a burning program *(end of rant)*

[celtic_druid]

128k VBR encoded with a recent version of lame or 128k CBR encoded with whatever? There is a big difference.

Actually Nero's aac encoder is quite decent since they basically head hunted people to write it and they are very skilled. That is the way Ahead does things. They got DVDShrink to do their DVD transcoder, the daemon-tools devs to do their virtual drive, Ateme to do their video codecs, etc. I wouldn't actually encode with Nero, but there are plenty of commandline, etc. interfaces that you can use. This is where the Nero let down comes in since they force you to use their interface to use what are actually decent encoders. Like making you use Recode for mp4 encoding.