Which mp3 decoder (not encoder!) does Nero 5.5 use? LAME?..

Hi,

Does anybody know which "mp3 to audio cd format" decoder Nero 5.5 uses (so I am not speaking about mp3 encoding)? Is it's mp3 decoder the best quality you can have? Does it use LAME as decoder? Is LAME decoder the best one by the way?!

Thanks!

It doesn't use LAME, which is not a problem.
It uses something programmed by Ahead based on Fraunhoffer decoder.

Nero 5.0 had a poor version:
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/decoders_nero.html
But 5.5 should be OK.

Hi,

Where did you find the info that 5.5 has a better mp3 decoder then 5.0?! The above link only mentions v5.0.1.3.

Also, I have a Plextor drive that came with 5.5.3.5. Plextor. How can I find out exactly which mp3 decoder it uses?! Is this info in the program somewhere?

Thanks!

---

Last edited by Dance123; 04-01-2005 at 13:19.

I did my own tests.
As you know, the output of different MP3 decoders should be the same:
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/intro.html

I compared the WAVs produced by Fraunhofer, Feurio, Nero5.5 and Winamp2.666.
Feurio uses correct decoding routines according to the author of Feurio:
Message by Jens

Winamp lower than 2.666 used the old Nitrane decoder known to be quite poor, but 2.666 and higer are using a new decoder (Also Fraunhofer, I seem to remember).
Well, Feurio and Fraunhofer 1.9 (the codec installed by one of the Microsoft applications) outputs had exactly the same data. (Older Fraunhofer 1.2, the typical one cracked by Radium is not OK).

Nero5.5 was almost the same, except some samples that differed in the least significant bit. I don't think that makes a difference.
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/lsb.html
I think that Winamp2.666 was similar (some samples different but very few).

Anyway, I always recommend the Feurio decoder if your burning drive is supported.
Decoding to harddisk is twice faster than Nero. If there are errors/defective frames Feurio will warn you and tell you the positions of the errors. Nero won't show any warning and burning can fail or the tracks can be cut in that position.

Thanks for the info, but where did you find any info about Nero using a different/better mp3 decoder in v5.5 compared to v5?!

well, you can see that Nero5 is not OK in that page, or comparing the WAV output of Nero5 and Nero5.5.
I did it. Nero 5 output was really different from Fraunhofer/Feurio.
Nero 5.5 was really similar. I don't know about Nero6.

I haven't seen any test about Nero5.5 on the web.
There were complaints about MP3 sound quality of Nero5, I haven't seen them with Nero5.5.

Thanks for the info. Nobody who knows more about which mp3 decoder 5.5.3.5 Plextor (I got it with my Plextor drive) uses cause I can't find any info about it.

Regarding audio quality, would it be best to first use RazorLame to convert the mp3's to wav and then use Nero to write the audio cd, or will the quality not be better then when doing it all in Nero using the internal mp3 decoder of the Nero 5.5.3.5 Plextor software I have?!

There's no difference in audio quality.
If the decoder is the same, burning MP3 with Nero will have the same quality as decoding before.
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/faq.html#cd


The decoders are different in this case, but I think both are "correct".

Well, Razor LAME has an advantage: if the MP3 file is from a "gapless" CD and if the MP3 was encoded with LAME, then the gap between tracks will be smaller when decoding with LAME because the first null 1105 samples will be deleted.
http://mp3decoders.mp3-tech.org/decoders_lame.html


The decoder in Nero is implemented by Ahead, possibly based on Fraunhofer, like the encoder, but I don't know. The output in 5.5 is really similar to Fraunhofer/Feurio.
You can use a tool to compare WAVs like the one in EAC and make sure by yourself.