List of recommended MPC settings Options

[CiTay]

The link to the Winamp plugin is dead.

Hm, it works here.

[Case]

The link to the Winamp plugin is dead.

Hm, it works here.

It works because Peter fixed it

[user]

Addded:



How to
Reencode MPC to MP3, keeping tags ?

Use foobar 2000, the CLI encoder:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/html/foobar.html

[Jan S.]

Addded:



How to
Reencode MPC to MP3, keeping tags ?

Use foobar 2000, the CLI encoder:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/html/foobar.html

There is now a special musepack encoder with the special installer.
It might be easier to use.

[guruboolez]

user is talking about mpc -> mp3, fortunately not about mp3 -> mpc

EDIT : you can remove our two messages if you want

This post has been edited by guruboolez: Oct 5 2003, 15:50

[user]

I have found out, that foobar is straight forward for a lot audio thingies,
just great !

[guruboolez]

I have found out, that foobar is straight forward for a lot audio thingies,
just great !

Maybe could you add a section : direct capture (on-the-fly encoding) with mpc of line-in, mixer... in mpc with foobar2000 and foo-record component (options for capture beginning, and capture length). Very useful for radio capture for exemple (especially with the nice preset called --radio).

[Jan S.]

btw.: why are you not using the wiki?

[Hassan]

at http://www.musepack.net you can also download a nice MPC Frontend

[user]

Today's frontend for mpc, musepack:

EAC or Foobar2000 ,
depends, what you wanna do...

[Soren]

Is 1.14 still the recommanded encoder or it' snow 1.15 ?

Soren

[CiTay]

Is 1.14 still the recommanded encoder or it' snow 1.15 ?

Soren

Still 1.14, but you can use 1.15r if you know what you're doing. It can sometimes have a minor quality advantage, but it also has a disadvantage (i.e. "unstable/experimental" tag and alpha version marking). Therefore it won't be officially recommended.

[mono13]

which parameter is the best balance point of size and quality??

q6 --xlevel??or q7 ? or any other??

[nyarlathotep]

As it was written in the very first post of this thread:

Note that --quality 5 --xlevel is transparent for most test samples.
Higher settings can provide a quality headroom, however, you should start off with 5.

[user]

mono13 Posted on Dec 17 2003, 03:25 PM
which parameter is the best balance point of size and quality??

q6 --xlevel??or q7 ? or any other??


* setting goes the direction to quality, no compromise regarding size.
This would be:

--quality 7 at least, up to lossless,
as at quality 7 the few artefacts of mpc (start to) vanish at this q-level, or don't sound annoying anymore.

I would use --quality 7 to 8 --ms 15 --xlevel , due to listening via Logic 7 (DPl2), or transcoding to 320 kbit/s mp3.

MOD:* no links or names of sharing group guides please.

This post has been edited by Jan S.: Apr 18 2004, 13:59

[mono13]

--ms 15

what does it mean??

[user]

about ms15 :
please read in these 2 mpc forums, maybe use the search button of the forum.
(it is the most advanced joint stereo/stereo mode of mpc)

This post has been edited by user: Dec 17 2003, 15:46

[mono13]

i got it~~ thanx



but i still want to know the best choise,best size/quality point

u can division q7 and q8 's mpc sounds different?

[user]

start ABXing yourself.

[ancl]

The best size/quality point is q5.

Above that it is in most cases, for most people, not possible to hear any difference.
Before using anything higher, please make sure that you can hear a difference (with an ABX test).

[sld]

Well, anyone is always able to use settings above q5 for that warm, fuzzy feeling, but unless he/she is sure that he/she can hear a difference, he/she is going to be wasting HD space.

In short, if in doubt, use --quality 5 --xlevel.
To clear your doubts, do ABX testing.

[SacRat]

I was never able to ABX Q5, but I'm using Q6 (Xtreme) to be safe: I know, that I'll have to transcode these tunes sooner or later.
btw, have you tried MPC at its lowest setings? It sounds better, then you think, btw I was really surprised.

[benool]

btw, have you tried MPC at its lowest setings? It sounds better, then you think, btw I was really surprised.

yeah I tried once and was also very impressed!

[dreamliner77]

Well, i've finally made the jump and have decided to check out mpc. Got it working using the batch encoder and all. The one question I have is this: I know replaygain info is only used in the tag, but if I decode to wave using the batch encoder, does it use the replay gain tag or does it just decode the normal file.

My purpose is because I often burn alot my stuff back to cd's for the car. I like to be as close as possible to the original cd volume.

[user]

hm, in all MPC decoders you can (should be able to) select the replaygain (rg) mode you want for decoding to wave / playing the music.

This includes complete disabling of rg, or simply activating noclip mode, or the replaygain modes album/track-gain.

I use meanwhile only foobar2000, it is a great program, which has an ABX feature, transcoding features with keeping/converting tags automatically to the best native tag formats etc.

So, if I want to decode mpc to wave eg., I would use foobar2000, where you could specify, too, which rg mode is used or not.

Or lossless format to mpc, all by foobar2000.
Or lossless or mpc to mp3.

This post has been edited by user: Dec 20 2003, 10:55