QUOTE(torok @ Sep 8 2003, 07:20 AM)
The link to the Winamp plugin is dead.
Hm, it works here.
QUOTE(CiTay @ Sep 8 2003, 11:09 PM)
QUOTE(torok @ Sep 8 2003, 07:20 AM)
The link to the Winamp plugin is dead.
Hm, it works here.
It works because Peter fixed it
Addded:
How to
Reencode MPC to MP3, keeping tags ?
Use foobar 2000, the CLI encoder:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/cse/html/foobar.html
QUOTE(user @ Oct 5 2003, 04:34 PM)
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
Oct 5 2003, 08:49
user is talking about mpc -> mp3, fortunately not about mp3 -> mpc

EDIT : you can remove our two messages if you want
I have found out, that foobar is straight forward for a lot audio thingies,
just great !
guruboolez
Oct 5 2003, 09:00
QUOTE(user @ Oct 5 2003, 03:55 PM)
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).
btw.: why are you not using the wiki?
Hassan
Oct 29 2003, 16:19
at
http://www.musepack.net you can also download a nice MPC Frontend
Today's frontend for mpc, musepack:
EAC or Foobar2000 ,
depends, what you wanna do...
Is 1.14 still the recommanded encoder or it' snow 1.15 ?
Soren
QUOTE(Soren @ Dec 12 2003, 02:46 PM)
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
Dec 17 2003, 08:25
which parameter is the best balance point of size and quality??
q6 --xlevel??or q7 ? or any other??
nyarlathotep
Dec 17 2003, 08:31
As it was written in the very first post of this thread:
QUOTE
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.
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.
mono13
Dec 17 2003, 08:39
--ms 15
what does it mean??
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)
mono13
Dec 17 2003, 09:06
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?
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).
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
Dec 17 2003, 11:39
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
Dec 17 2003, 11:49
QUOTE(SacRat @ Dec 17 2003, 05:39 PM)
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
Dec 19 2003, 20:16
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.
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.
QUOTE(dreamliner77 @ Dec 20 2003, 03:16 AM)
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.
You can define that with the decoding switches, as stated in the first post under "Decoding switches / MPC to WAV". If you use no decoding switches, it doesn't use ReplayGain. However, even for albums that you listen to in your car, i would use clipping prevention (album-based for an album, title-based for a mix CD), as clipping is never beneficial to the sound. For that, enter the following into the switches box of Batch Encoder's decoding options: "--gain 1 --prev" (album) or "--gain 0 --prev" (title), both without the "".
dreamliner77
Dec 20 2003, 09:28
Okay, thanks. I was just a little confuse over how things were explained in the beginning of the thread. Will report back when I have some time to "experiment"
thanks
Under the "How to replaygain" section of this list shouldn't we add Foobar2000's replaygain scan? I think it's the easiest way to apply replaygain.
yes, for a single album, foobar2k is the best solution,
as foobar is as player the best and offers the necessary thingies, an audiophile likes so much....
I recall, that foobar was added to the list ?
The ways more exactly described in the list, deal with mass-replaygaining, a lot subfolders, treat each folder as 1 album, which cannot be performed by foobar afaik.
zegilles
Dec 25 2003, 05:49
QUOTE(user @ Dec 25 2003, 11:18 AM)
The ways more exactly described in the list, deal with mass-replaygaining, a lot subfolders, treat each folder as 1 album, which cannot be performed by foobar afaik.
foobar2000 can do it!
just change the album grouping pattern to %_path% or %_directoryname% in the RG scanner preferences, and then perform a multiple albums scan.
Yeah, all you have to do is add all the files to foobars playlist, select them all,
right click > replaygain > scan selection as multiple albums. I don't think you have to change any grouping patterns...I never do. My grouping pattern is set to the default %album%.
dreamliner77
Feb 12 2004, 11:15
Regarding replaygaining, i was wondering if anyone had any interest at all in making a gui for sweep and replaygain to batch process files? I know I have problems running it from cmd line. (for some reason I can only navigate my c Drive.
The Link
Feb 12 2004, 11:35
Why not downloading foobar with rgscanner. When deleting all unneeded components it won't be much bigger than a gui just for sweep. (of course that's only my opinion and perhaps there's something what foobar lacks but sweep can which I'm not aware of)
Regards,
The Link
added explanation about mppdec versions:
MPC -> MP3 by MPCxchange (be careful, use mppdec 1.93j instead of 1.95, or mppdec 1.95e with Lame3.95.1 (latest rarewares compile))
The links to mppenc and mppdec are both broken for me.
rjamorim
Mar 28 2004, 22:08
QUOTE(anand @ Mar 29 2004, 12:34 AM)
The links to mppenc and mppdec are both broken for me.
Both binaries can be downloaded here:
http://www.rarewares.org/mpc.html
Thanks rjamorim !
oh, the first page of this list needs a lot link fixes, all case's page/file links need updates, to the correspondent Rarewares files & pages ?
http://www.rarewares.orgwill do it, if time.
And satcp's eac guide with his older drive offset db:
http://users.pandora.be/satcp/other pages with drive offsets:
http://www.offsetbase.eac-audio.de/http://www.accuraterip.com/driveoffsets.htm
Okay, i fixed the links. If anyone finds a broken link or has a new link suggestion, just reply here.
edit: Attached sweep.exe, useful for recursive Replaygain etc.
dreamliner77
May 7 2004, 21:07
Is there a switch you can use when using the batch encoder to delete the .wav file after it is encoded?
Mr_Rabid_Teddybear
May 7 2004, 21:24
Still don't think the pipe problem is solved. Mmmmhuhh with Case's site up again, 1.93j should be downloadable
here and
here.
dreamliner77
May 7 2004, 21:33
If that was directed at me, I still don't know what switch(es) to use.
Mr_Rabid_Teddybear
May 7 2004, 21:40
QUOTE(dreamliner77 @ May 7 2004, 07:33 PM)
If that was directed at me, I still don't know what switch(es) to use.
oH, sorry...
no - I'm just fustraded of no fix of broken decoder pipe........
New version of
MPC Batch Encoder is available.
New things:
* More flexible tagging.
* Option to preserve the directory structure.
* A different tab control (tabctl32.ocx is not needed anymore).
* Option to run the encoder or decoder in idle priority class.
Fixed a bug that made the 'Output directory' frame of the decoder visible directly after starting the frontend (while the encoder 'Output directory' frame should be visible). Please
update to version 2.3.1 if you have downloaded 2.3.
GeSomeone
May 17 2004, 05:57
QUOTE(Speek @ May 15 2004, 07:01 PM)
New version of MPC Batch Encoder is available.
Thanks, I see the new Idle button has replaced the Pause button, but that's fine with me.
BTW I'm a fan of your frontend batchgenerators
alfa156
Jun 19 2004, 13:37
when are we going to see a new release from Klemm? Its been really a long time....
QUOTE(alfa156 @ Jun 19 2004, 08:37 PM)
when are we going to see a new release from Klemm? Its been really a long time....
Actually it's in the making. First he had problems with Linux bugs, then there was something related to his job, but there's light at the end of the tunnel...
So we have good news Citay!!
Digisurfer
Oct 13 2004, 22:12
QUOTE(CiTay @ Jun 19 2004, 02:15 PM)
QUOTE(alfa156 @ Jun 19 2004, 08:37 PM)
when are we going to see a new release from Klemm? Its been really a long time....
Actually it's in the making. First he had problems with Linux bugs, then there was something related to his job, but there's light at the end of the tunnel...
Has the light at the end of the tunnel grown any? 1.15r seems to be practically the recommended version, even though technically it's not. Would be nice to see something final soon that didn't have the experimental tag. Don't want to use 1.14 either for obvious reasons.
I'll post what Frank told me three days ago, but it's not good news (at least for MPC). He says, he has no time for programming at the moment, because there's training for sales and distribution of a new Advanced Imaging Microscopy device at his
workplace and he gets home late at night each day. I'll ask him for news every now and then and will report back when there's any about MPC.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.