I just d/l and tried these versions shown below:

encoder: 1.15f
decoder: 1.93j
Case's Winamp 2.xx plugin.. .96Beta

I've been using --insane c/l for months now, however now the Winamp plugin is showing "Profile: Unstable/Experimental". I searched for this here but didn't get any hits back. Anyone? Thanks.

For some reason Case's Winamp plugin will display "PROFILE: Unstable/Experimental" when an alpha encoder was used.

Not only Case's winamp plug-in : Encspot can't identify the profile name. The « Unstable/Experimental » tag is certainly created by mppenc.exe

This is completely expected behavior when you use an alpha mppenc.

Yes, all alpha versions do this, to remind everyone that they are for testing purposes, not for everyday encoding. You won't see alpha versions in the recommended settings list.

Damnit. I've been getting my files from Klemm's site but I got these from Case's site and it didn't state 1.15f is Alpha. I just went to Frank's site and yeah, he lists it as Alpha. Can't take it!! Thanks guys.

I believe that any version that ends in a letter is an Alpha release (X.XXA), If it has two decimal positions (X.XX) it-s a beta, if it has only one one decimal position is an stable (X.X)..

When talking about Klemm encoders (alphas and betas):

Even versions (1.12, 1.14) are stable (beta).
Uneven ones (1.13, 1.15) are alpha.

letters (1.13a, 1.13g, ...) are just meant to distinguish the different alpha versions.

One question: Will future versions of the winamp plugin or other mpc related software show these files with their correct profile or will files ecoded with 1.15 always stay "experimental"? I have encoded and spread (among friends) some albums and now I see this ugly detail. Do I have to encode them again using 1.14 if I want to get rid of it?

If you care about what's displayed there, quality being on par with / better than 1.14 (no one has proved this statement wrong so far), then you might as well do so.

But, will future versions of winamp plugin/etc. display these files as normal or will they always stay "expermental"?

I'm 98% sure that since you encoded the song with an alpha MPC encoder (i.e. the version number ended with an odd number) the file itself is "Unstable/Experimental". Therefore a new plugin will still report it as such.

This was done to encourage people to use the alphas only for testing and not archiving. Unfortunately most people here agree that 1.15r is the best mpcenc version yet. Unfortunately a stable build hasn't been made since so you have to choose between the best (1.15r) and have the Unstable/Experimental tag or a very slightly inferior encoding (with 1.14) but with a proper, stable build and thus a correct tag.

But 1.14 is a *beta* release as well I guess. Isn't 1.10 still the stable one?

Sure, 1.1 is the stable one. But Frank Klemm rarely messes something up in a beta version, and this particular version has been tested and tested and tested and tested and...

....tested

Mine has rarely missed a beat encoding most of my CDs, so I recommend using 1.14 of MusePack Encoder. I made this my standard encoder from now on until I have a CD that I can actually hear an artifact that is bothersome (with MusePack this is really rare), I ain't in the game to have perfect audio reproduction but to have 99% accurate representation, with MusePack I think it has achieved that. Just sit back and enjoy not getting out of your bed/chair to change CDs

Cheers
AgentMil

Recommend to fill up "Comment" field in the tag with something like:
"Dear friend! Don't ...ck your brain with this "Unstable/Ex", just listen the song and enjoy with quality!"
And below something like: "It's cos I use mpcenc 1.15r (alpha, but best) with --quality X preset, that mean --xxxxxxxx preset".
The first can be omitted

I will do that
Anyways, this behaviour of the encoder is very uncool. I will go back to 1.14 and I will also recommend everyone to use 1.14 instead of 1.15 because of the profile string.

<sarcasm>
yes we must warn the world of dangerous strings. It is such a valid reason not to use something that's potentially better
<sarcasm>

add --comment "MPPEnc v1.15r 'quality: x.xx'"

Everything that is potentially better is potentially worse. B) Anyways, whether to use 1.14 or 1.15 should not make a big difference when encoding in braindead, does it? And yes, I am quite a perfectionist so this experimental stamp makes me feel uncomfortable.

Apart from that, does anyone know when 1.15 will become beta? I there any kind of roadmap for the development of the encoder? I remember having read a thread where Frank Klemm said something about some changes that were done to 1.15 before 1.15r which was because of some test samples that sounded really bad on standard or maybe even extreme profile. I believe he told that these changes have to be tested thoroughly.

if you are using braindead, I can't imagine that you'd notice any difference whatsoever between 1.14 and 1.15x, except for higher bitrate. Use 1.14 if the profile string is scary.

Well, from the way Frank names his versions, we will surely know development on 1.15 has finished when 1.16 comes out.