I've decided to try out MPC after reading all the heaps of praise. I've been a big MP3 fan because of its ubiquity and ease and the fact that I rarely hear differences between a well-coded MP3 and the original WAV under ABX. However, its status as a poor archival format bugs me.
I have been using LAME 3.90.2 MMX "--alt-preset standard/extreme" and found the results to be excellent in almost all situations. It creates an occasional artifact in some music, but I don't know if I should tolerate it or not (compared to other lossy formats).
I've downloaded the 0.90s MPC encoder and the 0.98z2 decoder. I've been encoding with "mppenc --xtreme" using MPC Batch Encoder and listening to the resulting MPC files with a WinAMP plug-in that came with the decoder zip. Is that all there is to it?
I've tried to read about replaygain, but I'm confused. I ran "replaygain --auto *.mpc", but it gives me a "Can't decode [inputfile]" error. I never normalized my MP3 files so I don't know if I want to mess around with replaygain. I don't care much about comparative volume: if the album was recorded "loud", I want the resulting MPC file to be "loud"...and vice versa.
MPC sounds promising. I encoded all of Live's "Distance to Here" album and the MPC (xtreme) files require 78.7MB whereas the MP3 (standard) files require 89.7MB. Less space for supposed better quality? MP3 must have major problems in its design.
Would it be a good idea to embark on a major archival project with 0.90s or is it prudent to wait for some future release?