the link is dynamic so you have to go www.iriver.com >comunity >suggestion
There are several MPC voting topics. I advise you to vote for the OGG+MPC post. Let's kill that AAC till they begin eat our money
The good codec is open source codec

Let's not. We are not here to help kill any formats covered on this forum. On the contrary. Besides the industry support for AAC/AAC+ seems to be growing rapidly, so there's nothing that you could even do anyway.

Should I vote for SV7, 8 or maybe 9?

I'd rather have FLAC support and a DVD+/-R based player myself, for 15 true-CD-quality rips on one disc.

I agree with JohnV, and I'm tired of seeing this attitude. HA wasn't created so that people could come and bash other formats or act like zealots for <insert your favorite thing here>.

I think probably the worst sentiments of this type are coming from people that seem to have the mentality that everything has to be free and that anything that isn't is automatically evil, and that those who are involved in these things are automatically monopolistic and/or tyrannical. Please don't bother to continue to peddle such a closed minded and one-sided opinion here -- we've had enough of this crap with all the Ahead/Nero bashing that's been going on lately.

If you don't like AAC, don't use it. End of story. You have at least 3 other decent choices.

True Dibrom.

Things that are open source and free aren't necesseraly(sp?) better. M$/RealOne/(insert bad monopolies here) made bad names for themselves, but that doesn't mean everything closed source/pay to use is bad. MPC is more closed than you think actually, so technically by thinking that way MPC isn't good to you either. Is EAC not good because it isn't open source?

hmm...I may be misunderstanding but...

doesn't mpc require licensing fees for commercial use (like them supporting it in their player)? If so ogg would be a MORE LIKELY choice for them to choose. Being that I have a flash player with only 128mb of memory, I'd rather see ogg than mpc. Although for my own collection on my computer I'd rather use mpc. heh. I'm getting off topic I think.

Yes because having MPC on players that are not yours would inhibit your ability to put MP3s on your existing player.

Money especialy for me doesn't matter. I can buy it. Easily. I use couple of programs that aren't free. But when we speak about codec...
I don't trust owners of AAC. It's my own opinion. I am afraid of AAC. It grows realy fast, they put very much money in that codec. Such giants as Nokia (by the way all my family including me uses Nokia mobiles, so nothing against Nokia as brand) can and will eliminate OGG, MPC and others. OK. We will keep using them in our community. But will be there hardware support for our loved ones? And I think AAC will never be positioned as transparent codec. They make low bitrate product. They will stop it's development after it will become popular.
3 monthes ago I read an article (on some official site related mp3 players) about WMA. There were written WMA 64 is much better than MP3 FH 128. They will write such bullshit about AAC. I think we must help Ogg and MPC developers giving them our votes.
I have a question for you. Why did you participated in MP3 project (by the way I am very grateful to you and other developers for LAME)? To create free open source project or create encoder that will beat FH?
I think AAC will never use it's posibilities on 100% as it didn't FHG.
Yes, I am very emotional. And if you thing I am trolling, just erase my message.
And sorry for my bad English.

Not exactly sure what you are getting at.

MPC would be great, but ogg is probably a more realistic codec in terms of licensing fees (correct me if i'm wrong) and the fact that it will make more sense for the low end portables (such as my flash player), since it's good for low bitrates.

If they do the whole Ogg enchilada, wouldn't that include Speex? When your need is voice
(note taking or audiobook) that gives you pretty decent results at <10 kb/s so is pretty handy for a flash
unit.

This whole issue is clear like mud.

First, if this player plays MP2, they probably already payed the decoding licenses for the MP2 decoding routines, and MPC uses similar routines. So, theoretically, MPC licenses would already be covered.

BESIDES, noone knows if Philips is enforcing patents. And, if they aren't, they can start anytime.

BUT - if the company already payed for licenses - nothing guarantees that they cover MPC. Because they might have licensed it for ISO compliant streams. MPEG demands that patent holders license their algorithms on a "fair" basis for ISO compliant streams/codecs. Since MPC surely isn't ISO compliant (I.E: You can't decode it on a MP2 decoder), they can demand whatever they want for licensing. It's out of the MPEG licensing scope.

Last but not least, MPC uses PNS algorithms, that are licensed by another company (not Philips), and might require separate licensing agreements.

Regards;

Roberto.

Once again though, the PNS used in MPC may not be covered by patents. Frank has at least said on more than one occassion that it is not.

Also, according to Garf and Frank recently, it's not even clear if MPC is covered by any MP2 patents afterall. This original information came from Buschel, but apparently the offending algorithm could not be found in the code.

Bottom line is that the issue of patents in MPC is unclear at the moment. There could be potentials for licensing fees, but there might not be at all. Nobody knows for certain right now.

One thing is certain though, no company so far has even shown a remote interest in the possibility of patent infringement by MPC.

In an ideal world, the manufacturer could offer different "codec packs" that the user could flash into his player. The flashing software could let you tick which codecs you want included. A full-o-meter like in Nero would show the amount of space your desired combination would use (so you could add support for a codec you only use sporadically, if space permits it).

This idea isn't new but would stop the whining about "worthless" codecs taking up valuable rom space. If you think that's too difficult for your customers, just offer a simple standard package. Those people who choose uncommen codecs should be tech savvy enough to use the custom flash tool.

It seems like if someone wants MPC hardware support, they should do a little research and confirm that MPC has no patent issues. Once there's no confirmed patent issues, demand is high enough, and the programming is simple enough; we should start to see hardware support. Of course, I'm not sure who would have the incentive to do the legal/technical research to confirm 100% that there's no patent issues with MPC.

the ideal situation would be if they'd open up the source to their firmware. Then people could add whatever they want (if it's technically feasable).

there is high demand on their forum for open firmware, hopefully they will listen to their customers (as i'm one of them).

They? who are they, Iriver? If their lawyers decided they can't allow, for instance,
loading mp3s back to a PC, what are the chances of allowing customers to
change the firmware so you can?

Aside from that sort of issue, some players (don't know about iriver) use
DSP's which don't have cheap/free software development tools, so
firmware could only be developed by people who have access to those
tools at work or university.

That depends a lot.
For me, the good codec is the codec that works with a basic computer.
So here is my preference :
1) MP3 - Very Good, you can play it straight with WMP
2) OGG - Fine, you need a filter to play it with WMP
3) MPC - Bad, you can't play it at all with WMP

@Amour

So WMA is the best codec, isn't it?

It's a good one, playable by both WMP and Winamp, with good sound quality.
But it's less interesting than MP3 because you can't play it with an MP3 baladeur (MP3 Player... like a Walkman).

So ....

1) Ogg - very good, you can encode or play it with a fresh install of the OS (redhat linux)

2) MP3 - fine, you just have to download a player plugin and encoder

3) Realaudio - free player available for download.

All above formats integrate with the browser for streaming.

4) WMA - Bad, you can't play or encode it at all.

Actually, many portables do support WMA, but it is (in the opinion of many, including myself) considered to be the worst major codec out there right now, and takes up space in DSP's that could potentially be use for a better codec. That's why many of us are hoping for MPC and/or Vorbis support in portables.

PS- Why use WMP when so many better, less bloated alternatives exist? Once you try Foobar, you may never go back

Here's the direct URL:
MPC/Ogg Vote Link
Can someone put it in the 1st post?

We could ask iRiver to release development tools for l33t coders like you guys to code your own firmware for mpc

How do you vote on that page?

Ok, let's make some assumptions. Assuming Microsoft is thoroughly defeated at the courts and cannot bundle IE and WMP with their OS and CANNOT advertise them using the OS either, which player do you think people will download? The 2+ MB Winamp 2.91 or the 10+ MB WMP 9? (sorry Foobar2k is no contest in popularity, I found it on HA.org, and I took a year to stumble onto HA.org, besides issues like skinning and the audio-g33k factor)
What becomes the default basic player on a basic computer?
Of course, this is the real world, and MS is calling all the shots.
I guess then I find your assumption a little odd. Fortunately for MS, they thrive on people like you (Not that I have anything against you though )