Total Members Voted: 338
Originally posted by kjempen How about this:--xtreme --xlevel?(The "--xlevel" part is to avoid internal clipping, works in most cases.)
Originally posted by MTRH Read this btw.
Originally posted by smg --quality 10 for me...alittle overkill I assume But I can spare the hardrive space.Plus I have to assume that this is the highest quality possible Lossy. My files seem to average 295Kbs - 355Kbs. If am assumeing wrong PLEASE someone fill me in as to why my thinking is wrong.
Originally posted by Dezibel --quality 6 for mppenc 1.1 [--standard is not enough on most albums because 1.1 sounds complete different than 1.02]
Originally posted by audiophile mppenc --braindead --quality 10 --ms 15 --forcewrite --verbose --verbose %1.wav %1.mpcNote: --braindead is now redundant with 1.1, I guess
Originally posted by MTRH and the KITTENS!! don't forget the KITTENS!
Originally posted by Dezibel ...nope.i don't did any abx tests. the results are just from on the fly hearing using xmms.so don't rate my results.
@ECHO OFFDIR /B *.WAV > FILES.LSTFOR /F %%F IN (FILES.LST) DO MPPENC --standard --forcewrite %%FREPLAYGAIN --auto *.MPCDEL FILES.LST
Originally posted by Dibrom *sigh*<RANT>I certainly won't. Please don't bother posting results though if you're not going to attempt to verify them in any fashion (sample or abx).It's simply useless. It wastes people's time chasing problems that possibly don't exist, and increases the likelyhood of spreading misinformation and rumours.Sorry, but we really have enough of this "well I must have superhuman hearing, I can differentiate MPC in all these circumstances, BUT... I won't abx/don't believe in abx, etc, etc, etc" kind of ideology. It seems to be on the rise to, which is disturbing, because the whole point of HA is to try and be the 1 at least remotely objective site out there where actual useful measurements are performed, and tests have some meaning.Just one last bit to add, if so many of you guys can supposedly pick out MPC so well even well beyond --standard (and I'm not talking about 4 samples, I'm talking about all the time like some seem to claim or imply), how come you aren't doing something useful by helping Frank to tune the codec and fix these alleged "problems"?</RANT>
Originally posted by Dezibel - short abx samples says nothing about sound quality for me. only hearing a whole album on a real player let me enjoy the music or even not when sounds quality sucks
Originally posted by paranoos The one thing that is slowing me down from re-ripping my cds and using Muse is that I have a really great general-purpose plugin for WinAmp called EAR... it reads ID3 tags and displays the information in the MiniBrowser. The format of the output is customizeable using XML. It can display file information on MPC files (bitrate, streamversion, encoder, ...), and displays ID3v1, but doesn't support APE tags. So I have turned EAR off, and am slowly trying to get over it. Perhaps I will find a replacement in the future.
Originally posted by Dezibel Ausserdem bin ich der Meinung dass die ganzen Qualitätseinstellungen unnötig sind. Wenn der Encoder laut Entwickler und Testhörer bei --quality 6 stabil arbeitet, d.h. gute Qualität bringt, warum dann nicht diesen Level als Standarteinstellung einrichten, und die übrigen Optionen nur den Entwicklern und Testhörern zur Verfügung stellen? Damit kämen auch nicht mehr diese hirnlosen Bemerkungen der Anwender wie: --standard sounds good for me but i using --braindead just to be sure! Unnötiger Ballast der dem Anwender wie dem Entwickler abgenommen werden könnte.
Originally posted by lucpes For instance I use only ID3v1.1 (in EAC) and there're no problems for me... I don't see why you won't choose it over APE.