Hi,

I've noticed more and more people using the *. mpc encoder to backup their music cds. My question is: is *.mpc really better than *.mp3? By better I mean in terms of rip quality and preservability of the dynamics of the original soundtrack - file size is NOT an issue for me. Also, is it really necessary to apply the Replaygain program to files ripped from ORIGINAL music cds? Thanks in advance!

No opinions, Anyone?

Depends on bitrate, perhaps... most other codecs beat MP3 at low/medium bitrates, but is LAME 320k CBR losing anything that matters?
I believe there are a few samples which suffer, even at 320k CBR, but you can probably find "killer" samples for most other codecs.

If you want 100%, then you have to look at lossless encoders, but the price of retaining 100% of the input, is a compression rate that struggles to reach 50%.

Like good old ZIP compression, MP3 has widespread compatibility in it's favour - and also as it's biggest enemy, as it can only be improved so far without breaking compatibility.

MPC offers better quality than MP3 almost universally, and definitely above 128kbps.

Yes, if you can learn how to use it, you should use ReplayGain on MPC's ripped from your own CD's. The reason for this is that when you rip a CD to a lossy format like MP3 or MPC, it pushes some of thepeaks of the waveform past the 0dB ceiling. The peaks aren't clipped, these formats store volume levels relatively rather than absolutely like PCM...
But when the file is decoded or played, the peaks will be clipped.

So we use ReplayGain to slightly lower the volume of the file so that the peaks don't clip on playback or decode.

You can download the Musepack encoder from this site