Matt,
Thank you for your reply. I will try to get Klemm or Buschmann to contact you.
MHorton and Gatobrit,
I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about the quality of audio codecs (
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org is the perfect place for that), but I do want to comment on your posts about MPC.
MPC IS more transparent (i.e. sounding exactly the same as the source) than MP3 (at bitrates approximately between 160-200). This has been confirmed so many times by so many people (and by my own listening tests), that I don't think there can be any doubt about it.
The question is: do you need anything that is more thansparent than MP3 ?
I cannot answer this for anyone, it depends on too many factors: hearing abilities, quality of audio equiment, kind of music being encoded, etc. So everybody has to decide for himself. Do some listening tests.
Basically, if you don't hear any differences between MP3 and the audio source, stick with MP3. If you do, MPC is a viable alternative.
I would like to warn you, though. Maybe you don't hear any difference right now, but it might change if you get better quality audio equipment, or when you start to encoder some harder to encode material. I can provide you with samples where you can clearly hear the difference between the MP3 file and the original source, even at 256kbps (while MPC is transparent with these samples). Been there, done that.
Gatobrit, if you hear pops and clicks on your MPC files, then something went wrong during ripping or encoding. This has got nothing to do with the MPC format.
Of course, you are absolutely right about the hardware support: for compatibility reasons, we still need MP3, because there are no hardware MPC players available. Fortunately, converting from MPC to MP3 is easy enough with MJ.