Old 23rd October 2006, 16:06   #1
jang0
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4
Native Musepack (.mpc) support

Reasons, why there should be a native Nullsoft mpc decoder plugin:

- According to the musepack developers, the winamp plugin in_mpc is outdated and won't get any further updates. *
- Fiddling around with 3rd party plugins requires the users to keep 2 programs uptodate
- Since Winamp 5.3, there is Replaygain support. This does not work properly with mpc files. (the plugin has its own support, but it is not integrated to the global replaygain options. therefor all mpc files are treated like files without RG information) It's a shame because this was the first format introducing Replaygain support!
- There is an official library called libmpcdec, under the BSD licence which makes it easy to add mpc support
- mpc is a high quality codec, proved in many blind listening tests.

Any comments?


* statement by Shy, admin of the musepack forum, referring to the statement "Musepack will need to update their plugin." by DJ Egg:

"There is no intention by any Musepack developer to update the existing plugin, which is old and not even libmpcdec based.

You can feel free to quote me: Instead of forever ignoring the first format implementing proper, format built-in ReplayGain and ApeV2 (which was developed especially for it) support, after all these years Winamp should do a little work of their own and write their own libmpcdec based plugin, like the developers of 30+ other players who already have."
jang0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2006, 18:09   #2
Sawg
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,456
Send a message via ICQ to Sawg Send a message via AIM to Sawg Send a message via Yahoo to Sawg
Could probably chop that up in "Things that are never going to happen." MPC is dyeing, if you could ever consider that there was any life in it in the first place. Besides, for any new format with questionable legality, it takes a long time to get added and approved. And when there are already modern formats such as Ogg Vorbis and AAC, there really is no need for another one used by a very tiny, TINY market.

| Brought to you by ^V ^C | The one... the original... no seriously!
Sawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2006, 19:33   #3
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
"There is no intention by any Musepack developer to update the existing plugin, which is old and not even libmpcdec based.
Then you should blame the musepac devs, because with no proper input plug-in for one of the most used players, their format will not be spreaded.

Most people don't know what Musepac is, even the better OGG Vorbis isn't wide spreaded. Other formats like Ogg Vorbis, MP3 (LAME) and AAC brings High Quality. For lossles compression, there is with FLAC a really good format aviable.

Most hardware will never support musepac, so I guess the format will die.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd October 2006, 19:59   #4
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,386
Those developers really haven't developed much in the last couple of years (except for a paranoia about "anti-Musepack trolls").
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 13:49   #5
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Instead of forever ignoring the first format implementing proper, format built-in ReplayGain and ApeV2 (which was developed especially for it) support, after all these years Winamp should do a little work of their own and write their own libmpcdec based plugin
Lol is all I can say, when I read this. Musepac development is dead, no improvements. If you talk about other lossy formats in their forum, the topics will be closed.

disadvantages:

- seeking is broken
- no streaming support
- no multichannel support
- no hardware support.

Sure, mpc was the first format with proper Replaygain support, but it misses major functionality, which is listed above.

You shouldn't expect any hardware support, so then we can use Ogg Vorbis, which is high quality and has the features or MP3 instead. I don't speak about the Fraunhofer codec, LAME is high quality and hasn't the disadvantages listed above, and most hardware is able to play these files.

Never mind, Winamp is just ignoring a pretty unpopular format, which has a lot of known glitches and is absolute unimportant for most people, regardless how good the quality is

If I would create an audio format, I would create input plug-ins for at least the most important players. I wouldn't wait until the devs of the players are adding native support for my format. Otherwise, nobody will use my format and it will die.

Last edited by Koopa; 24th October 2006 at 14:05.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 14:54   #6
Twilightseer
Frenchoderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3è porte à droite
Posts: 6,307
If I understand things correctly, the Musepack developers admit themselves that their format is dead but at the same time, say that the Winamp developers should support it?

What's the goddamn point?

(ps : GO KOOPA )
Twilightseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 15:00   #7
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
yeah, bit of a chicken and egg there, no input support in the big players, no format support. I'm not sure what these 30+ players are, but they clearly haven't increased usage of MPC any.

It's dead, just like mp3pro and vqf et al.

And thats without taking format pro's and con's into effect.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 15:10   #8
Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,906
i like the musepack codec its better then aac at least.

too bad the original developer got bored of supporting it and never passed on the project till years later.

i've already re-ripped my mpc files to other formats because of the broken plugins.
Rocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 19:49   #9
jang0
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4
some things i'd like to note:

1. i'm not affiliated with the mpc developers. i just quote them.
2. the statement was made after I posted a topic in their forum, about the winamp plugin.
3. who the hell uses in_mod? it's installed by default even though it's a niche product par excellence.
4. patented code was removed from musepack, so it's not illegal
5. no matter who's to blame, the user is going to be the one who suffers

and seriously, compared to things like wma or aac, i'd prefer mpc anytime
jang0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 19:59   #10
Koopa
16-Bit Moderator
 
Koopa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,341
3. I'm using in_mod, sure, a lot of people wont use it, but if you don't like it, simply uncheck it in the installer. Believe me, modules are more spreaded than .mpc files (8Bit forever!!).

5. The user wont suffer, because the user don't know what mpc is, and the user can choose between several other formats, which are much more improved as mpc.

This is the result of bad marketing strategies from the musepack devs.
Koopa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 20:21   #11
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
Quote:
3. who the hell uses in_mod? it's installed by default even though it's a niche product par excellence.
from the posts made on here a lot more have made their prescence known compared to musepack users. maybe that's just because there's been more issues with it or whatever else but that's how it's seemed from my experience round here for a number of years now.

Quote:
4. patented code was removed from musepack, so it's not illegal
from the quick look i made when i first saw this thread a day or so back, i saw that the library they provide is under a BSD license which is the same as winamp i believe (if it was gpl then it'd definitely be out of the question, lgpl is just about ok and the flac library was converted to this license recently so that an official in_flac could be made _but_ there have been far more requests for such a plugin which is why that was made and an offical in_mpc isn't looking all that hopeful irrespective the of musepack dev's comments)

Quote:
5. no matter who's to blame, the user is going to be the one who suffers
alas that's a subjective view and trying to argue that point is tricky for whichever side you're trying to come from it. sadly promotion of the format doesn't help on this matter.


i can understand that it may seem like we're all being negative, etc here but it's not meant to seem that way. as a user and supporter of something ofcourse you're going to want to try and promote it to others and then others are going to have pre-disposed opinions on such things.

the main issue here is that making an official build of a plugin which has already had it's support dropped by developers of their formats isn't a good thing for the very small dev team to spend time working on when it's going to only be useful for a very small proportion of the userbase. coming back to the in_mod point, this is a plugin which has been in the distribution for a number of years now and removing support for this (which isn't of use to however many normal users) would be detrimental for the existing userbase who do make use of it. with the addition of an in_mpc, if it's not already in there then unless people need the feature then they aren't going to miss anything.

really the best hope would be to find someone with coding skills who is interested in musepack support and would be willing to work on such a project to make a new/improved plugin to support the format (though with the stagnation of the current plugin it doesn't look to good otherwise i'd have expected someone else would have at least tried to do something with it)

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 22:38   #12
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)
 
will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Why does winamp need musepack?

* Because musepack is lossless? No, because we're working on full FLAC support for 5.31.

* Because musepack is high quality? Better than lame encoded alt-preset standard? No.

* Because musepack has a large user base? Quite the opposite is true.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
will is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 22:43   #13
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,784
musepack needs winamp more than winamp needs musepack, which is why my original statement of "musepack will need to fix their plugin" still stands.

The 5.25 sdk provides developers with all the info they need, and as already said, there's nothing to stop someone else from writing a new mpc plugin.
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 22:47   #14
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
Originally posted by DrO
i saw that the library they provide is under a BSD license which is the same as winamp i believe
Winamp isnt BSD licensed. Winamp can distribute open source code that is BSD licensed, or LGPL. But NOT GPL.

Winamp itself has a proprietary, closed source license.

(dro, i know you know this, thought i would clarify for other people)

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th October 2006, 23:00   #15
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,873
i'm only human the whole mix-match of licensing is enough to make anyone who was half-asleep post slightly incorrect facts

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2006, 10:52   #16
jang0
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4
Ok, I get your point, so it's probably useless to argue any further.

But, again to the problem that led to this thread:

would it be possible to have an option in wimamp to exclude certain formats from the "adjustment for files without replaygain" option. why? because, it would not only concern mpc, but ALL input formats that have their own volume adjustment.
what about that?
jang0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2006, 12:55   #17
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,784
Yes, now that is certainly a valid request.

I agree that there should be some kind of filter to exclude certain filetypes from being affected by the "adjustment for files without replaygain" option, and especially for .mpc (and any other 3rd-party formats which have their own rg/volume adjustment that don't follow Winamp's global settings - if there are any others).

Though I still maintain that someone should update the current in_mpc (or create a new musepack input plugin). The big question is, can it be made to write the rg info to APEv2 tags - I think it can, but i aren't rightly sure...

We could even modify the current in_mpc to be excluded, if we had the source...
It's supposed to be LGPL, but we can't find the source code anywhere, heh.

[edit]

ok, we've found it between here & here, so we shall see...
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2006, 14:26   #18
jang0
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4
That definitely sounds like a plan. Thanks for dealing with this issue.

jang0
jang0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2006, 21:53   #19
bemymonkey
Senior Member
 
bemymonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally posted by DJ Egg
[B]Yes, now that is certainly a valid request.

I agree that there should be some kind of filter to exclude certain filetypes from being affected by the "adjustment for files without replaygain" option, and especially for .mpc (and any other 3rd-party formats which have their own rg/volume adjustment that don't follow Winamp's global settings - if there are any others).
Sorry to reanimate this thread, but... how is this handled now? Are video files, for instance, excluded by default? I've been wondering this for a while now...

Weeeeeeeeeeee
bemymonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2006, 00:26   #20
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
I am interested as well. Musepack development is picking back up again.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 06:10   #21
Benski
Ben Allison
Former Winamp Developer
 
Benski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,047
Coming soon:

Benski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 11:51   #22
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Is that copyright date correct, can you backdate like that?

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 12:13   #23
siebe83
Forum King
 
siebe83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,222
On a sidenote, musepack.tk does not lead to the latest version (to put it mildly).

Good Winamp plugins by Joonas, DrO and shaneh.
If you're bored go here or, if the boredom is more serious, here.
siebe83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 12:31   #24
MertcanKaya1991
Member
 
MertcanKaya1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: TÃœRKÄ°YE
Posts: 83
What is Nullsoft DVD Player DEVELOPMENT? Is it reel?
MertcanKaya1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 12:35   #25
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,784
It's exactly what it says.
However, note that it's so superalpha it doesn't even have a version # yet ;-)

btw, musepack.net is the official site these days, not .tk
and Case's site has also been dead for quite some time :-(
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 12:38   #26
MertcanKaya1991
Member
 
MertcanKaya1991's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: TÃœRKÄ°YE
Posts: 83
That is super! keep on going
MertcanKaya1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 18:20   #27
Benski
Ben Allison
Former Winamp Developer
 
Benski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally posted by CraigF
Is that copyright date correct, can you backdate like that?
The reference musepack plugin included some Nullsoft code (jnetlib)
Benski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2006, 19:22   #28
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
ah, i see.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2006, 18:35   #29
beatus rhenanus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2
Hello Benski,
could you tell me if you solved all legal issues with the patent owners? Musepack decoding library is based on patented technologies and can't therefore be safely packed into commercial application (but it shouldn't be a problem for small and free apps). This fact was aften recalled by musepack developers themselves, Andree Buschmann and Frank Klemm. You can still find some information on hydrogenaudio.org site:

hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2899&view=findpost&p=28643
hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2910&view=findpost&p=28700

A "free" musepack decoder is nonetheless possible but it supposes to leave some tools related to subband coding (owned by Philips IIRC) and it would drastically slow down the efficiency (slower decoding speed).


I strongly suggest to investigate about the legality of the current musepack library. The advice also comes from the developers themselves. I know one big company (but I can't name it for professional reason) who was originally interested to implement modern audioformats and who finally refused to support MPC after investigation about patents.
I like Winamp as strong audioplayer and I wouldn't see it in legal troubles for officially supporting and distributing a format which isn't clean (legally I mean).

Best regards.
beatus rhenanus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2006, 18:54   #30
Benski
Ben Allison
Former Winamp Developer
 
Benski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,047
Quote:
Originally posted by beatus rhenanus
Hello Benski,
could you tell me if you solved all legal issues with the patent owners? Musepack decoding library is based on patented technologies and can't therefore be safely packed into commercial application (but it shouldn't be a problem for small and free apps). This fact was aften recalled by musepack developers themselves, Andree Buschmann and Frank Klemm. You can still find some information on hydrogenaudio.org site:

hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2899&view=findpost&p=28643
hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=2910&view=findpost&p=28700

A "free" musepack decoder is nonetheless possible but it supposes to leave some tools related to subband coding (owned by Philips IIRC) and it would drastically slow down the efficiency (slower decoding speed).

I strongly suggest to investigate about the legality of the current musepack library. The advice also comes from the developers themselves. I know one big company (but I can't name it for professional reason) who was originally interested to implement modern audioformats and who finally refused to support MPC after investigation about patents.
I like Winamp as strong audioplayer and I wouldn't see it in legal troubles for officially supporting and distributing a format which isn't clean (legally I mean).
Best regards.
Obviously we would investigate the legal issues before any official release. There is a chance that we already license these patents for use in Layer 2 playback, but I'm not a lawyer.
Benski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2007, 20:15   #31
DJ Egg
Techorator
Winamp & SHOUTcast Team
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 35,784
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=266676 :-)
DJ Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & SHOUTcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Wishlist

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump