Skip to main content

Topic: WavPack flash decoder demo and sources (Read 8938 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • bryant
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
WavPack flash decoder demo and sources
Some of you may remember that Peter McQuillan created the Java WavPack decoder which made WavPack's inclusion in JavaTunes possible. Well, Peter has done it again! Now he's rewritten the decoder in haXe, which in turn can be compiled into Adobe flash code.

What’s really nice about this for me is that if people want to play a WavPack file without installing anything (I get this request occasionally) I can simply tell them to go to the flash demo and they can play a file anywhere on their system. Very cool!

I believe that flash version 10 is required, but this is still just about as close to a universal WavPack player as there could be. All the sources are under modified BSD (and are available in the demo).

Thanks again Peter! 


  • Polouess
  • [*]
WavPack flash decoder demo and sources
Reply #1
this is so cool!
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna implement this into some flash based sound application sooner or later

  • temp1
  • [*]
WavPack flash decoder demo and sources
Reply #2
cool  very nice
play wavpack anywhere!

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
WavPack flash decoder demo and sources
Reply #3
Very nice indeed, spreading the WV word  !

EDIT: Grammar :-\
  • Last Edit: 09 February, 2009, 08:30:32 AM by DARcode
WavPack 4.80.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.59 -V 100

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
WavPack flash decoder demo and sources
Reply #4
oMge haXe

  • bryant
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
WavPack flash decoder demo and sources
Reply #5
Peter sent me an update (now v1.1) of the haXe WavPack decoder and I have updated the flash demo on the WavPack site to reflect this. The biggest change is that now it's possible to generate C++ output from the haXe code (and make an executable from that code). He also fixed a minor bug that could cause the CRC calculation to be wrong (although this really didn't cause any problems).

Thanks again, Peter!