Skip to main content


Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: WavPack decoding complexity vs FLAC (Read 8043 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: WavPack decoding complexity vs FLAC

Reply #25
As portables would use only the .WV , decoding isn't an issue for playback.
It becomes more noticeable on PC again not in playback, but other operations like
re-encoding, replaygain etc, very high sample rates, bitdepths...
For playback -hh is fine on PC and portables from last decade or two. For non-cd audio and
file operations, going for something lighter might be preferred (-hx4 or -x4-6)

Re: WavPack decoding complexity vs FLAC

Reply #27
To compete and beat flac -8,  WV -h without -x would best it in all practical aspects while avoiding
the -hh decoding.  -hx4 is interesting if you have time. The encoding cost isn't that much,
it can match or even beat -hh while being faster to decode. The normal mode is also interesting
as it is the workhorse mode and faster yet. It could be close to flac -8 - it used to beat it in the past by a bit.
-x4 would certainly beat flac -8 without without much overhead. -x6 if you have time maybe a bit more.
Though -hhx6 is the 'best', It may bring out the worse aspects in ways I described.