Skip to main content

Topic: Which settings are better? (Read 3245 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Ig0r18
  • [*]
Which settings are better?
Hi! I want to convert my big lossless collection into WavPack lossy (without correction files). Please tell, which settings are better for quality: -b384hhx or -b384hx3?) Sorry for my bad english)
  • Last Edit: 27 July, 2016, 06:09:57 AM by Ig0r18

Re: Which settings are better?
Reply #1
This thread in particular used to be my reference table - back when I used hybrid WP a lot - thanks mostly to @shadowking 's then-constant blind-testing. Not sure if it still holds true to the current WP version thought.

Also worth of note is @darkbyte 's own settings on his signature, though it's up to him/her to tell us how updated they are.

Though I'm pretty sure you've already thought it through, I can't help thinking that it would be a true waste of time if you used lossy only and open yourself to the possibility of realizing later on, that the settings weren't satisfactory; when you can obviously have the best of both worlds with hybrid encoding and throw away your bloated, untagged wave files instead.
Listen to the music, not the media.

Best,
Nilson

Re: Which settings are better?
Reply #2
Also worth of note, and to reinforce what I've just said about hybrid mode, is this assessment, in the same short thread, of its inherent advantages over most other encoding processes.
Listen to the music, not the media.

Best,
Nilson

  • shadowking
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Which settings are better?
Reply #3
Hi! I want to convert my big lossless collection into WavPack lossy (without correction files). Please tell, which settings are better for quality: -b384hhx or -b384hx3?) Sorry for my bad english)

On average -hhx would be a 'little' better. Whatever compresses better. But in some  cases -hx3 would be better as the higher-x modes are more intelligent with certain signals (artificial etc..).  -hhx is more of a brute force while -hx3 is lighter on decode cpu while trying harder to compress / sound better while a bit slower to encode. -hx3 is better choice for portable hardware.

If you don't mind longer encode time you can give -hx4 a go - I believe the developer Bryant uses this setting for archiving @384k without correction files.
wavpack 4.8 -b4x4s0.75c

  • DARcode
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Re: Which settings are better?
Reply #4
Settings in my sig (taking out the correction files creation for you) have never disappointed me when using lossy WavPack on the go (Android smartphone and SanDisk Clip Sport DAP).
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.64 -V 100

Re: Which settings are better?
Reply #5
By the time this thread has gone on without at least a 'thank you' reply by the OP, it looks like he definitely doesn't belong to the 1% club. ::)
  • Last Edit: 19 August, 2016, 04:04:06 PM by includemeout
Listen to the music, not the media.

Best,
Nilson

  • Ig0r18
  • [*]
Re: Which settings are better?
Reply #6
By the time this thread has gone on without at least a 'thank you' reply by the OP, it looks like he definitely doesn't belong to the 1% club. ::)

Sorry, I have no possibility to answer. Thanks for all, I choose -b384hx4, longer encode time, but good quality)
  • Last Edit: 31 October, 2016, 10:13:53 PM by Ig0r18