fast mode:
created test-f.wv   in  0.14 secs (lossless, 39.23%)
created test-fx1.wv in  0.31 secs (lossless, 39.23%)
created test-fx2.wv in  0.52 secs (lossless, 39.20%)
created test-fx3.wv in  0.60 secs (lossless, 39.20%)
created test-fx4.wv in  1.13 secs (lossless, 42.04%)
created test-fx5.wv in  1.50 secs (lossless, 42.04%)
created test-fx6.wv in  1.79 secs (lossless, 42.04%)

normal mode:
created test.wv     in  0.16 secs (lossless, 41.27%)
created test-x1.wv  in  0.42 secs (lossless, 41.41%)
created test-x2.wv  in  1.04 secs (lossless, 41.60%)
created test-x3.wv  in  1.87 secs (lossless, 42.02%)
created test-x4.wv  in  3.29 secs (lossless, 42.45%)
created test-x5.wv  in  4.77 secs (lossless, 42.45%)
created test-x6.wv  in  9.57 secs (lossless, 42.44%)

high mode:
created test-h.wv   in  0.36 secs (lossless, 42.06%)
created test-hx1.wv in  0.97 secs (lossless, 42.26%)
created test-hx2.wv in  1.83 secs (lossless, 42.30%)
created test-hx3.wv in  7.50 secs (lossless, 42.69%)
created test-hx4.wv in 13.58 secs (lossless, 42.74%)
created test-hx5.wv in 19.20 secs (lossless, 42.74%)
created test-hx6.wv in 39.52 secs (lossless, 42.78%)

If anyone is waiting to report any last minute bugs in the beta, this is the time to do it! 

If anyone is waiting to report any last minute bugs in the beta, this is the time to do it! 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286714"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just wanted to see what happened with all mode-x combinations. Here's what I got:

Code: [Select]

fast mode:
created test-f.wv   in  0.14 secs (lossless, 39.23%)
created test-fx1.wv in  0.31 secs (lossless, 39.23%)
created test-fx2.wv in  0.52 secs (lossless, 39.20%)
created test-fx3.wv in  0.60 secs (lossless, 39.20%)
created test-fx4.wv in  1.13 secs (lossless, 42.04%)
created test-fx5.wv in  1.50 secs (lossless, 42.04%)
created test-fx6.wv in  1.79 secs (lossless, 42.04%)
...

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286783"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is "x" more effective when used without the h option? 
I.e. would -x6 make more of a difference in compression, from the default mode, as compared to the difference between -h and -hx6?

fast mode:
test-f.wv   39.23%
test-fx6.wv 42.04%

normal mode:
test.wv     41.27%
test-x4.wv  42.45%

high mode:
test-h.wv   42.06%
test-hx3.wv 42.69%

Type    Bytes        Size %   Change EncTime X Incr*
WAV     192,156,428  100.00%  -       -         -
wv.f    116,620,743  60.69%  -39.31% 33         -
wv.fx1  116,247,737  60.50%  -0.19%  36       10%       
wv.fx2  116,151,681  60.45%  -0.05%  40       22%     
wv.fx3  116,151,681  60.45%   0.00%  41       25%      
wv.fx4  114,715,073  59.70%  -0.75%  85      160%   
wv.fx5  114,486,325  59.58%  -0.12%  112     240%    
wv.fx6  114,480,801  59.58%  -0.00%  136     316%    
wv.norm 113,662,299  59.15%  -0.43%  29         -       
wv.x1   113,393,555  59.01%  -0.14%  40       38%     
wv.x2   113,315,235  58.97%  -0.04%  63      116%    
wv.x3   113,089,013  58.85%  -0.12%  108     271%    
wv.x4   112,044,993  58.31%  -0.54%  262     803%   
wv.x5   111,973,775  58.27%  -0.04%  398    1275%   
wv.x6   111,891,125  58.23%  -0.04%  839    2794%  
wv.h    111,071,996  57.80%  -0.43%  32         -       
wv.hx1  110,920,564  57.72%  -0.08%  80      150%   
wv.hx2  110,836,849  57.68%  -0.04%  141     339%    
wv.hx3  110,562,922  57.54%  -0.14%  633    1874%  
wv.hx4  110,490,641  57.50%  -0.04%  1142   3462%   
wv.hx5  110,466,641  57.49%  -0.01%  1614   4934%   
wv.hx6  110,426,449  57.47%  -0.02%  3422  10574%

I'll try to clarify the docs on the extra mode in the next release. In the meantime here's a quick summary:

There are three basic modes in WavPack: fast, normal, and high. The modes indicate the complexity of the decompression (or decoding). High is the most complex and is about half the speed of the normal mode, but compresses better in lossless and gives better quality in lossy. Fast is somewhat simpler than the normal mode and decompresses somewhat faster, but also is a little worse in compression and quality. WavPack is normally a symmetrical compressor, which means that basically the same process is used for both encoding and decoding, and so they take about the same time.

The extra option is exactly that: it does extra processing during encoding. It works in any of the three modes to improve them (in both compression and quality) and it can be very slow. However, it doesn't change the actual mode used so the resulting files will decode just as fast as they would without the extra option; it's free in a sense. I recommend that the extra option simply be used by itself, that is with no numeric parameter. The extra mode tends to improve the faster modes more than the higher modes (simply because there's more room for improvement in the faster modes).

There is an optional numeric parameter for the extra mode that (like I said above) I don't generally advise using. This is because it is not just a linear scale; instead it actually turns on different types of optimization. It is ordered so that it does more the higher the number, but that doesn't mean that the amount of time spent will give a corresponding improvement in performance. For example, in the normal mode, I just measured these:

Code: [Select]

normal: created john.wv in 1.92 secs  (lossless, 39.32%)
-x1:    created john.wv in 3.50 secs  (lossless, 39.32%)
-x2:    created john.wv in 5.81 secs  (lossless, 39.32%)
-x3:    created john.wv in 11.53 secs (lossless, 39.53%)
-x4:    created john.wv in 25.98 secs (lossless, 40.28%)
-x5:    created john.wv in 39.48 secs (lossless, 40.29%)
-x6:    created john.wv in 82.66 secs (lossless, 40.33%)

You can see that even though the processing time just about doubles each increment of the extra value, virtually all of the improvement occurs at -x4. Before and after that you don't get much for the time spent, so when you select -x in the normal mode you get level 4 by default. Similar reasoning was used to choose the default extra level for the fast (-x6) and high (-x3) modes.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286569"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Echo, I was wondering how you made this table of results.  Is there some kind of batchfile that you used for this, or did you actually sit there and manually record the times and such?  I'd like to do a test like this with some very large files (CD Images), but let it run overnight.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286884"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmm...  I've been doing my own tests of WavPack lossless using the 46 samples from rjamorim's listening tests.  (183MB).
They *do not* closely correspond to the results that echo got - the ones which made me so excited a little while ago, but it still confirms that the answer to my original question is yes.  The extra (-x) modes are more effective the faster the encoding setting.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=286896"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your results are of cource more valid than mine. As I said mine was only one sample. Interesting how the compressed sizes scale like that. Do you also have the corresponding encoding times? Do they scale the same way or are they mixed like mine? Anyway thanks for your results.

Okay, check the table above.  I added the encode times to it now.   I'm *really* good at wasting time
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=287374"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mode   Compression (%)   Enc. Time (s)   Time/Compression
f      39,31             33               0,84            
fx1    39,5              36               0,91            
fx2    39,55             40               1,01            
fx3    39,55             41               1,04            
fx4    40,3              85               2,11            
fx5    40,42             112              2,77            
fx6    40,42             136              3,36            
norm   40,85             29               0,71            
x1     40,99             40               0,98            
x2     41,03             63               1,54            
x3     41,15             108              2,62            
x4     41,69             262              6,28            
x5     41,73             398              9,54            
x6     41,77             839             20,09           
h      42,2              32               0,76            
hx1    42,28             80               1,89            
hx2    42,32             141              3,33            
hx3    42,46             633             14,91           
hx4    42,5              1142            26,87           
hx5    42,51             1614            37,97           
hx6    42,53             3422            80,46

What is a little strange about the encoding times is that normal is faster than -f and also -h is (just a bit) faster than -f!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=287498"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 > wavpack -f testfile - > nul

 > wavpack -fq testfile - | wvunpack -v -

Yeah, I noticed some BIG inconsistencies in my timing results, so take them with a grain of salt.  I'm running these on my laptop, so it's probably not the speediest disk i/o in the world.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]