Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

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: LossyFLAC + Wavpack lossy, does it make sense? (Read 770 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LossyFLAC + Wavpack lossy, does it make sense?

Hi, I've been testing Wavpack 320 kbps (-i -q -hh -b320hx4 - %d in Foobar) lately for use on a mobile phone with limited space. From what I've read, it seems to wavpack have improved a lot recently, it doesn't have artifacts like other lossy codecs and it seems the most suitable for bluetooth transcoding. I like what I hear and it's starting to become my favourite codec.

To maximise the relevant information contained in those 320 kbps, I thought it might make sense to start from lossyFLAC -insane instead of FLAC. This way, we save wavpack work by discarding the inaudible (or almost) part of the information at the root, and it will focus on compressing only the relevant information.

Does this make sense? Is there any other way to improve/maximise the efficiency of wavpack at 320 kbps?
(I could really ask the same question for any other codec).
Thanks.

Re: LossyFLAC + Wavpack lossy, does it make sense?

Reply #1 –
artifact in this case is something like a bug? this does need more improvements to the codec

Re: LossyFLAC + Wavpack lossy, does it make sense?

Reply #2 –
No, I don’t think encoding with lossyWAV before WavPack lossy makes any sense. You should use one or the other.

LossyWAV doesn’t really discard inaudible information. Just like WavPack lossy, it adds quantization noise that is [hopefully] inaudible. So by using audio already processed with lossyWAV, you are starting with something already degraded, and then adding more noise to it.

BTW, in your WavPack command you have both -h (high mode) and -hh (very high mode). You really should have one or the other (I'm not even sure which one you'll get with that command).

Re: LossyFLAC + Wavpack lossy, does it make sense?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: userPaul on
artifact in this case is something like a bug? this does need more improvements to the codec
By artefacts I mean audible problems related to the compression model, e.g. pre-echoing.

Thanks bryant, your answer makes it clear to me, and I'm sure Wavpack itself does fantastically well.
BTW, I'll remove the h and leave -hh, I didn't notice the duplicity. I'm getting familiar with Wavpack, and I'm amazed, it seems to me to be the most complete codec at the moment.
 

Re: LossyFLAC + Wavpack lossy, does it make sense?

Reply #4 –
As David said, but in fewer words, no.

lossyWAV is designed to be the last step in a DSP chain prior to lossless encoding using a lossless encoder that takes advantage of what flac calls the "wasted bits" feature, i.e. the lowest <n> bits per codec block are all zero. Not all lossless encoders do - noting that WavPack *does*.

Basically, either use WavPack's lossy processing *or* losslessly encode lossyWAV output in WavPack - using both will likely end up in a situation where the resultant output is "worse" (whether perceptibly, or not) as it will have gone through two lossy processes rather than one.