The “fast” mode only provides two decorrelator passes for the “extra” mode to work with, so it's pretty limited in what it can do in difficult situations.
Compression speed with b380hhx6 is very slow so i wonder how much bitrate should i spend if i like to use the fast mode instead but still achieve transparency in hybrid mode. I'm curious about fast mode because encoding my whole collection takes a lot time and i'm also working on a Wavpack decoder written in Dart and i can achieve considerably lower CPU usage by decoding fast mode encoded files.I've tried b420fx4 yesterday and it gave a very good 45x compression speed on my computer instead of 6-12x compression speed with b380hhx6.I wonder how transparent is this setting for you shadowking? In the final average bitrate it's only 40-50kbps higher for me than the what you suggested which is acceptable (around 448kbps for me) but it's a lot faster.
I depends what you are after - generally transparent with correction files or extreme quality for perhaps lossy archiving.
I tested atemlied at lower bitrate using -hhx4. The quality is good down to 360kbit. At 350k I could start to detect it . Also lower volume helps more as you get less fatigued and less hearing loss.b365hhx4 = 4/8b360hhx4 = 2/8b350hhx4 = 7/8
Tags and artwork are the same in the lossy and lossless version.I don't have to maintain a lossless + lossy collection of the same tracks.
Quote from: darkbyte on 07 November, 2013, 04:23:55 PMTags and artwork are the same in the lossy and lossless version.I don't have to maintain a lossless + lossy collection of the same tracks.Amen! And that was the day my headaches stopped once and for all!
I still get 8/10 on some samples but its close and dont sound like an artifacts at all.
It seems that s0.7 improves everything around 300k and even the difference is pleasing rather than sounding like artifacts. I am confident so far that any difference would not be heard outside of an abx and even if the was it would be not annoying with 320 hx5 s0.7
Quote from: shadowking on 16 January, 2014, 06:31:51 AMI still get 8/10 on some samples but its close and dont sound like an artifacts at all.Artifacts? I thought all you could incur by not feeding lossy WavPack a bitrate high enough for a certain audio file, was quantization noise, as it is not a psychoacoustics-based encoder. Or am I mistaken?
Thanks to the quantization noise's inherent variable amplitude, the only chance of ending up with pure white noise instead (not that I want to ) would be disabling dynamic noise shaping altogether? (sn = 0)
Does resampling the CD audio input before encoding to 48kHz helps lossy's efficiency? I would think that because the noisy shaping could shift noise to a higher region it does help, however i'm might be wrong about how Wavpack's lossy works.
If memory doesn't fail me, doesn't WavPack automatically do that (increase bitrate) as you feed it in an input file with higher sampling rate/bit depth?