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: WavPack 4,75 RMAA test (Read 3573 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WavPack 4,75 RMAA test

Hi All!)

Today I tested the hybrid mode WavPack and was very surprised at the accuracy of coding.
I compare the original wav and the compressed file to Audio Rightmark, graphs are almost identical


I attach graphics in archive: Download graphics

Thank you bryant for nice codec!

p.s. wavpack -miqnhhs0.7b4.5x3 ./The_Ninth_Gate_(Wojciech_Kilar).03_-_Corso.wav

WavPack 4,75 RMAA test

Reply #1 –
  • RMAA is not suitable for comparing audio codecs. The purpose of RMAA is to compare audio devices or signal paths.
  • Even if RMAA were the correct tool, the numbers you get out of it are mostly meaningless. The accepted way to assess the quality of lossy audio encoders are double-blind ABX tests.
  • In the same vein, graphics are completely meaningless when assessing the quality of lossy audio encoders.

I agree with you that WavPack as a whole is a nice codec, but I hope I remember correctly that it has been shown that WavPack lossy performs worse than most other contemporary lossy codecs. In my opinion its main purpose is to produce hybrid encodes, i.e. lossy encode + correction file. If you are only interested in lossy encoding, there are many better choices of codecs, like MP3 (LAME), Vorbis or AAC (Apple/FhG)
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

WavPack 4,75 RMAA test

Reply #2 –
Also it doesn't make sense to analyse some random music instead of RMAA test signal.

WavPack 4,75 RMAA test

Reply #5 –
This was not a great idea.

WavPack 4,75 RMAA test

Reply #6 –
WavPack Hybrid = Lossless.

You have accomplished one thing, and one thing only:  You have determined the minimum amount of session error in your testing procedures.
Creature of habit.