If I use 1,4,1m with command line '--quality high' Is that option still the best recommended setting for this level of quality or I can improve the quality by adding force hybrid shaping to the command line?
I had some trouble using lossyWav lately, turns out 1.4.1m has expired.
Hi,I've found the idea of this wave processor to be quite interesting, and yesterday I completed porting the code to probably most modern POSIX systems (i.e., Linux, *BSD, MacOS X, AIX, etc.) I've tested it on Linux and FreeBSD and things seem to work (I haven't tried all the options, though, so there may be bugs.) It's also possible I accidentally broke the Windows version.
I'm thinking about rewriting the entire utility in C, designing it for portability from the beginning and incorporating OpenCL or CUDA support for FFT, bit removal and noise shaping. It should certainly speed it up.
@Nick.C: my LossyWAV is waiting for the next incarnation...
hi to everyone. i compared lossywav to wavpack hybrid lossy. I compared this to methods using audacity(inverting packed track and mix with original). And wavpack is much better in all songs examples - have less noise after packing. So i recommend to use wavpack hybrid mode. Hope this will be usefull for someone. Thank you