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: lossywav - is it worth a try? (Read 967 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lossywav - is it worth a try?

I found out about the existence of this codec quite recently. It took me until today to get it working. A little background: I have a separate computer running Windows 7. I use it to work with my music collection and audio books. To convert music I try to use foobar2000. First I tried the latest version, which ended up with a lot of errors. So I switched to version 1.5.5. This version works fine. My settings are as follows:

Code: [Select]
/d /c C:\foobar2000\encoders\lossyWAV.exe - --quality 0 --silent --stdout|C:\foobar2000\encoders\wavpack.exe -q --blocksize=512 --merge-blocks -i - %d

Question: Are these the optimal ones? If not, for Red Book CD and 24/96, which ones would be "slightly better" than average?

Is there much difference between lossywav with these settings and qaac tvbr 127?
Beware of people - they can be a source of disappointment

Re: lossywav - is it worth a try?

Reply #1 –
You already use WavPack, so why not instead WavPack hybrid with correction files - and a without them on the hard drive constrained computer?

Re: lossywav - is it worth a try?

Reply #2 –
Quote from: Porcus on
You already use WavPack, so why not instead WavPack hybrid with correction files - and a without them on the hard drive constrained computer?

I thought about it and even tried it. But I came across some threads on this forum where lossywav was very colorfully advertised, so I decided to give it a try.
Beware of people - they can be a source of disappointment

Re: lossywav - is it worth a try?

Reply #3 –
Without correction data , Flac + lossywav @ 400k or more is more flexible.
With correction files wavpack is a good option. For hi-res audio lossywav hasn't been tested as much , So WV may be better.

lossywav vs aac quality, In general if going for much less than 400k , AAC may be better and easier option. From 400k , its expected to be on par and exceed aac. I don't think there are reports of lossywav 400 problems and maybe there are a few reports of aac problems @ 320