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: Transcoding from Wavpack lossy? (Read 6741 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

I don't know much about Wavpack's Hybrid/lossy mode, but AFAIK it doesn't use any advanced psychoaccoustics, and from the limited testing others have done, it is (nearly) transparent. It shouldn't artifact in the same way that regular psychoaccoustic codecs do, and so I was wondering how it would lend itself to transcoding.

Maybe it would work better than transcoding from say a high bitrate mpc. This might be an alternative for people who wish to transcode with good quality for their portable/standalone and also have a high quality version on their hdd, but don't have the space to go completely lossless.

So before moving to larger tests, what (transcoding) quality would you expect from a theoretical standpoint? Does Wavpack hybrid do anything that might trip up regular codecs?

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #1 –
I've been testing it for three weeks and I am very, but VERY satisfied with the results... I am satisfied even so, that I consider switching to WavPack lossy (348 kbps high quality) with my whole archive (and it is NOT A SMALL NUMBER of pieces...) I don't see any reason to archive in lossless anymore.
The tests involved samples and excerpts from all the possible music spectrum: from death metal to classical music, female vocals, gregorian choir... Now I finish with works from J.S. Bach "Xmas Oratorium" (DoCD released by German company Harmonia Mundi) and "The Art Of Fugue" (released by French Opus111), but it is more or little just formal thing... WavPack is great - at least for me.

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #2 –
@Budgie

try Mpc, it achieves transparency at lower bitrates in most songs
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #3 –
Quote
@Budgie: try Mpc, it achieves transparency at lower bitrates in most songs

Budgie already knows about MPC, I'm sure.

@Gecko: I had the same thought a few weeks ago: that is, using Wavpack hybrid on my HD so I can transcode freely without having to store 900kbps lossless files. Unfortunately, I don't think Wavpack (natively) supports Replaygain. I've become totally dependent on Replaygain for handling all my differently-mastered music, and now I want to Replaygain everything: my university professors, my clothes, my shower water temperature...

Will Foobar calculate and apply Replaygain to Wavpack files? If so, I guess that's another good reason for me to switch...  >_< Of course, for transcoders, using Foobar means the extra step of decoding and then re-encoding, at least until someone writes an MP3 output plugin. But I always apply headphone-crossfeed effects to my transcoded MP3's for portable use, so I can't do a direct transcode anyway.

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #4 –
Foobar will calculate RG for any file it can play.. On the files that don't support RG or Custom fields in their tags it'll be stored in Foobar's Database.

If you convert using foobar and enable 'Use replaygain' It will be used in any audio file (except mods, I think).
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."
 

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #5 –
Quote
I've become totally dependent on Replaygain for handling all my differently-mastered music, and now I want to Replaygain everything: my university professors, my clothes, my shower water temperature...

lol  I also want to replaygain my shower water temperature! Though technically possible, sadly I haven't seen an implementation yet (you could make a fortune!) But for your audio needs you could try "wavegain" (you'll only have track gain, however).
Quote
Will Foobar calculate and apply Replaygain to Wavpack files?

Foobar uses it's own database to store replaygain values for every format it can play, but doesn't natively support replaygain. I guess it wouldn't be hard to make an mp3 or ogg output plugin (for someone with the needed programming skills). Maybe even a universal stdout plugin with which you could feed every stdin capable encoder...

So have you ever tried to transcode from wavpack? Another thing to consider is playback usability of wavpack, which I remember bryant saying was lacking atm. Seeking and tagging issues mostly, but I guess this could be fixed (wavpack being open source and all)

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #6 –
Quote
Seeking and tagging issues mostly, but I guess this could be fixed (wavpack being open source and all)

David is working on WavPack 4, that will fix all these issues, and bring lots of new goodies to the format.

I tried some transcodings some time ago (320kbps to --aps) and they all sounded fine to me. YMMV though.

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #7 –
I hope new WavPack files won't pretend to be regular WAV files anymore

Transcoding from Wavpack lossy?

Reply #8 –
/\/ephaestous:

After a hard inner fight I started using MPC from this year on... I don't want to start any kind of flame war here, but just need to say that after having done thoroughly testing on vintage equipment I decided to use WavPack anyway. This doesn't mean MPC is maybe worse. I really do not know, but my ears like WavPack definitely a bit more, my arguments would not be of a scientific importance, therefore I don't include them. Nor the space on HDD is an issue, either the compatibility. Both formats are probably a blind alley, but I stick with WavPack for listening on PC.