Recently, I started ripping my CDs with dBpoweramp, and I chose to use its CLI encoder codec to use wavpack.exe for encoding. Amazingly, I got it right the 1st time & had a successful encode. I noticed, though. that using wavpack.exe to create the same file with foobar2000 produced a file that was a little bit smaller, even though the same settings were used with both programs. Here are the file sizes, and cli settings, for both:
dBpoweramp: 01. Little Good-Byes.wv (Bitrate 985 kbps) [Filesize 23.7 MB]
-i -q -hh -x1 -m - [outfile]
foobar2000: 01. Little Good-Byes.wv (Bitrate 981 kbps) [Filesize 23.6 MB]
-i -q -hh -x1 -m - %d
Yes, it's a fraction of a megabyte. But both are using wavpack.exe & the same settings. What is up with that?
BTW: Used File Integrity Viewer & Bit Comparator in fb2k to analyze both files, and they passed each test.
Maybe dBpa uses older wavpack.exe?
Maybe dBpa uses older wavpack.exe?
no. version 5* less effictive (approx % .05-.3, source depending) then v.4*.
i.e. - foobar use old version.
if not another reason...
Maybe dBpa uses older wavpack.exe?
no. version 5* less effictive (approx % .05-.3, source depending) then v.4*.
i.e. - foobar use old version.
if not another reason...
The version of wavpack.exe I use in fb2k is v5.10, the most current version. I used the same version in dbpa. So it's weird, again, that the results are different. Maybe the command line in dbpa needs some modification?
Maybe different tags or embedded art? I've never used the CLI for it so I don't know if those things are automatic or not.
Yeah, I would guess that it has something to do with tags also. A difference of 100K sounds like an album art. If the command line parameters for encoding are being passed down like you show, then the audio part should be the same.
Try doing a
wvunpack -ss <name.wv>
on each one and compare the output.