Skip to main content
Topic: Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack? (Read 29243 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

I'm trying Wavpack, and I don't see the point of the Hybrid Mode. The whole appeal of using it is that you can generate a correction file if you ever want to have the original file back, however, this correction file added to the WV file comes out to be about the same size as the lossless version anyway, so it's not like you are gaining any advantages at all?

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #1
Hybrid mode could be used without correction files, as simple lossy encoder.
lossy + correction is interesting in specific cases (like: listening lossy files on computer, and burning correction files only on optical media). But for pure efficiency, lossy + correction are less interesting than simple lossless files.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #2
I use wavpack hybrid without correction files for transcoding purposes. Files take far less space than lossless ones and the perceptive quality of the lossy transcoded files is identical to the ones obtained from the original source. It's known to be less destructive than psycho accoustic based lossy codecs.
Stupidity is root of all evil.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #3
Quote
(like: listening lossy files on computer, and burning correction files only on optical media)[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280718"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've heard about this purpose of Wavpack's hybrid mode several times now. Since you can't restore the original file without the lossy file, what's the point of only storing the correction files on backup media? Burning both away would be more reasonable in my opinion.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #4
Quote
I use wavpack hybrid without correction files for transcoding purposes. Files take far less space than lossless ones and the quality of the lossy transcoded files is identical to the ones obtained from the original source. It's known to be less destructive than psycho accoustic based lossy codecs.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280719"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Though, it is CBR and slow (if you enable the HQ switches (-h and -x)).

Radetz


Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #6
Quote
Since you can't restore the original file without the lossy file, what's the point of only storing the correction files on backup media?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sparing some money

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #7
Quote
with no hardware support
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280723"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


yet

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #8
Quote
Quote
I use wavpack hybrid without correction files for transcoding purposes. Files take far less space than lossless ones and the quality of the lossy transcoded files is identical to the ones obtained from the original source. It's known to be less destructive than psycho accoustic based lossy codecs.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280719"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Though, it is CBR and slow (if you enable the HQ switches (-h and -x)).

Radetz
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280721"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The HQ switches do not increase much the quality, it's about the same quality as current bitrate +50. I use 450 kbps with no HQ switch at all, for transparency reasons (metal is quite bit consuming). But 350 without HQ flags should be enough for most music. As far as I can remember, this is the recommended preset.
Stupidity is root of all evil.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #9
My entire music collection is in Musepack format. I've been thinking of change to Wavpack lossy because I have understood it doesn't suffer from artifacts like traditional lossy codecs, but instead it adds noise (but not perceptive if well configured I think). Is that right?

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #10
Quote
Is that right?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280729"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, but Musepack artifacts would be hardly perceptible either.

A more recommended use for WavPack lossy would be for posterior transcoding to another lossy format.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #11
Quote
My entire music collection is in Musepack format. I've been thinking of change to Wavpack lossy because I have understood it doesn't suffer from artifacts like traditional lossy codecs, but instead it adds noise (but not perceptive if well configured I think). Is that right?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280729"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's your current mpc setting?

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #12
Quote
The HQ switches do not increase much the quality, it's about the same quality as current bitrate +50. I use 450 kbps with no HQ switch at all, for transparency reasons (metal is quite bit consuming). But 350 without HQ flags should be enough for most music. As far as I can remember, this is the recommended preset.


Recommended by who?  WavPack docs (so THE recommendation I would say) says "At 320 kbps the quality is difficult for even critical listeners to distinguish from the original, and at 384 kbps WavPack becomes essentially transparent.".

That you do not use any quality switch is your own business.  bryant (do a search if you wish) especially said that you should EITHER use -h or -x to get the most quality out of a 384 kbps lossy encode.

For high quality 384 kbps WavPack encodes, the recommended (proposed in the doc) switches are -b384x
For the highest quality 384 kbps WavPack encodes, the recommended (non proposed in the doc) switches are -hb384x

Both will be slow as hell though.

Radetzky

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #13
Quote
A more recommended use for WavPack lossy would be for posterior transcoding to another lossy format.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280730"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is exactly what I do. I transcode from my WavPack lossy files to mp3 or to vorbis for portable use and sharing.   
Furthermore, WavPack transparency gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when I directly listen my music. 
Stupidity is root of all evil.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #14
Quote
Quote
Is that right?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, but Musepack artifacts would be hardly perceptible either.

A more recommended use for WavPack lossy would be for posterior transcoding to another lossy format.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280730"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You would rate WavPack lossy a better source transcoder than MPC (even with was is said at the bottom of [a href="http://www.angelfire.com/magic2/hq-audio/l/settings-enc-v.html]this page[/url]?)

Radetz

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #15
Quote
You would rate WavPack lossy a better source transcoder than MPC (even with was is said at the bottom of this page?)[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280737"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That site is a crazy source of bullshit. Who is its author?

The author claims that, based on Den's findings, wavpack is only a better transcoding source when you are transcoding to Atrac. That's a huge load of crap and makes no sense at all.

WavPack is known for being a better source because it applies much less processing to the stream than psychoacoustic codecs.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #16
I find hybrid mode very useful. I have my CD collection ripped in wavpack hybrid, which is available via ftp. A couple of friends have access to it, and they download the lossy part of tracks they want for appreciation purposes. If they like what they hear, they can always download the correction files and get the perfect cd image (cue sheets are available too).

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #17
Ok I guess if someone could compare the file sizes of the following it would make sense: (MPC quality 5 + FLAC) vs. (Wavpack lossy with a reasonable quality level in which noise is not audible + difference file)

If the first combination takes less space then what's the point indeed?
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #18
Quote
If the first combination takes less space then what's the point indeed?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280744"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Have you even tried to see if the first combination takes less space?

FLAC alone compresses worse than WavPack, add a MPC file to it and the summed bitrate will probably go past 1mbps.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #19
Quote
Quote
You would rate WavPack lossy a better source transcoder than MPC (even with was is said at the bottom of this page?)[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280737"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That site is a crazy source of bullshit. Who is its author?

The author claims that, based on Den's findings, wavpack is only a better transcoding source when you are transcoding to Atrac. That's a huge load of crap and makes no sense at all.

WavPack is known for being a better source because it applies much less processing to the stream than psychoacoustic codecs.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280739"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Did I open a can of worm?  If you go one directory higher on the webserver I linked to, you will find the user name.  Sound's like the guy who manages the sticky in the MPC-General section.

Radetz

[span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%']edit: fixed a typo[/span]

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #20
Quote
Did I open a can of worm?  I you go one directory higher on the webserver I linked to, you will find the user name.  Sound's like the guy who manages the sticky in the MPC-General section.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280746"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ah, the author and owner of the R** guide and trading group? :B

I'd better not even comment about it here, it wouldn't be safe.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #21
Quote
Have you even tried to see if the first combination takes less space?

FLAC alone compresses worse than WavPack, add a MPC file to it and the summed bitrate will probably go past 1mbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280745"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is the rage? 
I was just asking which would be larger not making any claims. An earlier post implied this that's why. Is the Wavpack hybrid lossy file + the difference file = size of Wavpack lossless file or any larger?
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #22
Quote
Quote
Have you even tried to see if the first combination takes less space?

FLAC alone compresses worse than WavPack, add a MPC file to it and the summed bitrate will probably go past 1mbps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280745"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why is the rage? 
I was just asking which would be larger not making any claims. An earlier post implied this that's why. Is the Wavpack hybrid lossy file + the difference file = size of Wavpack lossless file or any larger?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280749"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Same thing.  There are switches you can play to make the correction file bigger or smaller.  You can guess that if you opt for a high quality, high bit rate lossy file, the correction file is going to be rather smallish.

But still... IMHO, if you are going to keep the correction files, go FLAC.  You will also get hardware support.  WavPack hybrid is for that (special?) case where you can aford to spend a lot of space (384 kbps is more than LAME api) but, still, not THAT much (~800 kbps lossless).  I too believe it gives better quality than MPC (with -hb384x), but they are not the same beast...

I find it sad (sad? I'm getting weird...) that WavPack doesn't get more recognition for it's hybrid more.  I think it is because there is not enough "market" for it yet.

Radetzky

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #23
Quote
Why is the rage?


You obviously never saw me enraged

Quote
I was just asking which would be larger not making any claims.


Well, your phrase looked like you were claiming the first combination took less space, and asked only what was the point of using wavpack hybrid. That's how I interpreted it, at least.


Quote
Is the Wavpack hybrid lossy file + the difference file = size of Wavpack lossless file or any larger?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280749"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


1-2% larger usually. Hardly makes much of a difference compared to pure lossless.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #24
Quote
I find hybrid mode very useful. I have my CD collection ripped in wavpack hybrid, which is available via ftp. A couple of friends have access to it, and they download the lossy part of tracks they want for appreciation purposes. If they like what they hear, they can always download the correction files and get the perfect cd image (cue sheets are available too).[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280742"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is the only good reason I've seen mentioned.

Quote
I find it sad (sad? I'm getting weird...) that WavPack doesn't get more recognition for it's hybrid more.  I think it is because there is not enough "market" for it yet.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280756"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What kind of "market" do you have in mind?
Used the way emtee does, it could be useful for online music stores. But, what are the chances of something like that?

So, like Lunatique, I can't really see the point of Hybrid mode for "normal" usage. Sounds very much like a niche product, to me...

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019