Skip to main content
Topic: Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack? (Read 29033 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #25
Quote
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?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280744"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One point would be that you'd need only one decoder.  I thinks thats all actually, aside from the fact wavpack does compress better than flac.  A matter of convenience.  Personally wavpack is my favorite format.  I don't use the hybrid stuff since I don't use lossy codec anymore.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #26
Quote
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]

Yet there is only a minimal amount of empirical evidence to support the notion that transcoding from lossy Wavpack is perceptively better than transcoding from HQ Musepack.

Quote
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.

Quote
Den (at www.hydrogenaudio.org) has published, that only wavpack lossy format is able to be transcoded to this rare Atrac format without creating annoying artefacts.

I think you misunderstood, Roberto. What the author states is actually correct. He is saying that all codecs except wavpack produced artifacts audible to Den when transcoding to ATRAC. However, it would be wrong to extrapolate this finding to other destination formats besides ATRAC based on this evidence alone.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #27
wavpack hybrid would be good if had hardware support ... as it is, it is of no use for me ... i can have a flac (archived) and an MP3 (at my player and/or PC), and have the best of both worlds

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #28
Wavpack has lossless mode and hybrid mode, with or without correction files. Hybrid mode is a feature for those who might see some use in it. For those who don't Wavpack is till a very good and featurerich lossless format. So what's really the issue, what's the problem of having one more feature that you can use or ignore? The point of this thread eludes me.....
"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD"
        - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #29
Quote
Yet there is only a minimal amount of empirical evidence to support the notion that transcoding from lossy Wavpack is perceptively better than transcoding from HQ Musepack.


But better than none evidence that transcoding from HQ musepack is better than transcoding from lossy WavPack.

Quote
However, it would be wrong to extrapolate this finding to other destination formats besides ATRAC based on this evidence alone.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280784"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why? Is Atrac so different compared to other psychoacoustic codecs?

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #30
Quote
Wavpack has lossless mode and hybrid mode, with or without correction files. Hybrid mode is a feature for those who might see some use in it. For those who don't Wavpack is till a very good and featurerich lossless format. So what's really the issue, what's the problem of having one more feature that you can use or ignore? The point of this thread eludes me.....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280793"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Eludes me too. I think some people have too much free time on their hands.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #31
Quote
I think you misunderstood, Roberto. What the author states is actually correct. He is saying that all codecs except wavpack produced artifacts audible to Den when transcoding to ATRAC. However, it would be wrong to extrapolate this finding to other destination formats besides ATRAC based on this evidence alone.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280784"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have transcoded wavpack to mp3, vorbis, mpc , wma and aac and the results are usually flawless. I've have never been able to abx any transcode using the -x switch.
wavpack 4.8 -b3x6c

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #32
Quote
But better than none evidence that transcoding from HQ musepack is better than transcoding from lossy WavPack.

Nobody is claiming that transcoding from HQ musepack is better. Due to the technical properties of the formats, it probably isn't. However, Musepack has other advantages, like blazing decoding speed which may be quite useful when you want to transcode something quickly and a transparency bitrate at least 25% smaller than Wavpack. If there is no significant difference in quality, Musepack's advantages may tilt the scale as transcoding source for some people.

Quote
Why? Is Atrac so different compared to other psychoacoustic codecs?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280795"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably not (although we can't know for sure, since ATRAC is closed source, AFAIK); but this is still just an extrapolation and should be regarded with caution until verfied by actual evidence.
It is up to the destination encoder to decide how to handle the incoming data, so if the source is transparent, then any artifacts of the transcoded file must have been introduced by the encoder, which wasn't able to handle the lossy source optimally. Therefore, there could indeed be a difference among different destination formats.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #33
Quote
I have transcoded wavpack to mp3, vorbis, mpc , wma and aac and the results are usually flawless. I've have never been able to abx any transcode using the -x switch.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280800"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Have you tried doing it with the -f switch too? I'm asking it because the ~25% increase in decoding speed given by the -f switch (though it's still 3x slower than Musepack) seems attractive to me for transcoding.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #34
I don't use -f , though i've tried it and nothing bad happened. Measured quality does decrease with -f , though you can make up for it somewhat by using -fx.

The wavpack 4.2 decoder is on par with flac using -f and still very quick without it.
wavpack 4.8 -b3x6c

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #35
Using a PIII 550, Foobar with wv4.2 plugin uses 0-1% cpu using -bx, 1-3% using -h or -hx
wavpack 4.8 -b3x6c

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #36
Quote
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...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280766"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


A niche market indeed.  I guess 80+% users are happy with MP3s WMAs @ 128kbps.  Other more discernible users will want lossless.  Few will have heard about relatively unknown alternatives like MPC and hybrid encoders.

I wouldn't say WavPack lossy is useless.  384 kbps with practically no artifact (and if you get one, it WILL be noise/hiss) or ~800 kbps for lossless vs. ~250 kbps for HQ lossy psychoacoustic codecs... WavPack lossy definitively has a place.  It is just sadly not well known.

Radetz

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #37
I'm starting to think that the niche market Wavpack hybrid was intended for may be exactly what I'm looking for my needs........

I need to be able to rip my CDs and have them sound quite decent (I have dificulty ABXing LAME APS, so I'm not extremely picky) and be able to keep an archive, in case I need to burn the original into a file (DVD burner to the rescue). I've been using FLAC, but my harddrive is filling quick, and transcoding to multiple codecs just doesn't sound like much fun.... Does anyone have any reccomended tools or commandlines to use with EAC for this purpose?

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #38
Quote
I don't use -f , though i've tried it and nothing bad happened. Measured quality does decrease with -f , though you can make up for it somewhat by using -fx.

The wavpack 4.2 decoder is on par with flac using -f and still very quick without it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, does this mean that you haven't been able to ABX -f transcodes either?

I am aware of wavpack 4.2 speed enhancements, but I've been waiting for the final version to come out before I decide to entrust it with some archivals.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #39
I never understood why FLAC having such limited hardware support seems like some kind of advantage. I don't use any of the listed hardwares that support it, and it seems none of the best selling hardwares support it either. Or, has FLAC's hardware support grown significantly since I last looked?

I started this thread not because I have too much time on my hand--in fact, I so busy that I barely have time to sleep (take a look at my website and you'll see why). I asked because it seems strange to offer the hybrid mode when most people who cared about sound quality would want to have that correction file, and the two files add up the the same size as the lossless version anyway. I do like the idea of having both files on a FTP server for friends to choose download without the correction file though.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #40
Quote
I never understood why FLAC having such limited hardware support seems like some kind of advantage. I don't use any of the listed hardwares that support it, and it seems none of the best selling hardwares support it either. Or, has FLAC's hardware support grown significantly since I last looked?

when did you last look?  http://flac.sourceforge.net/links.html#hardware

anyway, h/w support relative to mp3 is not good, but relative to other lossless codecs it's pretty good.  aside from FLAC, you can play ALAC on iPod and that's about it.

Josh

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #41
Quote
Quote
I don't use -f , though i've tried it and nothing bad happened. Measured quality does decrease with -f , though you can make up for it somewhat by using -fx.

The wavpack 4.2 decoder is on par with flac using -f and still very quick without it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280817"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, does this mean that you haven't been able to ABX -f transcodes either?

I am aware of wavpack 4.2 speed enhancements, but I've been waiting for the final version to come out before I decide to entrust it with some archivals.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280860"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



I don't expect to able to abx transcodes with -f in normal situations, i'll try later anyway. Here is a summary of the 'measured' quality (avg noise) on 1 song:


-fb  -60.92db
-fbx -63.73
-b    -64.7
-bx  -65.8
-hb  -66.6
-hbx -66.97

These numbers (noise) don't mean anything, but the differences do and might = perceptual differences too in extreme cases. Basicaly the higher the number the better measured quality. You can see that -f degrades quality by around 4-6db compared with other modes, however -x puts in on-par more or less. You could pump the bitrate by 30-60k to compensate or use -fbx with 15-30k more bitrate and that will match quality. You can do these tests using the -n switch.

Also the output of wavpack 4.2b3 is bit identical to 4.1
wavpack 4.8 -b3x6c

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #42
Thank you for the tests.

Let me get something straight: The speed enhancements with 4.2 are all in the decoder or does the encoder have anything to do with them?

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #43
The encoder has nothing to do with them. You could encode in 4.1 and decode with 4.2, so you get the decoder speed boost. 4.2 has a marginal encoding speed boost for the non -x modes.
wavpack 4.8 -b3x6c

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #44
I just tried out Musepack, and I think it's really nice. It's commonly believed to be the best lossy encoding out there. But how does it compare to Wavpack's Hybrid mode in terms of quality (if you DON'T keep the correction file)?

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #45
Quote
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?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280710"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The idea of lossless compression is that you are attempting to store something verbatim in the smallest possible space. If the hybrid mode produced two files that were smaller than a single lossless file, then obviously it would be possible to simply concatenate the two files and improve the lossless mode. Logically, the hybrid mode files must be bigger than a single lossless file; the idea is to have the extra overhead be as small as possible (like 1% or so).

I think of it the hybrid mode as lossless with additional flexibility. If I want to make some room on my HD I can delete the correction files of albums I don't care about anymore (or have backed up somewhere). When I copy stuff from DVD-R's to listen to I can copy just the lossy files, or I can copy the correction files too if I'm going to burn a CD. And the idea of sampling something online at 256 kbps, and then not having to have wasted that time to download the lossless version makes sense.

But, I believe the real benefit will be with portable use. Being able to have a 256-320 kbps version of music ready to copy directly from your lossless archive will always be faster than transcoding from pure lossless (although you could always do that also). The UPS man brought my new H120 today, and I am excited about working with the RockBox team on getting WavPack support in there, and I see no reason that Neuros support would be difficult either. And WavPack's low-complexity encoding will make it ideal for portable recording also.

BTW, version 4.2 is just a few days away. Thanks for all the support! 

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #46
Quote
BTW, version 4.2 is just a few days away.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280890"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Drool....     

Are there any current development on the Linux side too...?
"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD"
        - Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #47
Quote
...
I've been using FLAC, but my harddrive is filling quick, and transcoding to multiple codecs just doesn't sound like much fun.... Does anyone have any reccomended tools or commandlines to use with EAC for this purpose?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If you mean creating say FLACs AND another format from EAC at the same time (which I think you're asking for), then [a href="http://mareo.monkeydev.org/]MAREO[/url] and Flacattack can do this.  However, transcoding from lossless to lossy is very easy - just use Foobar and do the transcoding ('convert' in Foobar terms) overnight (batch processing).

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #48
@bryant: Thanks for taking the time to give an elaborate answer about Hybrid mode, and not just defend it by saying that people that don't immediately see its usfulness, shouldn't bother. I'm not really familiar with WavPack, and was actually wondering what the point was, as no obvious areas of usage came to mind. But, now I see, and to me the "delete correction file if you're running out of space", is attractive, so I'll look more into it.

Quote
Quote
Wavpack has lossless mode and hybrid mode, with or without correction files. Hybrid mode is a feature for those who might see some use in it. For those who don't Wavpack is till a very good and featurerich lossless format. So what's really the issue, what's the problem of having one more feature that you can use or ignore? The point of this thread eludes me.....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280793"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Eludes me too. I think some people have too much free time on their hands.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=280796"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

@rjamorim: How about we use the post count to measure "too much free time"? You could pretty much close down HA with that kind of attitude, as it implies that there's no need to discuss, learn and share opinions anymore.

As you've been along since the beginning, and has an impressive post count, you probably have alot of knowledge to share. But, judging by your attitude at times, it looks more like you're aiming for the title "The grumpy grandfather"... 

To me, the elaborate answers by knowledgable people, is one of the things that makes this place attractive. It's also the reason why I read alot of different topics.

Why bother with hybrid mode in Wavpack?

Reply #49
Thank you for the explanation Bryant.

I'm now trying to decide between Wavpack, Monkey Audio, and FLAC for my lossless compressions. They all seem to be really good, with bright futures in front of them. So hard to decide. . .. I think Wavpack isn't supported by dbpoweramp yet, and that's kind of important to me because I hate using foobar for sorting collections (I like graphical tab interfaces that's intuitive and neat). So, this leaves only Monkey Audio and FLAC. I've heard that FLAC is more forgiving when it comes to errors. Is that still the case now?

For lossy, I think I'll use MPC from now on, but the idea that you probably won't be able to hear the difference between MPC and a VBR encoded LAME at high quality, it makes me wonder if it's even worth it to give up the universal practicality of mp3.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019