Skip to main content
Topic: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200 (Read 19419 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Hello, good day.

I've been using -b24x6 (around 200kbps for CD quality audio) ever since I moved my complete collection to WavPack, and I listen to only the lossy WavPacks on both my phone and my desktop computer (I keep the lossless on my external HD, for burning CDs et cetera.)

Ever since the start, lossy WavPack at -b24 (literally the lowest) is pretty much transparent to me. Granted, I don't have expensive headphones, but it's good enough for me.

Now, I have heard people say that lossy WavPack at that bitrate is bad etc. (I don't remember who exactly) but I don't think I hear a difference.

Now, I would just like to ask, how bad does it really sound? What atrifacts does lossy WavPack have compared to, for example, MP3? I don't notice a lowpass filter, pre-echo, or anything... Looking at spectrums, I see a higher noise floor, but it doesn't sound as bad as it looks--I don't even notice it. Would you be willing to listen to -b24 lossy WavPack or is it really bad, and I'm just not wearing quality headphones?  :D

Just curious. Thanks in advance to your reply :)

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #1
RTFM!!!!11111 ;P
http://www.wavpack.com/wavpack_doc.html#usage
and yes, not exist a codec the worst of mp3

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #2
200 kbps is a lot, if you recall that Opus is usually transparent at < 128 kbps (if we talk about stereo, of course).
as far as I remember, wavpack completely breaks down if you try to push it as "low".

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #3
I see a higher noise floor, but it doesn't sound as bad as it looks--
Listen to isolated high pitched, hard panned tonal sounds, like a triangle. They will turn to puffs of noise, merge together, and may become more prominent as the coding noise extends to a lower frequency. The noise will add "sand" to crash cymbals, they will get a synthetic quality like in old video games with FM music, and also to sibilant s-sounds in older music (like Freddie Mercury), and to sharp big band instruments.

Try encoding "Equinoxe Part 3" and "Part 4" by Jean-Michel Jarre. Part 3 will be destroyed. Listen to what happens to the hihat in the left channel and to the sweeps in Part 4. This is an artificial example, the defects are not as obvious in acoustic music. But then again lots of music is artificial today.

I wouldn't want to wait for an x6 encode. If I had a CPU from space, then I'd have enough storage space as well...

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #4
I'm surprised that 200 kbps WavPack lossy has not bothered you, especially since you are not even using the high modes. However, like you say, since it's not a transform codec you are not going to get artifacts common to those codecs like low-pass or pre-echo. You'll just get added broadband noise, and WavPack does its best to shove it around so you'll be less likely to hear it.

I have a few albums encoded at around 256 kbps that I listen to regularly and they're quite acceptable, and as long as you have the correction files you can always change your mind.

As j7n suggests, it also depends on the type of music you're listening to. Music that covers the whole spectrum (like heavy metal) might encode pretty well at that rate, while solo piano or violin won't because there's just no place to hide the noise.

A final factor is the background noise when you're listening, which is more important than your actual  headphones. If you listen on the subway it will be a lot harder to hear than in a quiet place.

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #5
wavpack lossy could have been a bit more interesting if it had true quality-based bitrate allocation mode (based on some kind of signal to noise metric). it has troubles at high frequency prediction sometimes, that's true, but it doesn't have to create audible artifacts in these places if it could just use more bits in problematic regions.

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #6
My suggestion is -b3 (265k) if the goal is keeping filesize size down while retaining usually transparent quality . -b2.5 (224k) for pushing it further . Use -b2 (196k) ONLY if getting the smallest wv file size is the main goal .
wavpack 4.8 -b3hx4c

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #7
200 kbps is a lot, if you recall that Opus is usually transparent at < 128 kbps (if we talk about stereo, of course).
as far as I remember, wavpack completely breaks down if you try to push it as "low".

Don't believe it as this forum is full of hype . Not much testing is done as compared to 15 yrs ago . I am personally am not convinced. low bitrate Opus 32..64k  totally sucks (way more than wv lowest setting) going by what I heard and the 1st audio test I did. And this is natural music ..

I uploaded the case here:

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,117915.new.html#new
wavpack 4.8 -b3hx4c


Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #9
Forgot to mention, Weeks ago I encoded spoken word albums with WV 200k and the result was good. For regular stereo 'music' , I will use around 265k

You can test a short speech sample:
http://www.rarewares.org/test_samples/female_speech.wv
wavpack 4.8 -b3hx4c

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #10
why are you even comparing Opus at 64 kbps to WavPack at 200 kbps?
try 96 (true vbr), that's where it begins to be transparent for most ppl.

 

Re: How would you describe WavPack's lossy quality at the lowest setting (around 200

Reply #11
why are you even comparing Opus at 64 kbps to WavPack at 200 kbps?
try 96 (true vbr), that's where it begins to be transparent for most ppl.

I am not . Just pointing out that Opus also degrades more than it should when ' going low'.  Since 64k don't encode to well with problem samples , maybe 128k + is needed and there you can also use other codecs. And no, its not only about transparency, But rather how gracefully the degradation / deviation occur once you are not transparent - in this case opus does it ugly.

And it is known , WV lossy, lossywav is not for people interested in 128 ..192k.   They come and whine about it all over the internet saying it sucks because they can't use 128k or sounds bad @ 200k.  Does one typically use mp3 @ 64k  ?
wavpack 4.8 -b3hx4c

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019