It's not really transparent by default, I've found it needs at least 2 workarounds:
1) need to adjust ATH per track using option ltq_gain based on track loudness (not really viable to do by hand, because each track needs a different value, so you'd need to script that; I wrote it already btw, can upload if someone's interested), otherwise it will delete too much stuff from very quiet tracks
2) it's easily ABXable on a "killer" sample "Fighter_Beat_Loop" even at maximum quality preset (and this sample sounds quite similar to sounds which can be found in some music genres), and I've found only 1 way to work around that (add `--nmt 18` option) which also raises bitrate quite a lot, making it harder to say it's competitive with modern codecs)

I ended up still using it (with that script which ideally shouldn't be needed) because storage limits are not as tight as they used to be, and other lossy codecs have some other problematic samples for which I couldn't find ways to fix. (And I also prefer to be able to encode both 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz content without resampling, because resampling adds too much complexity for gapless encoding of a lot of stuff at once)
There's also LossyFLAC option, but it uses even more bits to achieve transparency everywhere.

[...] other lossy codecs have some other problematic samples for which I couldn't find ways to fix.[...]

Quote from: magicgoose on 2020-09-09 15:42:43

[...] other lossy codecs have some other problematic samples for which I couldn't find ways to fix.[...]

 Did you give Wavpack hybrid a try? I mean, at least with my sig's settings I was unable to hear anything on even samples as problematic as Eig.

well, for putting mind at rest LossyFLAC should be better because it has a well defined target of quality in well defined metrics (minimum signal to noise ratio over certain ranges) so you can pick a specific quality level and be done; that's unlike WavPack (you choose bitrate and never really know which quality it will be able to achieve within this bitrate).

musepack is still a good option for well tuned parameters
and reasonably lean bitrates.

The other codecs like opus, vorbis, aac have VBR but simply throw
the 'use higher Q value for HQ and lower for lower quality etc..'
as well as things like CVBR vs VBR debates.

It seems a tuned efficient 'set and forget' system was never considered.
it may well be that this is not significant but I still think there
is an advantage to musepack .   mpc @ standard and extreme is much leaner
than 'new normal' 256 ~ 320k of other codecs.

Beside transparency there's also a question of artifacts. I find MPC and lossyWAV artifacts tolerable. I hate MP3's and most other codecs' pre-echo and ringing artifacts.

Beside transparency there's also a question of artifacts. I find MPC and lossyWAV artifacts tolerable. I hate MP3's and most other codecs' pre-echo and ringing artifacts.

Quote from: magicgoose on 2020-09-11 17:52:18

well, for putting mind at rest LossyFLAC should be better because it has a well defined target of quality in well defined metrics (minimum signal to noise ratio over certain ranges) so you can pick a specific quality level and be done; that's unlike WavPack (you choose bitrate and never really know which quality it will be able to achieve within this bitrate).

But, Only at higher than 400k . In which case, Wavpack error margin is expected to
be non issue if we match lossywav top settings vs wavpack 500k -hx4.

Quote from: shadowking on 2020-09-13 11:59:39

Quote from: magicgoose on 2020-09-11 17:52:18

well, for putting mind at rest LossyFLAC should be better because it has a well defined target of quality in well defined metrics (minimum signal to noise ratio over certain ranges) so you can pick a specific quality level and be done; that's unlike WavPack (you choose bitrate and never really know which quality it will be able to achieve within this bitrate).

But, Only at higher than 400k . In which case, Wavpack error margin is expected to
be non issue if we match lossywav top settings vs wavpack 500k -hx4.

But can it be proved in general? I don't think so.
In contrast, it's trivially ensured with LossyWAV, because the S/N ratios are the original constraint chosen by you.
If we're really talking about putting mind at rest, then the presence of proof beats the absence of proof.

musepack is still a good option for well tuned parameters
and reasonably lean bitrates.

The other codecs like opus, vorbis, aac have VBR but simply throw
the 'use higher Q value for HQ and lower for lower quality etc..'
as well as things like CVBR vs VBR debates.

Quote from: shadowking on 2020-09-13 12:47:36

musepack is still a good option for well tuned parameters
and reasonably lean bitrates.

The other codecs like opus, vorbis, aac have VBR but simply throw
the 'use higher Q value for HQ and lower for lower quality etc..'
as well as things like CVBR vs VBR debates.

Didn't the MPC devs tune the 160 ~ 320k area only?, with 176kbps getting most of the effort. The biggest issue i noticed on some harder samples mpc @176k, Will pump out 230 ~ 850kbps to aid on transparency. But on those 3 codecs they mostly don't do that unless your at 256kbps & some decoders fail when it reaches 500kbps+.

On Opus @96k with ambient content I've seen it reach ~190kbps, Yet MPC/Lame at 175kbps will average 100kbps +/-. Noticed too when Lame V5 is done on a public listening test.