Skip to main content
Topic: Why isn't wavpack more popular? (Read 3718 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Hey,

While researching which lossless format to use, I came across this old thread titled "why isn't wavpack more popular?".  After looking into a lot of lossless codecs, I found myself asking the same question.

I read through the thread and saw some of the concerns with the format, but the last message is almost a year old now and dates back prior to any official v4.x releases (that I'm aware of anyway...I'm obviously new to WavPack so don't know the history well). 

So I'm just wondering if all the problems were taken care of in v4.x, or are there still reasons why WavPack isn't more popular than it currently is?  Is it just a chicken/egg scenario (not popular so nobody wants to add hardware support, no hardware support so people go with FLAC instead)?  With fast encode/decode times, great compression, hybrid mode, and OSI approved license (for those who care), I don't see what other reason there could be for not using WavPack.

Anyway, I'm already sold on the format...hybrid encoding made it so much easier to have lossless quality at home and exceptional lossy at work, so thank you for an amazing product bryant!

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #1
IMO its the same thing as winamp vs foobar.

You have flac and ape that are easy to use and cover fast decoding and good compression and you have WavPack that does both well, but needs a few brain cells to learn the features.

Its basically easier to tell someone to download flac and use q6 or monkey's and high, then explain to them all they can do with wavpack.

Also its harder and more unlikely to get hardware support for very flexible codecs.

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #2
I realy don't understand the question itself. Popularity is the last thing I personaly care about so if you likeWavpack and it totaly suitable for you then just use it
Gabber, Jazz and IDM

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #3
FLAC is fast, open source, & multi-platform this of course makes it very popular.

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #4
From my limited understanding WavPack has really only come into its own with version 4.  FLAC and Monkeys Audio have been serious contenders for far longer, so have a greater fan base. Once you've started using one lossless codec I guess it just seems easier to keep using it, rather than familiarise yourself with numerous applications.

I use Monkeys Audio - but if I started all again, with the current state of play, I may well go for WavPack.  I am always impressed by bryant's proactive, and reactive, response to forum user's requests.  WavPack does seem to have a lot going for it.
I'm on a horse.

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #5
Quote
FLAC is fast, open source, & multi-platform this of course makes it very popular.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=267595"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

WavPack is fast, open source, & multi-platform too.  Yet it is not very popular.  I think this is where the question arose.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #6
<zealot>

I would even go further and say that WavPack is faster, as free, and more portable than FLAC. Moreover, the code is much more readable.

</zealot>

I guess it's a matter of "be the first to get the press".

See also: MP3

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #7
Quote
Moreover, the code is much more readable.

I actually have to completely agree with that.  Lots of audio encoder source code is way to jumbled up and confusing for me, but WavPack's source is something even a programming newbie like me has some idea of what he's reading.  I really feel like this is worth applauding as it's helping me learn a few things
Nero AAC 1.5.1.0: -q0.45

Why isn't wavpack more popular?

Reply #8
Could someone help Gambit which seems to have troubles to understand some parts of the source?

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018