Skip to main content
Topic: WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback? (Read 12169 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #25
Quote
Quote
Bear in mind that FLAC is more widespread than Wavpack, the compression is a little worse but decompression is way faster,
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only with -h mode. WavPack is faster than flac and compressed slightly better on my computer:
[a href="http://foobar2000.net/lossless/decoding.htm]http://foobar2000.net/lossless/decoding.htm[/url]

hybrid mode also increase the decoding time.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352483"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I stand corrected then. I used an older version of wavpack...

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #26
Quote
Thanks for your take.

Any issues with the WavPack and/or FLAC Winamp plug-ins?

Probs with EAC and WavPack?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352440"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Winamp WavPack plug-in doesn't allow tag editing (though I haven't check with the one bundled with wavpack 4.3). It may be worrying (ask to your sister if she needs it).

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #27
Quote
[...]Are you sure?   From what I've been reading in this thread it looks like this work is for you.
Did you take the time to talk to your girlfriend to understand what are her needs? Sorry but all the wavpack, hybrid, correction, cuesheet, -hx2m yadda-yadda seems too complex for addressing the casual listener needs. I wonder if she even knows how to use a correction wavpack file (or if she will ever need to use that)... 
Please don't take me wrong but it seems to me that you are overcomplicating things. What I mean is that maybe MP3 @128 is more than enough (and much easier) for her....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352487"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We're both network admins, and as you can tell by her rig she's fairly knowledgable, also we share a NAS appliance where it'd be more convenient to store the correction files.
That said, the work is indeed for her, but since I'm a WavPack newbie I'd like to experiment a bit with it and I'm also considering using it as my lossless CODEC of choice if current expectations are met, thus the number of questions.

EDIT: Grammar.
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.68 -V 100

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #28
Quote
I'm sorry, but is it yes you do need the wvc files for gapless lossy playback?

WavPack is gapless in all mode: lossless, lossy and hybrid. There's no offset, delay or padding like with most usual lossy formats. Of course, the player itself must be gapless to enjoy the gapless feature

For lossy encoding:
-x increases the encoding time and the quality but not the decoding time
-h increases encoding time, quality AND decoding time

-hx is probably the best way to get the best lossy quality with wavpack.

But if I'm not wrong, David Bryant plans to add soonly some code which should improve lossy quality at "low" bitrate (< 300 kbps).

You may be interested to learn that WavPack lossy is mainly adding noise as only artefact. With loud recordings and without headphone, "low" bitrate encoding could sound transparent. But with greater dynamic music and/or headphone, noise should be perceptible. IMO, WavPack is clearly not the best (i.e. efficient) format for 224-256 encodings. LAME, Vorbis, AAC should be better in most situations.

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #29
Quote
Quote
Thanks for your take.

Any issues with the WavPack and/or FLAC Winamp plug-ins?

Probs with EAC and WavPack?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352440"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Winamp WavPack plug-in doesn't allow tag editing (though I haven't check with the one bundled with wavpack 4.3). It may be worrying (ask to your sister if she needs it).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352490"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just noticed that, thanks for the heads up, it simply displays the info and with an annoying system beep too...

It's my girlfriend, not my sister, and we both use The GodFather, thank you.
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.68 -V 100

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #30
Quote
It's my girlfriend, not my sister, and we both use The GodFather, thank you.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry for your girlfriend.
I'm also using masstagger for tagging, but I'd appreciate to correct some mistakes directly in my favorite players when I notice them  It's faster than launching an external tool, opening the incriminated file, editing it, saving it, and manually refreshing the player's library. Just my opinion


To finish with lossy quality, two words about transcoding quality. Formats like OptimFrog DualStream and WavPack lossy are renowned for their great transcoding abilities.
I personnaly did a short transcoding listening test at ~256 kbps (i.e. not what I consider as transparent for WavPack), and results are interesting:
[a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=32440&hl=]http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=32440&hl=[/url]

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #31
Quote
Quote
I'm sorry, but is it yes you do need the wvc files for gapless lossy playback?

WavPack is gapless in all mode: lossless, lossy and hybrid. There's no offset, delay or padding like with most usual lossy formats. Of course, the player itself must be gapless to enjoy the gapless feature
And according to shadowking the Winamp 5.x plug-in supports gapless playback, so no probs to leave the .wvc files on another system, correct?
Quote
You may be interested to learn that WavPack lossy is mainly adding noise as only artefact. With loud recordings and without headphone, "low" bitrate encoding could sound transparent. But with greater dynamic music and/or headphone, noise should be perceptible. IMO, WavPack is clearly not the best (i.e. efficient) format for 224-256 encodings. LAME, Vorbis, AAC should be better in most situations.
Very interested! Thanks so much, man!
I'm beginning to consider going WavPack lossless and then transcode to LAME MP3, tho the point of my original idea was to save time, storage space (.wv + .wvc takes up less space than lossless .wv + LAME -V 2 --vbr-new .mp3) and use a single CODEC.
Also, no headphones involved, maybe only sporadically.

EDIT: Headphones part + grammar.
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.68 -V 100

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #32
Quote
[...]
I'm also using masstagger for tagging, but I'd appreciate to correct some mistakes directly in my favorite players when I notice them  It's faster than launching an external tool, opening the incriminated file, editing it, saving it, and manually refreshing the player's library. Just my opinion

You're absolutely right, but it'll take way more'n that to steer her away from Winamp.
Quote
To finish with lossy quality, two words about transcoding quality. Formats like OptimFrog DualStream and WavPack lossy are renowned for their great transcoding abilities.
I personnaly did a short transcoding listening test at ~256 kbps (i.e. not what I consider as transparent for WavPack), and results are interesting:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....topic=32440&hl=
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=352495"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dunno how I missed that, pretty interesting indeed, once more thank you.
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.68 -V 100

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #33
All right, I have enough info to get going and lots of food for thought too .

HA is truly an amazing place: experts freely available for pesky noobs , on Saint Stephan's Day too !
I luv ya guys !

Thank you very much to all , especially shadowking and guruboolez, really appreciated.

P.S.
At work I have to deal with highly paid (but often clueless ) Microsoft and IBM "top level"  tech support and in terms of response times and quality they can't hold a candle to you guys.
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.68 -V 100

WavPack or FLAC for PC only playback?

Reply #34
Gonna settle for -hb256xmc for now, and gonna donate immediately !
WavPack 5.1.0 -b384hx6cmv / qaac 2.68 -V 100

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019