problem samples for WavPack lossy Reply #25 – 2007-05-17 02:29:01 Well, these new realizations will point me in the direction of what kinds of tracks might potentially be the worst. I still think that from an overall practical standpoint, WavPack has been performing well. What I will do is slowly search for more real-life problem samples over the next couple months. If I find one that is as bad as I fear possible (requiring 500 to 550 kbps) then I may give up on WavPack. If I don't find one, then I will use WavPack occasionally but I will change my approach. Because theoretically WavPack can result in disaster on some songs where the high-freq amplitudes are too high, I can't consider it close to perfect anymore. It will be just another (very interesting, because it operates on different principles) lossy codec that must compete and perform similarly to MP3, etc, at comparable bitrate. I still think WavPack is better quality than MP3 at the same low bitrate (200 kbps to 256 kbps) on some songs (loud and noisy), for example.So now I would prefer to encode at perhaps -b384x4s0 (compared to MP3 bitrate, this is still closer to 400 kbps because the WavPack ABR is not exact). If I need more than that for WavPack transparency then I will use MP3 instead for that song or album. I don't want to use settings like -b450 anymore because now I think WavPack doesn't deserve it.The other side of this coin is that I should also check my MP3 encodings more carefully. If there is some song where there is a noticeable artifact at 320 kbps CBR (pre-echo or whatever) then I can use WavPack 400 kbps instead (or even 500 kbps, since in this rare case its the best choice). But usually I'm quite satisfied with MP3 320 kbps CBR at least in practicality. So far I cannot ABX with the original, but perhaps I just didn't learn how yet.