IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
WavPack 3.95
JohnV
post May 8 2002, 06:11
Post #1





Group: Developer
Posts: 2797
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 6



http://www.wavpack.com/
WavPack 3.95
Hybrid Lossless Audio Compression

5/7/2002: A great new Windows frontend has been created for WavPack. Now there's no need to remember all the WavPack options because all the major modes and features are directly visible, plus there's better support for filenames with international characters. WavPack 3.95 is required for this new frontend, and it has a couple of new features as well. It can now do batch processing from a list file in cases where wildcards aren't applicable, and WvUnpack can restore directly to stdout for use with certain encoders that don't require an intermediate wav file. Finally, some problems were fixed that caused 3.94 to run slowly sometimes.


--------------------
Juha Laaksonheimo
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Speek
post May 8 2002, 11:39
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 31-October 01
Member No.: 386



The new frontend can be found here: http://home.wanadoo.nl/~w.speek/wavpack.htm
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iwod
post May 8 2002, 17:27
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 15-January 02
Member No.: 1035



has anybody used it yet??
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Speek
post May 8 2002, 18:21
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 31-October 01
Member No.: 386



QUOTE
Originally posted by iwod
has anybody used it yet??
Yes, I did. It works biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iwod
post May 9 2002, 12:58
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 15-January 02
Member No.: 1035



for a 4 min of pop music... how big is the hypid file and the correction file??
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LIF
post May 9 2002, 13:02
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 232
Joined: 23-April 02
Member No.: 1853



Its has a interesting hybrid mode(lossy)...
Can anyone tell me about the quality of that(at 320), compared to Lame, at the same bitrate?
The compression speed is very good.
WavPack can go over 320(lossy)...Any advantage?

LIF


--------------------
"Jazz washes away the dust of everyday life" (Art Blakey)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post May 9 2002, 17:18
Post #7


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1291
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



QUOTE
Originally posted by iwod
for a 4 min of pop music... how big is the hypid file and the correction file??

The size of the lossy file plus the size of the correction file are just 1 or 2 percent larger than the size of a pure lossless file. So, if a pop track gets typically 40% lossless compression then that means that an original 40 meg wav file would be 24 meg lossless. In the hybrid mode (at 320 kbps) the lossy file would be about 9 meg and the correction file would be about 16 meg. For quieter music (like classical or acoustic jazz) the lossy and correction files tend to be closer to the same size.

QUOTE
Can anyone tell me about the quality of that(at 320), compared to Lame, at the same bitrate? 
Its much faster. 
WavPack can go over 320...Any advantage?

I have done some testing with the EAQUAL program and listening and think that the quality of the hybrid mode at 320 kbps is about the same as Lame at 192 kbps. The quality of the hybrid mode drops pretty quickly below 320 kbps, but I would guess that at 265 it’s still about the same as Lame at 128.

However, it is somewhat difficult to compare the quality to Lame or other high complexity encoders because the artifacts are very different. WavPack’s hybrid mode has absolutely no time smearing and always has ruler flat frequency response. The only possible artifact is added quantization noise (which is modulated by the signal) and I find this to be less irritating (when audible) than most other artifacts.

Going over 320 kbps does improve the quality (384 tests almost perfect in EAQUAL). If you use the “-n” option you can see that the noise added drops about 1 dB for every 15 kbps and that continues all the way up to lossless. So, while there’s no doubt that the result is proportionally closer to the original, at some point the benefit becomes only psychological.

BTW, I posted this over on r3mix also. Feel free to post again if you have more questions...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th August 2014 - 01:07