IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
WavPack Source Code, Released under the BSD software license.
Annuka
post Dec 14 2002, 06:13
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 333
Joined: 2-February 02
Member No.: 1233



WavPack sourcecode released under the BSD software license:

http://www.wavpack.com

Thank you David Bryant.

This post has been edited by JohnV: Dec 14 2002, 10:33
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Dec 14 2002, 15:59
Post #2


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3762
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



Win32 binaries of WavPack 3.97a available from my others page. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Ingram
post Dec 14 2002, 16:10
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 29-September 01
Member No.: 53



This is great news.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Dec 14 2002, 22:49
Post #4


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



QUOTE (Annuka @ Dec 14 2002 - 12:13 AM)
WavPack sourcecode released under the BSD software license:

Cool, maybe now I can find and fix that 'infinite newlines' bug I have with it on NT so I can finally update the FLAC comparison page.

Oh yeah, and see how WavPack works smile.gif

Josh
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
M
post Dec 16 2002, 01:26
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 964
Joined: 29-December 01
Member No.: 830



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Dec 14 2002 - 04:49 PM)
... so I can finally update the FLAC comparison page.

Great! When you update the comparisons Josh, would you consider adding an "audiobook" track for comparison? I find FLAC is generally able to give a compression ratio around 0.2230 for spoken-word encoding, whereas WavePack's rate hovers around 0.2550. Not a huge difference, but it means FLAC saves 12-13 Mb/hour....

- M.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post Jan 9 2003, 07:11
Post #6


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1297
Joined: 3-January 02
From: San Francisco CA
Member No.: 900



I want to thank all of you for your support. smile.gif

Unfortunately, a couple of developers were not so happy with the WavPack sources because I used a bunch of static variables which make multithreading difficult. Well, I was afraid that eliminating them would hurt performance, but I was quite surprised when I found that it did no such thing. So, I have posted a replacement set of sources that should be completely thread-safe.

Also, I have compressed the self-extraction stub using UPX (thanks to john33 and Roberto for the idea) so now the overhead for that is only 26K per file.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
john33
post Jan 9 2003, 16:11
Post #7


xcLame and OggDropXPd Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 3762
Joined: 30-September 01
From: Bracknell, UK
Member No.: 111



3.97b binaries (ICL6 compiles) posted at my 'Others' page at Mirror 1. smile.gif


--------------------
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jcoalson
post Jan 12 2003, 10:01
Post #8


FLAC Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1526
Joined: 27-February 02
Member No.: 1408



QUOTE (jcoalson @ Dec 14 2002 - 04:49 PM)
Cool, maybe now I can find and fix that 'infinite newlines' bug I have with it on NT so I can finally update the FLAC comparison page.

OK, finally got around to this (took me a couple of hours to get it to build). For me the problem appears to be caused by the code that shows the progress on the window title (display_progress()). If I remove that guy, problem solved. I have no idea why.

The data points I have:

3.91 binaries: both wavpack.exe and wvunpack.exe had the problem
3.96 binaries: only wvunpack.exe had the problem
3.97a compiled from stock sources: only wvunpack.exe had the problem

Bryant, hope you're watching!

QUOTE (jcoalson @ Dec 14 2002 - 04:49 PM)
Oh yeah, and see how WavPack works smile.gif

The code is very interesting. I have not delved too deep but it looks like a novel method. It seems it would be hard to prove that nothing in there is patented though. But such is the way in the U.S.A.

After running my big batch o' tests, the compression in the 'high' mode has improved a lot: in between MAC 3.96 "normal" and flac 1.0.4 "-5". The encoding time is about the same as FLAC but decode time is twice as long as FLAC.

The normal mode is 50% faster than flac -5 and about as fast decoding, with about 1% better compression.

I will have the full results on the comparison page when 1.0.5 comes out. After that, Bryant, if you're conducive to the idea it might be fun to try a WavPack+FLAC hybrid.

Josh
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: 18th December 2014 - 12:18