IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

WavPack 4.0 Beta Release 2, including sources
bryant
post May 7 2004, 06:01
Post #1


WavPack Developer


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



The second beta release of WavPack 4.0 includes the following:
  • stable format (beta1 files okay too; beta1 decoder obsolete)
  • decodes and plays legacy WavPack files (vers 1.0 to 3.97)
  • sources available with new decoding library
download win32 executables plus winamp2/5 & foobar2000 plugins
download sources

This post has been edited by bryant: May 14 2004, 08:06
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
den
post May 10 2004, 03:20
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 18-February 03
From: Perth, Western Australia
Member No.: 5050



OK, as promised some Wavpack lossy listening test results for those who care.

Just to be sure, I grabbed the latest version linked on HA, ie beta2.zip, and got the following results.

First, I took the kraftwerk1, Waiting, queen - another one bites the dust, rushing and porcelain samples from ff123's site (thanks ff123!), decoded the flacs into wavs, and then encoded them with the beta using -hb256, -hb256x6, -b320, -hb320, -hb320x6. I didn't record times, but each encode was lightning quick except the x6 ones, which were painfully slow. (ie the non x settings took a matter of seconds for all the samples, where as each x6 encode took minutes)

I chose the above samples as I felt like a change from the samples I've used in the past with Wavpack 3.97.

kraftwerk1:
hb256 - not bad quality, but easy to ABX 10/10. Slight change detectable in the background fuzz. Also slight distortion in the three notes that come in 2.4-3.8 secs. Not really noticeable except in an ABX situation.
hb256x6 - very little difference to hb256 case. ABX 10/10
b320 - no real difference in background fuzz problem compared to hb256. Distortion on the three notes in 2.4 - 3.8 secs gone. ABX 10/10
hb320 - can not ABX consistently. Sometimes I think I can hear a hint of the fuzz, but can't consistently pick it so it is statistically transparent. ABX scores were ever better than 7/10 and were usually 5/10.

waiting:
hb256 - some slight noise around the vocals in the opening, but damn it's hard to pick every time. I can ABX it, but only consistently getting 8/10.
hb256x6 - can't ABX. Transparent. Blah!
Relatively noisy or busy samples like this one are good for Wavpack lossy to hide its sins within. It's when you have solo instruments and gaps in the music that any added noise can become more obvious.

Another one bites the dust:
hb256 - can ABX 10/10, but must concentrate, slight change in background noise in the recording, plus a hint of "dustiness" around the percussion.
hb256x6 - can still ABX, but it is much harder, and failed first attempt (6/10), but then got it the next couple trials in a row. (10/10 and 10/10)
b320 - can not ABX consistently. Sometimes I think I can hear a slight change in the b/g noise, but not consistently. Effectively transparent.
hb320 - transparent.

porcelain:
hb256 - Can ABX (10/10), slight changes in the noise/distortion that is part of the opening samples within the music.
b320 - still there, much much more subtle.
hb320 - got me, it's transparent.

rushing:
hb256 - at 4.5 secs in where some chords kick in, there is a slight but noticeable change in noise around the chords. (10/10)
hb256x6 - no change or improvement from hb256. (10/10)
b320 - bugger, it's transparent. (6/10, 6/10 and 5/10)

So in summary? hb256 is not normally going to be transparent, but it is still very good. None of these samples were disasters at 256 kbit. I wonder if Sony's new ATRAC 256kbit is this good? (I have my doubts, but I haven't tested it yet.)

hb256x6 sometimes makes some difference, but it is not consistent, and should not be counted on.

b320 is damn good and lightning quick to encode/decode. I personally would not use it as my default, as I prefer the extra security of hb320, but b320 will be transparent a lot of the time for most samples I believe.

hb320 is my choice for now. It is still quite quick, and seems to work very well at removing those little niggly changes in the noise to my ears. I can't comment on the benefits of hb320x6, as the hb320 has been transparent on the samples I have played with so far.

From the results above, you can see that I didn't get to even listen to the hb320x6 samples in this test, as transparency was reached in each case. Besides, life is too short! wink.gif

I haven't extensively tested the new Wavpack 4 lossy beta for transcoding performance, but I can not think of any reason to suspect it will have changed from the previous versions. I have started transpferring some parts of my collection to Wavpack 4 beta 2, and have not stumbled across any problem transcodes to ATRAC on my minidisc yet. cool.gif

Later,

Den.


--------------------
Den
My blog - http://www.iinet.net.au/~den
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- bryant   WavPack 4.0 Beta Release 2   May 7 2004, 06:01
- - xmixahlx   excellent! so porting to, say, libwavpack lib...   May 7 2004, 07:05
- - aabxx   I tried the new asymmetrical encoding... very slow...   May 7 2004, 07:19
- - NRAninja   Hello bryant, I like Wavpack 4 very much. I notic...   May 7 2004, 07:23
- - Tec9SD   QUOTE (NRAninja @ May 7 2004, 01:23 AM)I was ...   May 7 2004, 07:37
- - robUx4   We're planning to have WavPack handling native...   May 7 2004, 08:07
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (aabxx @ May 7 2004, 07:19 AM)A typical...   May 7 2004, 09:29
- - tcmjr   Hey Bryant , nice to see you again Had an Hdd cra...   May 7 2004, 14:24
- - mrbruno   hi ! wavpack seems to be a very interesting ...   May 7 2004, 17:12
- - Tomb   You can tag with ID3v1, ID3v2 or APE2. I tag with ...   May 7 2004, 17:19
- - mrbruno   well, I'd like to tag wavpack files with ID3 t...   May 7 2004, 17:27
- - rjamorim   QUOTE (Tec9SD @ May 7 2004, 03:37 AM)QUOTE (N...   May 7 2004, 18:12
- - robUx4   I'm currently porting the sources to Linux (ke...   May 7 2004, 18:19
- - emtee   What about seeking? I remember version 3.97 had so...   May 7 2004, 18:21
- - Speek   QUOTE What about seeking? I remember version 3.97 ...   May 7 2004, 19:07
- - tcmjr   QUOTE (emtee @ May 7 2004, 09:21 AM)What abou...   May 7 2004, 19:17
- - Tec9SD   QUOTE (mrbruno @ May 7 2004, 11:27 AM)well, I...   May 7 2004, 19:27
- - robUx4   The modified sources that work both under Win32 an...   May 7 2004, 21:35
- - rjamorim   Wonderful. Thank-you very much @xmixahlx: Where ...   May 7 2004, 22:25
- - naturfreak   Bug in Wavpack4 beta2 (win32 executable)? Hello, ...   May 7 2004, 22:44
- - tcmjr   no problem using windows xp sp1 all patches   May 7 2004, 23:28
- - kuniklo   QUOTE (robUx4 @ May 7 2004, 08:35 PM)The modi...   May 7 2004, 23:38
- - den   Now that Wavpack 4 is relatively stable, and the f...   May 8 2004, 00:21
- - xmixahlx   QUOTE (rjamorim @ May 7 2004, 01:25 PM)@xmixa...   May 8 2004, 07:16
- - Pamel   QUOTE (tcmjr @ May 7 2004, 01:17 PM)First of ...   May 8 2004, 07:29
- - robUx4   QUOTE (xmixahlx @ May 8 2004, 07:16 AM)a few ...   May 8 2004, 09:12
- - FireStarter   Maybe i am blind and it have already been posted, ...   May 8 2004, 12:39
- - tcmjr   No foobar plugin for wavpack 4 yet.   May 8 2004, 13:18
- - robUx4   I fixed all the known bugs in Linux. You can find ...   May 8 2004, 15:00
- - xmixahlx   optimfrog is closed source, florin just hasn't...   May 8 2004, 15:01
- - robUx4   What's the license of Monkey's Audio ? I w...   May 8 2004, 15:05
- - Peter   I see WavPack author has yet to discover the idea ...   May 8 2004, 15:38
- - robUx4   With David's permission I'll work on a lib...   May 8 2004, 15:57
- - glauco   TEST MACHINE Intel Pentium 4 2,4 GHz. 512 MB DDR ...   May 8 2004, 20:05
- - den   OK, as promised some Wavpack lossy listening test ...   May 10 2004, 03:20
- - The_Cisco_Kid   Played with it briefly, saw it was no joy in FB2k ...   May 10 2004, 03:50
- - bryant   First of all, thanks to everyone who has tried out...   May 10 2004, 05:44
- - Cerebus   I, too, would like a way to perform the replaygain...   May 10 2004, 21:12
- - NRAninja   The single file image and separate tracks issue is...   May 10 2004, 21:20
- - ghido   Hello, Here it is a little summary of WavPack 4.0...   May 11 2004, 00:41
- - den   QUOTE Hello, Here it is a little summary of WavPa...   May 11 2004, 02:14
- - Pamel   QUOTE (NRAninja @ May 10 2004, 03:20 PM)The s...   May 11 2004, 04:05
- - den   Ok, you asked for it... kraftwerk1: 264 Kb WV hb2...   May 12 2004, 11:52
- - den   Just to make sure that all is clear: QUOTE waitin...   May 12 2004, 13:59
- - bryant   My first attempt at an updated Foobar2000 plugin h...   May 14 2004, 08:00
- - den   Thanks David. If there was anything holding Wavpac...   May 14 2004, 08:47
- - john33   New 4.0b2 foobar2k plugin binary now at Rarewares.   May 14 2004, 09:05
- - FireStarter   Other then using foobar for transcode wavepack, is...   May 14 2004, 10:12
- - Speek   Thanks for the foobar component. It works fine (so...   May 14 2004, 11:25
- - robUx4   Maybe that should be an option, with a third possi...   May 14 2004, 13:13
- - robUx4   The latest sources are now uploaded on the CVS of ...   May 14 2004, 14:09
- - glauco   WOW!!! Linux version, foobar plugin, ...   May 14 2004, 15:27
- - bryant   QUOTE (naturfreak @ May 7 2004, 01:44 PM)Afte...   May 15 2004, 20:12
- - Pamel   QUOTE (bryant @ May 15 2004, 02:12 PM)Yes, on...   May 17 2004, 22:49
- - HansHeijden   For those interested, just updated the compression...   May 19 2004, 19:33
- - SometimesWarrior   QUOTE (HansHeijden @ May 19 2004, 11:33 AM)Fo...   May 20 2004, 07:47
- - den   @FireStarter Sorry I didn't answer you before...   May 20 2004, 10:07
- - robUx4   For those interrested, I've tuned the Wavpack ...   Jun 1 2004, 21:38
- - rjamorim   Elite! Thanks   Jun 1 2004, 21:54
- - MyAdviceIha   It has been a while since any updates have been to...   Jun 18 2004, 16:26
- - robUx4   I guess it's quite stable. Unfortunately CoreC...   Jun 18 2004, 16:54
- - bryant   QUOTE (MyAdviceIha @ Jun 18 2004, 07:26 AM)It...   Jun 19 2004, 18:26
- - Tec9SD   Nice to hear, thank you all for your time and effo...   Jun 20 2004, 09:08
- - bryant   QUOTE (Tec9SD @ Jun 20 2004, 12:08 AM)Has MD5...   Jun 21 2004, 05:28
- - dzy   is the md5 going to be the md5 of decoded raw data...   Jun 21 2004, 07:59
- - bryant   QUOTE (dzy @ Jun 20 2004, 10:59 PM)is the md5...   Jun 21 2004, 18:40
- - guruboolez   Does it mean that files need to be decoded in orde...   Jun 21 2004, 18:45
- - bryant   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jun 21 2004, 09:45 AM)Doe...   Jun 21 2004, 19:13
- - guruboolez   QUOTE (bryant @ Jun 21 2004, 07:13 PM)Aren...   Jun 21 2004, 19:34
- - bryant   QUOTE (guruboolez @ Jun 21 2004, 10:34 AM)Cha...   Jun 21 2004, 19:49
- - robUx4   IMO it's good to compute it on the encoded dat...   Jun 21 2004, 21:49


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 - 07:23