Jump to content

Sky Slate Blueberry Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate

WavPack - Hybrid Lossless Audio Compression [CMD]


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic
BoBo
  • Guests
  • Last active:
  • Joined: --

WavPack is a completely open audio compression format providing lossless, high-quality lossy, and a unique hybrid compression mode. Although the technology is loosely based on previous versions of WavPack, the new version 4 format has been designed from the ground up to offer unparalleled performance and functionality.

In the default lossless mode WavPack acts just like a WinZip compressor for audio files. However, unlike MP3 or WMA encoding which can affect the sound quality, not a single bit of the original information is lost, so there's no chance of degradation. This makes lossless mode ideal for archiving audio material or any other situation where quality is paramount. The compression ratio depends on the source material, but generally is between 30% and 70%.

The hybrid mode provides all the advantages of lossless compression with an additional bonus. Instead of creating a single file, this mode creates both a relatively small, high-quality lossy file that can be used all by itself, and a "correction" file that (when combined with the lossy file) provides full lossless restoration. For some users this means never having to choose between lossless and lossy compression!

WavPack employs only well known, public domain techniques (i.e., linear prediction with LMS adaptation, Elias and Golomb codes) in its implementation. Methods and algorithms that have ever been patented (e.g., arithmetic coding, LZW compression) are specifically avoided. This ensures that WavPack encoders and decoders will remain open and royalty-free.

Features:
Compatible with virtually all PCM audio formats including 8, 16, 24, and 32-bit ints; 32-bit floats; mono, stereo, and multichannel; sampling rates from 6 to 192 kHz (and non-standard rates)
Multiplatform support including Windows, Linux, and OS X
Instantly seekable and streaming capable (and gapless)
ReplayGain (including WavPack file scanner and compatible plugins)
Uses ID3v1 and APEv2 tags for metadata (including ReplayGain)
Error-tolerant block format conducive to hardware decoding
Optional "asymmetrical" mode for improved compression
MD5 audio checksums for verification and identification
Unique hybrid mode (provides high quality lossy + "correction" file
Hybrid mode now operates as low as 2.25 bits/sample (or 196 kbps for CD audio)
Free and open source with easy to use library interface and unrestrictive license (BSD)
Intuitive command line interface (with wildcards and destination directory)
Small, efficient executable (no large programs or dlls to install)
Self-extracting archives with cuesheets (Windows only)
Fully backward compatible to WavPack 1.0
Complete piping support

[More..]

8)

Laszlo
  • Moderators
  • 4713 posts
  • Last active: Mar 31 2012 03:17 AM
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2005
To get the last bit of sound quality from your music ripped from a CD, use this lossless compression. The files will be 4..10 times larger then with high quality MP3 coding, but storage capacity is cheap. Go and buy larger hard drives! (Guess, what company I work for!)

jonny
  • Members
  • 2951 posts
  • Last active: Feb 24 2008 04:22 AM
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2004
Whatever happened to flac?

jballi
  • Members
  • 1029 posts
  • Last active:
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005

Whatever happened to flac?

FLAC is alive and well.

There are quite a few lossless compression tools out there. I'm a Monkey's Audio fan myself but I do like FLAC and WavPack. Here's a pretty good Hydrogenaudio article (includes links) that compares most of the lossless compression tools:

<!-- m -->http://wiki.hydrogen... ... comparison<!-- m -->

jonny
  • Members
  • 2951 posts
  • Last active: Feb 24 2008 04:22 AM
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2004
I like flac because it's the only one with a popular dedicated compressor available in most Linux package systems. I play most of my music on my Windows PC, but I rip CD's on Linux, and I encode them as flac first. Once I've listened to the whole CD a few times, I encode them all as mp3 for storage on my iPod, but I also keep the flac's of the songs I really like, for playback on the high-fidelity speakers connected to my Windows machine.

Lossy formats, of course, are another story. I only use mp3 because most of my library is encoded in mid-quality mp3 already, and that's the format they usually come in... through perfectly legitimate venues, of course...

majkinetor
  • Moderators
  • 4512 posts
  • Last active: May 20 2019 07:41 AM
  • Joined: 24 May 2006
256 MP3 is alrady known as audio quolity as reserarched long time ago by R3MIX.NET. THere was also a test somewhere in AMerica done with 200 golden ears and 2 sets of audio hardware worth 50 000 $. That test gave 256b MP3 audio quiolity as only 10% of the test sounds were recognised as mp3 (and we are talking here about ppl with extraordinary hearing). There is also variable bit rate audio quolity variant, researched by the same crew. This one deserved special consideration by Lame developers so they provided the lame switch name --r3mix witch is acctually preset of other switches so you get the same output as recomended by R3MIX. In razorlame frontend for lame in presets folder there is R3MIX folder with mentioned presets. R3 guys did extensive scientific testing with various compressors and audio data.
Posted Image

jballi
  • Members
  • 1029 posts
  • Last active:
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005

256 MP3 is alrady known as audio quolity as reserarched long time ago by R3MIX.NET...

A lossless compression program is not just for playback purposes.

A good use for a lossless compression tool like WavPack, Monkey's Audio, et. al., is for storage purposes. These programs provide a means of saving the original WAV file, a "master" if you will, without having to re-rip the track from the original CD and without using all the space of the original CD track. Since the final product is a good ole' computer file, you can store the file on a CD, DVD, hard disk, etc. If you save and store the extracted track, you will never have to re-extract the track from the CD ever again.

Once extracted and stored, the master file can be used as is -- many vendors support plug-ins for players like Winamp and Windows Media Player --- or it can be used to encode to any other media type (MP3, Ogg Vorbis, WMA, etc., etc) and quality (128, 256, VBR, etc., etc.)

Audio CDs do last for a very long time but if they are lost, scratched, or otherwised damaged, you're out the $7-$20. Saving an extracted "master" file in another location might be a good idea for those of us who have invested buku bucks in audio CDs.

Them be my thoughts...

PhiLho
  • Moderators
  • 6850 posts
  • Last active: Jan 02 2012 10:09 PM
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2005
I suppose they are also precious for sound processing.
That's the same difference using Jpeg images as temporary storage when processing an image, and some lossless format like PNG. Each time you save a processed Jpeg image, you loose details and lower quality.

storage capacity is cheap

Except on portable players...

I only use mp3 because most of my library is encoded in mid-quality mp3 already

Well, and perhaps to ear music on such player... (I know you wrote that, but you wrote only...) Unless iPod can be hacked to read Flac too?
Posted Image vPhiLho := RegExReplace("Philippe Lhoste", "^(\w{3})\w*\s+\b(\w{3})\w*$", "$1$2")

jonny
  • Members
  • 2951 posts
  • Last active: Feb 24 2008 04:22 AM
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2004

Unless iPod can be hacked to read Flac too?


I suppose it's possible, since you can load alternate software on an iPod (such as Rockbox or iPodLinux), but it doesn't natively support flac.

I wouldn't do that, though, because flac takes about 7-8 times more space than mp3 (if I recall). I already have to pick and choose which songs go on my 4gb nano, out of my ~15gb music collection.

majkinetor
  • Moderators
  • 4512 posts
  • Last active: May 20 2019 07:41 AM
  • Joined: 24 May 2006
2 jballi
In the R3MIX they call this ARCHIVE QUOLITY, witch means that you can return that mp3 to wav and record it to the disk without noticable quolity loss. If your cat and dog can't hear the difference you can't to, beleive me. PPl with golden ears have large scale of frequency hearing, similar to mentioned animals.


I suppose they are also precious for sound processing.

General sound processing is so CPU extensive that adding any layer of compression, loseless or not is generaly not an option.

The looseles compression is ofcourse good for making audio data intact while compressed but it is snobistic thing in listening domain. Nobody can make a difference between good 256 MP3 and WAV. For other sound domains, like anylising earthquakes and such, where eatch frequency must be intact as it contains valuable anylises data, looseles compression is must for backuping/saving or whatever purposes.
Posted Image

jballi
  • Members
  • 1029 posts
  • Last active:
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2005

In the R3MIX they call this ARCHIVE QUOLITY, witch means that you can return that mp3 to wav and record it to the disk without noticable quolity loss...

I'm trying very hard to stay out of the "sound quality" discussion. I've found that many people have many many opinions on this subject. It's impossible to win that one.

My pitch is for the compression and storage features of these tools.

Them be my thoughts...

majkinetor
  • Moderators
  • 4512 posts
  • Last active: May 20 2019 07:41 AM
  • Joined: 24 May 2006

I'm trying very hard to stay out of the "sound quality" discussion

Why are you posting here then ? This topic is about sound qoulity.

I've found that many people have many many opinions on this subject. It's impossible to win that one.

The thing I refer is not an opinion! It is scientific proof. On the site, back in time there was a lot of graphics, theory, spectrograms, acoustics and psihoacoustics etc...

Anyway, if you are sceptic put CBR 320 Lame MP3 witch have better compression then loseless and you can be sure that sound qoulity is the highest possible if you are not an alien. You can also put such mp3s on MP3 player without loosing too much space.
Posted Image

Ryushi
  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Last active: Jan 31 2007 12:37 PM
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2005

I'm trying very hard to stay out of the "sound quality" discussion

Why are you posting here then ? This topic is about sound qoulity.

Hi majkinetor,

this thread was about a "ZIP-like compressor" (WavPack) for sound/music.
Then you started posting comments about the very subjective audioquality of a lossy audio compressor (mp3).

I've found that many people have many many opinions on this subject. It's impossible to win that one.

The thing I refer is not an opinion! It is scientific proof. On the site, back in time there was a lot of graphics, theory, spectrograms, acoustics and psihoacoustics etc...

It is true that most people can't distinguish most of the time between listening to high quality mp3 music and a compact disc (this is especially true on crappy audio hardware). But many people can distinguish between them if they learned what they should listen for.

Anyway, if you are sceptic put CBR 320 Lame MP3 witch have better compression then loseless and you can be sure that sound quality is the highest possible if you are not an alien. You can also put such mp3s on MP3 player without loosing too much space.


There is not much difference between a (lame encoded) 160kbit-mp3-file (vbr) and a 320kbit-mp3-file. Especially so-called "killersamples" with will produce hearable so-called artefacts (echos, ringing, clicking) in the mp3-file which aren't there in the original wave-file.

Never the less: nowadays with cheap mass storage (DVD+/-R, 250+GB hard drives) it is no problem to archive well tagged music with a lossless compressor like WavPack, FLAC or MonkeyAudio. Most music can be compress to 35%-85% (= 500kbit - 1200kbit) of its original size (= 1411kbit).

For portable listening - especially in noisy environment - MP3 or AAC is good enough. And it is no problem to "transcode" your lossless music archive automatically to any lossy format with whatever bitrate you need (for your new portable player).

Cya Ryushi

jonny
  • Members
  • 2951 posts
  • Last active: Feb 24 2008 04:22 AM
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2004

The thing I refer is not an opinion! It is scientific proof.


:lol:

There is not much difference between a (lame encoded) 160kbit-mp3-file (vbr) and a 320kbit-mp3-file. Especially so-called "killersamples" with will produce hearable so-called artefacts (echos, ringing, clicking) in the mp3-file which aren't there in the original wave-file.


Well, I can with some effort tell the difference between the 128kbit AAC's that Apple makes available on iTunes, and the 320kbit (cbr) MP3's I encoded myself (it's even clearer with the original flac's). It's why I don't use the iTunes store that often... it's useful for those rarities that you can't find on file sharing networks, like Septembre's EP, but the quality is barely acceptable.

majkinetor
  • Moderators
  • 4512 posts
  • Last active: May 20 2019 07:41 AM
  • Joined: 24 May 2006

this thread was about a "ZIP-like compressor" (WavPack) for sound/music.
Then you started posting comments about the very subjective audioquality of a lossy audio compressor (mp3).

Yes, because to normal humans, zip like or non zip like serves for same purpose - listening. And when listenining is in question, the only thing that is important beside music is sound quolity. Its not OT, so don't try to make it sound like the one....

But many people can distinguish between them if they learned what they should listen for.

If I put original and mp3 randomly on listen, they can't. It is prooven. (2 jonny > :lol:) I mean, except if they live in William Gibson world and just have installed a couple of new cat ears.


Well, I can with some effort tell the difference between the 128kbit AAC's that Apple makes available on iTunes, and the 320kbit (cbr) MP3's I encoded myself

Next time put --r3mix preset on Lame, witch is VBR oriented preset for archiving. You will get ~170b with sound quolity that appears the same as 320b CBR (like Ryshi told you). Save your self a little money m8 that you would otherwise spend for new memory cards... Find a girl, buy her a flowers or something...

It's useful for those rarities that you can't find on file sharing networks, like Septembre's EP, but the quality is barely acceptable.

Use SoulSeek.
Posted Image