WavPack 4.41.0 final is released, speed improvement, minor bug fixes |
  |
WavPack 4.41.0 final is released, speed improvement, minor bug fixes |
 May 9 2007, 01:09
Post
#1
|
|
 WavPack Developer Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 1219 Joined: 3-January 02 From: San Francisco CA Member No.: 900  |
WavPack 4.41.0 is finally completed; thanks to all who helped make this possible. The major changes are:
Download page is here |
 |
 
|
|
May 9 2007, 04:17
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1394 Joined: 20-December 01 From: seattle Member No.: 693 |
thanks david!
available at rarewares/debian (r93) before i saw this  later -------------------- RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 06:53
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Super Moderator Posts: 4887 Joined: 12-August 04 From: Exeter, UK Member No.: 16217 |
Excellent news. Thanks David.
-------------------- I'm on a horse.
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 07:09
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 22-July 05 Member No.: 23461 |
Wheeeee! Thanks to David from the other side of the Bay!
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 07:12
Post
#5
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2257 Joined: 9-October 05 From: Dormagen, Germany Member No.: 25015 |
Thanks a lot, David.
-------------------- lame3100i -V0.5+ --adbr_short 480
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 07:15
Post
#6
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 565 Joined: 26-February 06 Member No.: 28077 |
isn't wvselxfx.exe an old compile? 7-Zip says that it was added to the archive in 2006. Since WavPack got some faster decompression, wouldn't wvselfx.exe benefit from being recompiled?
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 08:32
Post
#7
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1494 Joined: 31-January 04 Member No.: 11664 |
Thank you. The best release since v4.2.
Does foobar and winamp need new plugins to get the decoding speed boost ? |
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 10:21
Post
#8
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 665 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Italy Member No.: 18968 |
Great news and superb release! Been looking forward to it, thanks a bunch indeed for your time David, appreciated.
I second the shadowking's q's regarding players plug-ins, also is WV files as input next on your list now please? EDIT: Could it be wavpack.exe performance (not wvunpack.exe) is closer to 4.41.0-beta2 than 4.41.0-beta3? 3 outta 5 times I get encoding times similar to the second beta. This post has been edited by DARcode: May 9 2007, 11:42 -------------------- WavPack 4.60.1 -hx6b4cm/qaac 2.15 -V 100
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 11:44
Post
#9
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2257 Joined: 9-October 05 From: Dormagen, Germany Member No.: 25015 |
Will there be a new decoder for Rockbox, David, that takes advantage of speed increase?
-------------------- lame3100i -V0.5+ --adbr_short 480
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 13:58
Post
#10
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 201 Joined: 22-May 02 Member No.: 2096 |
Thanks for your great work David
-------------------- Allegari nihil et allegatum non probare, paria sunt.
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 14:44
Post
#11
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 782 Joined: 11-April 05 From: México Member No.: 21361 |
Cool, thanks David!
-------------------- we was young an' full of beans
|
|
|
|
|
May 9 2007, 15:21
Post
#12
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 429 Joined: 5-September 04 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 16796 |
Thank you!
-------------------- Clowns love haircuts; so should Lee Marvin's valet.
|
|
|
|
|
May 10 2007, 00:57
Post
#13
|
|
|
WavPack Developer Group: Developer (Donating) Posts: 1219 Joined: 3-January 02 From: San Francisco CA Member No.: 900 |
QUOTE (xmixahlx @ May 8 2007, 20:17)  thanks david! available at rarewares/debian (r93) before i saw this Thanks! I wasn't sure what revsion you used for beta3 because I have been lazy and not tagging the betas (although I do try to do atomic commits so as to not break the trunk). But anyway, rev 93 has everything and is identical to the [now] tagged final. QUOTE (DARcode @ May 9 2007, 02:21) Could it be wavpack.exe performance (not wvunpack.exe) is closer to 4.41.0-beta2 than 4.41.0-beta3? 3 outta 5 times I get encoding times similar to the second beta. I tried again here and (at least on my machine) beta3 and the final match perfectly, with beta2 lagging. Of course, some of the improvement of beta3 was completely unexplained, so who knows...  QUOTE (shadowking @ May 9 2007, 00:32) Does foobar and winamp need new plugins to get the decoding speed boost ? As for rebuilding the other plugins and applications, wvselfx.exe is a completely different codebase optimized for size over speed and the foobar2000 plugin is out of my hands and because of MSVC version incompatibility issues I don't even think I can rebuild the Nero plugin (at least not without a lot of work, or using the new DLL). I guess I could rebuild the winamp plugin, but do people use winamp for transcoding? For just playback I can't imagine that the performance difference would be noticeable and there wasn't really anything else that would affect the winamp plugin. QUOTE (halb27 @ May 9 2007, 03:44) Will there be a new decoder for Rockbox, David, that takes advantage of speed increase? Regarding Rockbox, it turns out that many of the recent performance improvements came from the Rockbox code, but I will certainly look at that again in the near future and see if anything new is applicable there. Thanks everyone for your comments...
|
|
|
|
|
May 10 2007, 03:23
Post
#14
|
|
 Rarewares admin Group: Members Posts: 7515 Joined: 30-September 01 From: Brazil Member No.: 81 |
QUOTE (bryant @ May 9 2007, 20:57) For just playback I can't imagine that the performance difference would be noticeable You don't know Hydrogenaudio 
-------------------- Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org |
|
|
|
|
May 10 2007, 04:43
Post
#15
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 782 Joined: 11-April 05 From: México Member No.: 21361 |
QUOTE (rjamorim @ May 9 2007, 18:23) QUOTE (bryant @ May 9 2007, 20:57) For just playback I can't imagine that the performance difference would be noticeable You don't know Hydrogenaudio [sarcasm] When I skip rather large sections of a 2hr 34min .wv file I notice some lag, possibly around ~60ms, could this be fixed? Thank you. [/sarcasm] -------------------- we was young an' full of beans
|
|
|
|
|
May 10 2007, 08:21
Post
#16
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 250 Joined: 27-December 02 From: ROMA, Italy Member No.: 4269 |
Thanks David!
-------------------- Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by spontaneously moving from where you left them to where you can't find them.
|
|
|
|
 May 10 2007, 23:22
Post
#17
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 165 Joined: 31-January 04 Member No.: 11670 |
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
May 12 2007, 19:46
Post
#18
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 205 Joined: 6-March 04 From: Chapel Hill, NC Member No.: 12500 |
Another thank you
-------------------- www.losslessaudioblog.com
|
|
|
|
|
May 13 2007, 00:43
Post
#19
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 175 Joined: 6-May 02 From: The Netherlands Member No.: 1985 |
Thank you for your time David!
-------------------- http://digitalx.org
|
|
|
|
|
May 26 2007, 03:09
Post
#20
|
|
|
Group: Banned Posts: 43 Joined: 19-May 07 Member No.: 43603 |
Yeah.
WavPack is the best. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2007, 14:40
Post
#21
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 29-May 06 From: Medford, OR, USA Member No.: 31279 |
Thanx for the all the work you've put into WavPack.
I've been ripping a bunch of my CD collection into .wv lossless. I don't know if it's faster than the previous version but since I'm using a C2D, it only takes several seconds for a typical 4-5 minute song. Far less time than EAC takes to rip in burst mode T&C. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2007, 22:18
Post
#22
|
|
 Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 713 Joined: 8-July 04 From: Sao Paulo Member No.: 15173 |
just out of curiosity, what setting are you using when ripping to wavpack lossless?
Most of my lossless files are wvs with the high profile, however I have a lot of CDs I need to convert to lossless and I am strongly considering dropping wavpack for my new rips in favour of FLAC. The reasons are related to speed/size tradeoff (even with the 4.41 branch). Checking lossless tests and my own experience I see that the gain for using wavpack high instead of FLAC at default (5) do not pay off the extra time to decode/transcode (I do transcode to lossy for general playback). On average, for me, compression gain over FLAC -5 does not exceed 1% in the vast majority of cases but in my computer (it is an old AMD XP 1800+) FLAC is noticeably faster. Another thing that is bugging me is the fact that FLAC is much more widespread and has much more support from the mainstream applications/devices.... Maybe I should have started ripping to FLAC from the beggining. I have nothing against wavpack. It is a great format. I am just speaking out loud. I am not sure which way to go 
This post has been edited by beto: Jul 6 2007, 22:19 -------------------- http://volutabro.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 20 2007, 15:28
Post
#23
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 29-May 06 From: Medford, OR, USA Member No.: 31279 |
QUOTE (beto @ Jul 6 2007, 13:18) just out of curiosity, what setting are you using when ripping to wavpack lossless? QUOTE -w "Artist=%a" -w "Title=%t" -w "Album=%g" -w "Year=%y" -w "Track=%n" -w "Genre=%m" -w "Comment=EAC 0.95 b4 T&C , WavPack 4.41 -hxm" -hxm %s %d
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 18:52 |
