IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
WavPack 4.41.0 final is released, speed improvement, minor bug fixes
bryant
post May 9 2007, 01:09
Post #1


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1287
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:
  • Speed improvements of from 10% to 30% depending on mode and CPU (includes MMX intrinsics for stereo 24-bit / 32-bit encoding)
  • Added --skip and --until commands to unpack specified range of audio data
  • Fixed corrupt floating-point operation on big-endian CPUs
  • Complete changelog here

Download page is here
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xmixahlx
post 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 smile.gif


later


--------------------
RareWares/Debian :: http://www.rarewares.org/debian.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Synthetic Soul
post 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. smile.gif


--------------------
I'm on a horse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kirby54925
post 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! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 9 2007, 07:12
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
Joined: 9-October 05
From: Dormagen, Germany
Member No.: 25015



Thanks a lot, David.


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mangix
post May 9 2007, 07:15
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 583
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?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shadowking
post May 9 2007, 08:32
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 1523
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 ?


--------------------
Wavpack -b450x1
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DARcode
post May 9 2007, 10:21
Post #8





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 679
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 4.70.0 -b384hx6cmv/qaac 2.32 -V 100
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
halb27
post May 9 2007, 11:44
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 2414
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?


--------------------
lame3100m --bCVBR 300
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ssjkakaroto
post May 9 2007, 13:58
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 203
Joined: 22-May 02
Member No.: 2096



Thanks for your great work David biggrin.gif


--------------------
Allegari nihil et allegatum non probare, paria sunt.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skelly831
post 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
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
esa372
post May 9 2007, 15:21
Post #12





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 429
Joined: 5-September 04
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 16796



Thank you!

biggrin.gif


--------------------
Clowns love haircuts; so should Lee Marvin's valet.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bryant
post May 10 2007, 00:57
Post #13


WavPack Developer


Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 1287
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 smile.gif

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. smile.gif


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... rolleyes.gif


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... smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rjamorim
post 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 dry.gif


--------------------
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skelly831
post 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 dry.gif

[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
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Atlantis
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
echo
post May 10 2007, 23:22
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 31-January 04
Member No.: 11670



Thank you! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
windmiller
post 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 biggrin.gif


--------------------
www.losslessaudioblog.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
B
post 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
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sina
post May 26 2007, 03:09
Post #20





Group: Banned
Posts: 43
Joined: 19-May 07
Member No.: 43603



Yeah.
WavPack is the best. happy.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audioaficionado
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beto
post 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. rolleyes.gif
I have nothing against wavpack. It is a great format. I am just speaking out loud. I am not sure which way to go tongue.gif laugh.gif

This post has been edited by beto: Jul 6 2007, 22:19


--------------------
http://volutabro.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
audioaficionado
post 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
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: 20th April 2014 - 10:19