Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Wavpack lossy 400kbps (Read 10913 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

hi,
sorry can't find the answers to this...

what should be the parameters in EAC and foobar to have best quality @400kbps ?

EAC
-hb400 -c -m -w "Artist=%a" -w "Title=%t" -w "Album=%g" -w "Year=%y" -w "Track=%n" -w "Genre=%m" %s %d %o 

it works, but with correction files, and if I erase -c, it doesn't work anymore

Foobar 0.9
-m -i -q -hb400 - %d
it works but I don't know if I should keep h or x

I've read some things about it but I'm still a bit confused with that

thank you

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #1
If you eliminate the -c then you also need to eliminate the %o specifying the correction file name. Sorry, this should be documented better, although in the HA Wiki page on "EAC & WavPack" there is an example line that uses the CRC option box in EAC to enable or disable both this parameters, which is kind of handy.

As for the best possible quality at 400 kbps, the absolute answer is to use both -h and -x (i.e. -hb400x), however this would be very slow to encode and use more CPU to decode also (they would play on Rockboxed iPods, but just barely).

These days I recommend just using the normal mode at those higher bitrates because the "high" mode gets you so little extra quality for the extra CPU playback load. If you have time to use the -x switch that will improve quality a little (maybe a lot on some tracks) and actually makes them easier to play. So, I would recommend -b400x, unless you're doing so many CDs that you can't wait that long.

If these are for Rockbox use then you might think about -fb400x for even less CPU decode load (i.e. longer battery life), but then you definitely should not skip the -x!

Hope this makes sense... 

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #2
thank you David,

I've tried it successfully but this is so slow with -x
what I want is having 2 copies (with 2 HD) of each album in good quality lossy to transcode, and keep the wvc away...


edit : wow it's so fast with -f !

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #3
It depends what you're looking to transcode to (as in, what bitrate..), but my guess is, you'd be fine with mp3 at -V2 --vbr-new or Vorbis -q 9...

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #4
Quote
' date='Apr 14 2006, 09:07 PM' post='382418']
It depends what you're looking to transcode to (as in, what bitrate..), but my guess is, you'd be fine with mp3 at -V2 --vbr-new or Vorbis -q 9...


by choosing a good transcoding codec, I hope my choice is not so important now, I will change bitrate if needed

well, that should be mp3 or vorbis for portable use, or aac maybe later if I buy an ipod

so I'd like to have now a good quality lossy to transcode later

the advantage of wv is I can get it lossless if I add the correction files...

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #5
If you plan to have lossless, picking wavpack lossy with correction is a great idea.  If you go lossy only, you'd best pick another codec to transcode from.

The question you should ask yourself, though, is : what am I going to do with the lossless files, if I don't even use them to transcode from?

-- Are they only to prevent generation loss if you need to re-burn the CD?

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #6
My understanding was that WavPack lossy ~400 kb/s was an excellent codec to transcode from.  I don't currently do that, but I might consider it if space was a concern.  There are several forum posts on the issue.

Some people seem to feel the same way about the highest settings of MPC as well.

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #7
to bryant:

Is that true that using "x" i can increase decoding speed?..
a simple test i ran shows x70.5 with -h and x81 with -hx3...

But the time gap is huge - 3 minutes for a whole CD at the first setting vs. 30 minutes at the second...and since i use it only for LOSSLESS encoding, i guess there is no point to use -x[n] setting for me at all?..

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #8
to bryant:

Is that true that using "x" i can increase decoding speed?..
a simple test i ran shows x70.5 with -h and x81 with -hx3...

But the time gap is huge - 3 minutes for a whole CD at the first setting vs. 30 minutes at the second...and since i use it only for LOSSLESS encoding, i guess there is no point to use -x[n] setting for me at all?..

It seems to generally increase decoding speed. Not a lot, and sometimes it might not, but the idea is that is doesn't do any harm.

Yes, it is slow, especially in the high mode. It's not as bad in normal and fast mode, and also makes a bigger improvement (in fast mode you often get over 1% better compression with -x).

I use it when I'm not in a hurry and it does run nicely in the background with EAC when you add the -l option. If I was ripping all my CDs I certainly would not use it...

Wavpack lossy 400kbps

Reply #9
using the x parameter will increase the compression level without making decoding time higher.  It toggles an asymmetric mode.

You should use -x all the time, unless you are in a real hurry to encode your files, or you have a lot of them.  Using -hx will be time consuming.  I think the highest compression can be achieved with -hx5 or something, but the encode time in rediculous compared to any advantage in compression over -hx.