Hi, im new to the wavpack. Usually i just used flac because it is simple and faster, but now i want to try something new..
First before i start re-ripping all my CD again i need to know which setting is the best. e.g:- -h, -hh, -hx, -hhx, -hhx3,....
Is the larger the bitrates the better it is? I use -hhx3 i got bitrate sample lower than -hx3 but better compression rate. is this normal?
I don't care wheter it takes forever to rip my CD, all i care is the best quality..and how can i use 'Hybrid' function in foobar?

-hh

Is there something specifically wrong with your FLAC files that requires re-ripping from CD?

No, but if new CD is it worth to change from FLAC -8 to wavepack?

Use the verify option if possible.

-hh -verify

If you consider using your tracks on a DAP FLAC is the most adequate codec as FLAC is supported by several DAPs.
However you can always convert to FLAC losslessly from any other lossless codec like wavPack.

When choosing a lossless codec for archiving on pc compression ratio (minimal bitrate) is what most people look for, while taking care that encoding and decoding speed isn't too slow.
FLAC is good at encoding and very good at decoding speed. Compression ratio could be better though, especially for music coming from very few instruments. With mainstream pop/rock music differences towards other lossless codecs are rather small though.
With wavPack especially when using -h or -hh you get a better compression especially with those tracks where FLAC's compression is a bit poor. I recommend to add the -x or better -x3 option for better compression at least on occasion - you pay for it with only a small amount of increased encoding time. So you're fine using -hhx3. wavPack's speed is good too.
Oh, I see that you're planning to use wavPack in hybrid mode which is one of those features that gives wavPack such a great versatility.

Does wavpack compatible with macromedia, adobe and microsoft software? I think this codec is more verstatile than flac, and is wavpack is stable enough?

For hybrid or DAP perhaps -hx3 is better than -hhx3 as -hh adds additional decoding and compression is not much better . If encoding speed isn't an issue you can try -hx4. I think -hx3 is a very good balance of compression [quality] / speed

As shadowking, -hx3 is a good balance. A little slow to encode, but the 'x3' tweaks the compression and decompression nicely. For a little more compression, -hhx works but will be slower to decode. I also add the MD5 as follows:

-hx3m or -hhxm

Try ripping a few albums, checking compression, and then converting to lossy to get a feel of the differences