Wavpack

[pmonk]

I just want to clarify but does wavpack operate the same as shntool (i.e. ms-dos thru commands)??

I used both the Frontend and Batchenc to compress/decompress and create md5 but had no clue on how to use it outside of these 2 frontends!

Wavpack is supposed to work with shntool but it appears that it no longer has full functionality with shntool since wavpack v.4.0 came out. I would expect that a new edition of shntool will come out in the near future to accomodate this.

You can, however, produce shntool output in wavpack 4.0+ format (4.2 is the current version). It is only input from 4.0+ files that shntool cannot currently handle. This, of course, means that you can't check wavpack 4.0+ files for SBEs w/o converting them to some other format.

If you mean does wavpack operate like flac, shn etc, the answer is yes it does. Wavpack has Win32 binaries available at its website that work with Multi-frontend and there is a special Wavpack Frontend like FLAC Frontend made by Speek. The only difference is that wavpack uses two separate binaries, one for encoding and one for decoding.

Making or decoding wavpack files is every bit as simple as dealing with shn, flac or ape. When making wavpack files I recommend you use '-hm' as your only command-line switch. The 'h' means 'high quality' which basically means high compression, and the 'm' tells the encoder to put a wave md5 fingerprint inside the headers.

[pmonk]

If TTD plans on allowing wavpack, what would be the best way to get a text printout of the md5's when you compress using the -m option????

[ffooky]

I think TTD should hold off allowing wavpack at least until shntool can recognise it as an input file so .st5s, conv and SBE checks are possible. Much more importantly, there's no player for OS X

Originally Posted by pmonk66

If TTD plans on allowing wavpack, what would be the best way to get a text printout of the md5's when you compress using the -m option????

wavunpack -s *.wv

[pmonk]

Thank you sir!!!!

[lucasweb]

Originally Posted by ffooky

I think TTD should hold off allowing wavpack at least until shntool can recognise it as an input file so .st5s, conv and SBE checks are possible. Much more importantly, there's no player for OS X

exactly, without crossplatform capability it's just another mkw

[ssamadhi97]

Originally Posted by ffooky

Much more importantly, there's no player for OS X

o rly?
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=31533
(and how is OSX support relevant? )

As for shntool's lacking support for WavPack, yea, maybe it's time to give the shntool developer a little nudge.

Originally Posted by lucasweb

exactly, without crossplatform capability it's just another mkw

Poor WavPack. No half-decent lossless audio format deserves being put on one level with mkw, not even jokingly. It's just not funny.

As stated above, WavPack is supported on relevant platforms (EDIT: and on OSX too! ). On top of that (and as opposed to mkw) the source code is available. AND the format doesn't suck on a technical level.

[ffooky]

Sorry, didn't read that thread properly first time around. Tagging's going to be a right PITA though.

Originally Posted by uhclem

wavunpack -s *.wv

Correction: wvunpack -s *.wav

[pmonk]

please consider that I just starting using wavpack for the first time this Saturday but when using the command wavpack using options xhmd, is it a very slow process???

wavpack rocks. period.

ffooky - no offense, but i hardly see a media player being able to play WavPack files (in .WV format) as a reason to not allow this file type. when i first got MKW years ago, it was a LONG time before i found out that WinAmp would play Shorten files... and surprise, surprise, i survived! it's almost as if it only takes a few minutes to convert the file to a playable format.

hard drive storage is cheap enough now to where storing WAV (or AIFF) files shouldn't be a problem. if it is, then one can get by with suffering with 320 kbps MP3s. (besides, if a person can't afford more HD storage, then i dare say the same person doesn't have a very good PC speaker setup to where they could easily tell the difference between an MP3 @ 320 and a lossless file.)

regardless, bottom line is: WavPack is compatibile on Window$, Linux, and OS X... that along with the facts that it compresses better (smaller files) than Shorten or FLAC, that it compresses faster than either (at least on my P4 machines), and that it's lossless compression, should be enough to be allowed as hosted files.

but if it isn't allowed for quite a while to come (or ever at all), i wouldn't be surprised. change isn't brought about easily...

[ffooky]

Everything else is workable but shntool compatibility is essential. I convert everything to FLAC because I still think it has the best chance of being THE hardware compatible lossless format and one day I'll be able to play a DVD of FLACs as easily as one can a disc of MP3s today. Two step conversion is not ideal but inability to compare directly the audio data seems to be contrary to TTD's laudably progressive insistence on ST5/FFP.

[Five]

I think we'd at least need SHNtool compatability to go ahead with it. Not being able to do a len check is a big deal, especially with the recent progress we've seen thanks to TLH and BatchEnc. Even if we allowed WavPack today, anybody who seeded it would get pages of "wtf is this??? it doesn't work!!!" like I still see happen pretty much every time APE is seeded.

I'm banking on the day when hardware support won't matter a damn. Everything will be stored on harddrives and will be playable through the software of your choice regardless of format. And since all lossless formats are easily converted into each other I see no reason to worry about what the format of today happens to be. I say once someone nudges the developer of shntool to release an update to incorporate the recent changes to wavpack, wavpack should be allowed here.

Yes there will be people who will say 'wtf do I do with these files?' I think anyone who first ventures to seed wv files can post a little bit of info to help such people out. As well, a little info about wv files could be added to the FAQs here. I don't see any serious reasons to reject this format.