TCPIP
Silver Member | Редактировать | Профиль | Сообщение | Цитировать | Сообщить модератору
Uh oh.... FiH is back making those extremely long posts........
Firstly I'm not gonna dispute the fact that WavPack does have it's uses. For hi-resolution audo (e.g. DVDA rips) it does seem to have real credible advantages over FLAC. It's a newer format, so these things would ave been thought of at the start. However, the majority of people are using lossless audio formats for audio sourced from the good old CD which bears no relation on support for higher frequencies etc... This is what this post is about, lossless CD-sourced audio.
Also don't assume my name makes me any sort of "fanboy" of the FLAC format. I'm into lossless compression in general, but mostly I like the idea that one day there'll be a lossless format as popular as MP3, a DRM-free lossless format. What I don't like to see is needless confusion, needless formats and like you I don't like to install 10 different decoders/encoders in my machine. At the end of the day whatever format these files are in we all want to listen to them. If Monkey's Audio (APE) had been open source from day 1 my name right now would probably be "MonkeyBoy" or maybe not as I do like the sound of FlacInHell better
"Format wars" are no good for anybody, there's enough people asking what FLAC is, asking to explain what lossless audio is and the first thing any WavPack user will do is throw this Hydrogen Audio page in your face and say "Look at all the extra features WavPack has, and all the cons FLAC has".
To me that table seems a bit like say comparing uTorrent with Azureus and listing a zillion plugins on the Azureus side as a pro, and Tetris on the uTorrent side as a pro too. The fact is the majority of people will never use these "features", but some could be lead for thinking what is a better client just by counting the number of features.
We all know FLAC takes longer than WavPack to encode, and that WavPack can save around 1-2% of space. You encode only once, you cannot encode faster than you rip CD's and in terms of $'s 1-2% isn't much at all. The reason WavPack has these advantages is because it uses floating-point (decimal) based numbers for its encoding/decoding whereas FLAC uses only integers (whole numbers). This leads to FLAC having a much faster decoding speed - and every time you listen to a file you decode it. A difference in speed on the decoding side would have a noticable day-in-day-out effect if you like to do other things on your machine whilst listening to music, as WavPack basically uses more CPU. To sum up: you only encode once, you decode many times.
FLAC being open source from day one, and having a very simple algorithm is why it is where it is today, the most popular of the free, open lossless formats. This also explains why it has far more hardware support in terms of different brands/models than any other lossless format. It's easy to licence and cheaper to implement. ALAC (Apple Lossless) probably wins the shear numbers game based on the number of iPods - but we all know closed formats are bad.
Now back to the Hydrogen Audio comparison table....
Hydrogen Audio has always been a place for audio geeks, back in the old days there used to be endless numbers of tables, pictures, charts and graphs explaining how one version of a MP3 compressor was better than another. Their mindset is not so much about what audio is the most useful to the average person in the street, it's more a case of them wanting to show how much they know about a particular format, about making feature lists of everything. With lossless this becomes more apparent as they can't really talk about the audio anymore. All lossless audio formats are equal in terms of the final output, all of them do their job in that respect. This leaves the Hydrogen Audio guys to have nothing to talk about other than supposed features and benefits - so lets first look at their pros/cons lists of both formats as on their Wiki right now:
FLAC Pros
Open source
Very fast decoding
Hardware support (Karma, Phatbox, etc.)
Very good software support
Error robustness
Streaming support
Supports multichannel audio and high resolutions
Tagging support (FLAC tags)
Pipe support
ReplayGain compatible
FLAC Cons
Relatively slow encoding
No hybrid/lossy mode
Doesn't support RIFF chunks
FLAC Other Features
Supports embedded CUE sheets (with limitations)
Includes MD5 hashes for quick integrity checking
Fits the Ogg and Matroska containers
WavPack Pros
Open source
Very fast decoding
Good efficiency
Error robustness
Streaming support
Hardware support (RockBox)
Supports multichannel audio and high resolutions
Hybrid/lossy mode
Tagging support (ID3v1, APE tags)
Supports RIFF chunks
Ability to create self extracting files for Win32 platform
Pipe support
Good software support
ReplayGain compatible
WavPack Cons
Limited player support
WavPack Other Features
Supports 32bit float streams
Supports embedded CUE sheets
Includes MD5 hashes for quick integrity checking
Can encode in both symmetrical and assymmetrical modes.
Fits the Matroska container
OK, so the first thing I'll do is repeat the list removing pros/cons both have in common:
FLAC Pros
Hardware support (Karma, Phatbox, etc.)
Very good software support
Tagging support (FLAC tags)
FLAC Cons
Relatively slow encoding
No hybrid/lossy mode
Doesn't support RIFF chunks
FLAC Other Features
Supports embedded CUE sheets (with limitations)
Fits the Ogg and Matroska containers
WavPack Pros
Good efficiency
Hardware support (RockBox)
Hybrid/lossy mode
Tagging support (ID3v1, APE tags)
Supports RIFF chunks
Ability to create self extracting files for Win32 platform
Good software support
WavPack Cons
Limited player support
WavPack Other Features
Supports 32bit float streams
Supports embedded CUE sheets
Can encode in both symmetrical and assymmetrical modes.
Fits the Matroska container
First one glaringly simple observation. If you look at this speed comparison page you'll see that roughly WavPack encodes 4x quicker than FLAC, and FLAC decodes roughly 3x quicker then WavPack. So why were they both listed as having very fast decoding, yet FLAC gets a con for relatively slow encoding speed? Why didn't WavPack get a con for relatively slow decoding speed?, or at least IMHO WavPack should not of had very fast decoding listed as a pro. Anyhow, we'll let this pass - I removed both as they were the same.
Now, remember this post is about compressing of CD audio - so lets go through these features and see what they actually mean to 99.9999% of people (i.e. those who probably don't visit Hydrogenaudio daily or salivate over comparision tables).
Wavpack - Pro: Ability to create self extracting files for Win32 platform
Firstly we can remove this. It really is a joke doing anything like that with an audio format and I doubt even the most die-hard WavPack supporter will complain about this removal.
WavPack - Pro: Hardware support
That is complete bullshit. Listing one player as any indication of hardware support is a farce. This page indicates just *some* of FLAC's hardware support. No doubt there are many others, it gets confusing now to keep track of what doesn't support it. I think if anything WavPack should have Limited Hardware support as a con.
WavPack - Pro: Supports RIFF Chunks - FLAC - Con: Doesn't Support RIFF Chunks
RIFF chunks are basically WAV file comments/tags that some pro-audio software leaves behind. Your WAV's are just EAC rips, no RIFF chunks there. If you don't know what they are you don't use them.
WavPack - Pro: ID3v1/APE Tagging Support. FLAC - Pro: FLAC tags
Why use an out-dated ID3v1 tagging support for WavPack when it has the far more flexible APE tagging? This has to go, which also means for tagging we now have FLAC Vorbis Comments vs WavPack APE. Both are pratically the same so comparing these features for both formats is irrelevant.
WavPack - Pro: Hybrid/lossy mode / FLAC: Con - No hybrid/lossy mode
First thing, isn't this a comparison of lossless encoders? Why is Hybrid a Pro for WavPack rather than just a "Other Feature"? It's already been listed as a Pro for WavPack, does it need to be listed as a con for FLAC too? FLAC was never about lossy encoding. Does this mean every FLAC Pro that WavPack doesn't have can then be listed as a con for WavPack? e.g. "WavPack doesn't fit the Ogg container"? Do people really use WavPack for this lossy support? I think I'm right in saying it has no use in any real comparison.
WavPack - Other Feature: Matroska Container / FLAC: Other Feature: Ogg and Matroska containers
Containers for CD based audio. Nah, these are irrelevant for both - even though FLAC officially "wins".
WavPack/FLAC - Other Feature: Embedded Cuesheets
I fail to see what WavPack holds over FLAC for this. FLAC does support embedded cuesheets so would be interested in the "limitations". How many users use full image with embedded cues for FLAC files anyhow? Is it relevant? I think no. Remember embedded cues are different than having seperate .flac/.cue files and have little support anywhere.
WavPack - Other Feature: Supports 32bit float streams
OK. But does this affect the quality of ripped CD audio? Nope. Gone.
WavPack - Other Feature: Can encode in both symmetrical and assymmetrical modes.
Most users will either encode to maximum efficiency, or 2nd from maxium. Just because something can do somethig with extra parameters doesn't make it better. This is the classic example of the uTorrent "Tetris" feature. Nice feature, but has no bearing whatsoever. Gone.
Let's again produce a somewhat reduced list based on the above information:
FLAC Pros
Very Good Hardware support (Karma, Phatbox, etc.)
Very good software support
FLAC Cons
Relatively slow encoding
WavPack Pros
Good efficiency
Good software support
WavPack Cons
Limited player support
Practically no hardware support
So there you have it. Basically it is what we all knew anyway. FLAC is a slower at encoding, faster at decoding and produces slightly bigger files (1 to 2%). On the other hand you only ever encode once and you decode many times where FLAC is much more efficent than WavPack. FLAC is well established, has far greater hardware support, and full software support on all platforms. Something encoded in FLAC 1.1.9 in 5 years time will still decode with a FLAC 1.0.0 decoder, which is important for hardware.
WavPack has crap hardware support and probably never will have good support due to implementation costs/complexity. As we've seen with lossy, computer audio is getting more and more about listening on the move - right now it's silly to listen to any lossless format on a portable player, but there will come a time when 1 terrabyte hard disks are the norm in such players. I can guarantee any manufacturer wanting to support a non-Apple/M$ lossless format will choose FLAC over WavPack purely because it is cheaper and easier to implement. WavPack does have support for the popular media players, but not nearly as much as FLAC does.
Conclusion:
For CD Audio FLAC works, it's a great well supported format so why change? For hi resolution audo (DVDA) where 2% of 5 gig might matter more WavPack could be a choice, yet FLAC will still deliver in most cases. If you want to use Lossy then use MP3 - if Ogg, MPC and others cannot compete with MP3 in the popularity stakes, what hope does someone uploading a Hybrid Lossy WavPack torrent have of many people snatching it, or even worse some snatching it because they believe they will be getting lossless?
P.S. Was I biased? I'd like to think no. For sure I think that those guys over at Hydrogen Audio were, or at least they were thinking of what the WavPack format offers and what they know about it, rather than what real-world use it has. Also remember like most geeks.... whatever is new is their flavour of the month and they always want to be seen as progressing. Consider when Linux guys say "I don't have to reinstall my OS every year" when flaming with Windows supporters. It might be true, but in reality how many Linux hobbyists regularly install whatever is the latest-greatest release (right now Ubuntu I believe).
P.P.S. Feel free to discuss/argue my findings in here. I'm not anti-WavPack, I'm just anti-bullshit and anti-change-for-no-reason, so if anyone does run into WavPack issues then of course me & other folks in there will try to help in the #lossless-help channel or the forums.
|
Всего записей: 4667 | Зарегистр. 31-01-2003 | Отправлено: 07:24 27-03-2006 | Исправлено: TCPIP, 07:25 27-03-2006 |
|
