Why isn't WavPack more popular?

[ThatM1key]

Like the title says.

Main advantages over FLAC:

• Able to store and losslessly compress DSD stereo & multichannel.
• Album can be 1 Single with built-in cuefile.
• Create lossy files with a correction file to reconstruct the whole file again.
• Can losslessly compress better

 

[ZolaIII]

Well it got into most popular and widely used FFmpeg package and some players. There whose even the ASIC codec implementation on one or two Ti chips as I recall (it whose long time ago and it whosent full implication). From a hardware side it will work on any ARM A core SoC 10 years back or 20 years old X86 CPU.
It's "lossy" compression is great all do most gains you will get for 88200 Hz sample rate or over file's (which stupid as it is is becoming increasingly popular).
You won't get some meaningful difference in size between flac - lose less WavPack (al do it applies better more robust comparison) and lossy + correction file (everything which get shaved of lossy file gets into correction one) but you get smaller main lossy to use and you can archive correction one's and when you combine them you can get your PCM intact back.

It's really a puzzle why didn't any streaming service worked on WavPack implementation but then again they never implemented a good comprehensive processing DSP tool chain ever either. So it's meby to much to expect from such to begin with.

 

[Yasuo]

I'm pretty sure Flac can do 1 file album with CUE file. Maybe not built-in?

 

[ThatM1key]

I'm pretty sure Flac can do 1 file album with CUE file. Maybe not built-in?

Yes it can but its Single FLAC + Cue File vs Single Wavpack with built in cue file. If you lose that FLAC Cue file, your SOL.

 

[freemansteve]

Could it be about tagging?
As in Ape versus Id3v2 or above?
It may be some listeners are confused by tags and dismiss music sources that "don't look right" on whatever they are playing their music on.

Just a guess.

 

[Killingbeans]

Like the title says.

 

[ZolaIII]

@Killingbeans not quite, each and every other lossy compression will mess with source (sample/bit rate) and both ruin source master for good (including similar to WavPack lossy Opus which got wider adoption [so it isn't related to tags]) and produce sort of broken output (when compared to original).

 

[Killingbeans]

Yeah, but he was comparing it to FLAC, so I can only assume the question is aimed at the lossless containers out there.

 

[voodooless]

Yes it can but its Single FLAC + Cue File vs Single Wavpack with built in cue file. If you lose that FLAC Cue file, your SOL.

From what I can see, the cue sheet can be embedded in the flac metadata: https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#metadata_block_cuesheet

 

[kchap]

Like the title says.

Main advantages over FLAC:

• Able to store and losslessly compress DSD stereo & multichannel.

No an advantage, we should be discouraging DSD.

• Album can be 1 Single with built-in cuefile.

It would be a big file, is it an advantage?

• Create lossy files with a correction file to reconstruct the whole file again.

But then you end up with 2 files. What not not have a lossless version and lossy version

• Can losslessly compress better.

I'll leave that, my theoretical knowledge is poor.

 

[ThatM1key]

From what I can see, the cue sheet can be embedded in the flac metadata: https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#metadata_block_cuesheet

I guess that's 1 unless tick for WavPack

 

[ThatM1key]

No an advantage, we should be discouraging DSD.

Yeah but there is DSD albums still. I don't like converting from DSD to PCM that much.

It would be a big file, is it an advantage?

It depends, You could fit multiple albums in the same folder without worrying about songs mixing. There's many reasons.

But then you end up with 2 files. What not not have a lossless version and lossy version

I mean that is true. I could argue that having a lossy file + correction file takes up less space than a lossless file with a lossy copy.

 

[ZolaIII]

Yeah but there is DSD albums still. I don't like converting from DSD to PCM that much.


It depends, You could fit multiple albums in the same folder without worrying about songs mixing. There's many reasons.

I mean that is true. I could argue that having a lossy file + correction file takes up less space than a lossless file with a lossy copy.

The conversion is 1:1 beat exact and there really isn't any need for DSD DSM for storage purpose (however it's beneficial in transport including optical).
Thing is you don't have to carry both, only significantly smaller lossy one's (compared to flac) why you can leave or archive and remove correction ones) and not have it broken (opus cuts all behind 20 KHz, MP3 is 44100 - 48000 Hz 16 bit only and bad regarding artifacts and AAC doesn't shine on either mentioned).
Real question is why didn't streaming services adopted it where it would be significantly more beneficial than you or me keeping our private collection in such containers.

 

[chelgrian]

Like the title says.

Main advantages over FLAC:

• Able to store and losslessly compress DSD stereo & multichannel.
• Album can be 1 Single with built-in cuefile.
• Create lossy files with a correction file to reconstruct the whole file again.
• Can losslessly compress better

Originally because WavPack was a symmetric codec that is it was as hard to decode as to encode.

Where as FLAC has always been asymmetric that is to say it's very computationally easy to decode but hard to encode.

WavPack now has an asymmetric mode but I'm not sure how it compares.

Incidentally computational requirements is why Apple created ALAC they needed something relatively easy to encode for a fair compression ratio because they were doing it in real-time for Airplay 1 on low end hardware. None of the existing formats met their requirements so they invented a new one.

 

[Katji]

Main advantages over FLAC:

• Able to store and losslessly compress DSD stereo & multichannel.
• Album can be 1 Single with built-in cuefile.
• Create lossy files with a correction file to reconstruct the whole file again.
• Can losslessly compress better

None applicable to me. (And 99% others.)
- DSD, I have never seen it, I still don't know where they come from.
- Album can be one single track... I don't do albums, it is obsolete concept to me. <99% of my library is CD albums that I ripped or purchased. avg. now less than 1 per year. (That also applies to 99% other people.)
- other 2 points...well, [shrug], who cares/who needs[?] A few Kb/Mb file size.
Conclusion: waste of time.

 

[ThatM1key]

The conversion is 1:1 beat exact and there really isn't any need for DSD DSM for storage purpose (however it's beneficial in transport including optical).
Thing is you don't have to carry both, only significantly smaller lossy one's (compared to flac) why you can leave or archive and remove correction ones) and not have it broken (opus cuts all behind 20 KHz, MP3 is 16 bit 44100 - 48000 Hz 16 bit only and bad regarding artifacts and AAC doesn't shine on either mentioned).
Real question is why didn't streaming services adopted it where it would be significantly more beneficial than you or me keeping our private collection in such containers.

I think its nice that some streaming services use OGG Vorbis but Tidal still uses MP3's. I seen MP3 320kbps that still have direct cut at 16khz. I don't know which tool it is but OGG can contain FLAC, I say WavPack is better in this regrade is because there more tools out there.

Originally because WavPack was a symmetric codec that is it was as hard to decode as to encode.

Where as FLAC has always been asymmetric that is to say it's very computationally easy to decode but hard to encode.

WavPack now has an asymmetric mode but I'm not sure how it compares.

Incidentally computational requirements is why Apple created ALAC they needed something relatively easy to encode for a fair compression ratio because they were doing it in real-time for Airplay 1 on low end hardware. None of the existing formats met their requirements so they invented a new one.

I will admit, I think these days encode/decode speeds doesn't matter as much as they used to do. I know on my machine, encoding speeds feel fast and not different from each other. Containers/Codecs used to be like cars, you would pick them based on features but nowadays they feel like a shirt, they look different but serve all do the same purpose

None applicable to me. (And 99% others.)
- DSD, I have never seen it, I still don't know where they come from.
- Album can be one single track... I don't do albums, it is obsolete concept to me. <99% of my library is CD albums that I ripped or purchased. avg. now less than 1 per year. (That also applies to 99% other people.)
- other 2 points...well, [shrug], who cares/who needs[?] A few Kb/Mb file size.
Conclusion: waste of time.

-There is DSD store and people rip SACDs. WavPack can losslessly compresss DSD files up to 50%
-I rarely listen to albums myself too, I like complications better like from Eric Records.

 

[Katji]

Re standards proliferation: de facto standards are MP3 and AAC [plus AIFF, plus WAV on the production side. flac to a lesser extent.]

 

[voodooless]

OGG can contain FLAC

There is a difference between the OGG media container and Vorbis the audio codec.

 

[ZolaIII]

Sorry guys the lossy is only good enough for me if I can't hear difrence or point finger at it (on the graph). Being able not to lose anything and that the matrix stays exact and bit perfect being any sole storage purposes requirement. And WavPack checks it all.

 

[voodooless]

Sorry guys

There is nothing to be sorry about. We can’t all win the popularity contest.

As with many tech stuff, it’s not only the technology that makes it come out on top. Many more factors are of consequence.