Talk:WavPack

The article begs for some criticism. I've never used this format, so I don't feel comfortable adding anything. Markaci 01:39, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
 * Any reason why? Until you state your intent clearly, I'm removing the NPOV check. KJ 00:55, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what is going on here either. Are you complaining that WavPack is such a good format that there is nothing bad to say about it? RJA 01:04, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * I still hadn't grasped the NPOV concept back then. I was thinking that the article was very one-sided. In hindsight, maybe all it required was a or  tag. Good job on the improvements, RJA. —Mar·ka·ci: 2005-02-17 10:24 Z

It does sound as though it's written by a bit of a zealot. Off the top of my head: - Lossless is by definition identical to lossless. It is impossible for there to be any difference, aside from cpu/ram/diskspace/network usage. If you factor those out (and those usually do not affect the sound in normal    operating conditions), there is never going to be a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.33.126 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC) It might be good. But nothing is perfect and the article reads as though this is the definitive, final solution. 128.40.213.241 19:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wavpack does seem to have a good speed/compression trade-off. But however you look at it, it isn't clearly better than all of the competition.
 * It doesn't seem to be what most people seem to use, why?
 * The hybrid version is nice, what do the lossless things sound like (eg compared to dedicated lossless codecs). Studies?
 * Huffman coding is only optimal if you have to encode each amplitude separately. Arithmetic coding is closer to optimal.
 * A lossless codec always shows the same sound as the original audio file and expresses the same bitstream, otherwise it cannot be called lossless. And since the hybrid mode is not unique to WavPack, and one can think to not-too-bad trivial implementations (encoding the difference between the lossy output and the original stream) which guarantee this property. So no studies are needed. Should I delete the relevant line, since it is not appropriate for the discussion? -- Blaisorblade 17:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the template, but I'm going to fix this and use the  one. Look at a sentence as: "The developer has developed a unique data encoder for WavPack that he believes is better than Rice coding in two different areas.". An encyclopedic article should write it (and the following text) as: "The data encoder used in WavPack does not use Rice coding, but a different algorithm that, while being only slightly inferior in term of compression rate (the author claims xxx disadvantage), does not require input data buffering ..." -- Blaisorblade 17:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A comparison of WavPack to other lossless formats can be found at FLAC's website here. Also, the Hardware section doesn't mention the COWON A3, which supports WavPack out-of-the-box. BlueJayofEvil (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Any Objections to a Site
I would like to see if anyone would object to me adding the link to our site back to this page? The Lossless Audio Blog tries to bridge the gap between the forums and the various EAC Guides by providing information on getting started with lossless audio formats as well as current news and information. Because the Wiki pages for lossless audio formats are such a great place for those learning about the various formats I feel that our site compliments this.

Old Site: Old Lossless Audio Blog

New Site: The Lossless Audio Blog

We just moved our own domain, links are below. Our site was linked here for a few months but it was taken down sometime ago. Thanks for the consideration! Windmiller 01:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Link added back. Windmiller 13:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Link Farm
The WavPack software list section has turned into a massive linkfarm. The situation has become so crazy that many product websites have multiple links. This sections needs to be cleaned up. Please help me by converting the external links to internal links. (Requestion 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Could we start by splitting the softwares by supported OS (for the Open source ones, the main players) and removing the less important ones? I suggest to split the section because I cannot look at Mac OS X players and viceversa. A criterion for inclusion could be requiring the existance of a Wikipedia article about the software, and redirecting all links to that pages - if a software has no Wikipedia article then it's not relevant. It would mostly works, and would never exclude very important software. --Blaisorblade 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Hydrogenaudio?
WavPack - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

This article looks suspiciously similar to the Hydrogenaudio entry. It seems like somebody copied it, and people have just made minor edits. Combined with the NPOV concerns, should this article be rewritten from scratch? Dpbjinc (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pentium FP Bug
The mention of the Pentium floating-point bug refers to a specific problem with early Pentiums. Besides it being very unlikely to come up in practice, the Pentiums in question haven't been sold since the mid-1990s! In fact, I looked it up. On Wikipedia. 1994! The bug's from a processor that's 20 years old, and certainly wouldn't have the power to decode Wavpack anyway.

So probably this needs removing. The whole article has an "enthusiast" tone rather than the "expert" that we kid ourselves Wikipedia is written by. The vagaries of compressing floating-point numbers, accuracies, and whether anyone even cares anyway, really don't belong here.

188.29.165.177 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)