wavscan doesn’t compare two files the way wavelens does — it inspects one file on its own, no reference needed. That makes it the right tool for a quick sanity check before committing to a full comparison, but only if you’re reading the right number for what you’re actually trying to catch.
Running it
$ wavscan --input mystery_file.wav
Peak: -0.8 dBFS
RMS: -18.3 dBFS
Crest factor: 17.5 dB
Sample rate: 48000 Hz
Channels: 2
No --ref, no verdict, no pass/fail — just a level and format snapshot of the file as it is.
Peak: the instantaneous ceiling
Peak level is the loudest single sample in the file, full stop. It’s the number that matters for headroom and clipping — if peak is sitting at or above 0 dBFS, you’re clipping (or right at the edge of it), regardless of how loud the file sounds on average. Peak tells you nothing about perceived loudness; a file can have a high peak from one short transient while sounding quiet overall.
RMS: the average level
RMS (root mean square) is a windowed average of the signal’s energy — closer to “how loud does this sound,” though still not a perceptual loudness measurement the way BS.1770 is (see BS.1770 loudness, explained for that). RMS is useful for a quick relative comparison — “is this file noticeably quieter than that one” — without needing a full wavelens loudness check.
Crest factor: the gap between them
The difference between peak and RMS — crest factor — tells you something neither number alone does: how much of the file’s dynamic range is being used. A low crest factor (peak and RMS close together) usually means heavy compression or limiting; a high crest factor means the file has real dynamic range, with occasional loud moments well above the average level.
When wavscan is enough, and when it isn’t
wavscan is the right call when you just need to eyeball one file — checking that a freshly generated wavgen reference isn’t clipping, confirming a captured file actually has signal in it before running a full comparison, or spot-checking level on a batch of files without a reference for any of them. It’s not a substitute for wavelens analyze once you actually have a reference to compare against — peak and RMS on a single file can’t tell you whether this file still matches that one, which is the question a real comparison answers.
See it for yourself.
WaveLens compares a reference file against a processed copy and shows you exactly where they diverge — down to the sample — not just whether they still sound the same. One command, one report you can point at.