WAV vs. AIFF

[cfmsp]

 

clay said:

 

"Perhaps we could agree that in a worst case scenario of FRAGMENTED files there could be an impact on the sound due to excessive processor activity, high level of disk access, etc. (occurring simultaneously with audio streaming out to the DAC) and the resultant potential impacts on AC, noise, RFI/EMI, etc. throughout the computer?

 

If so, the question becomes, what is the smallest amount of FRAGMENTATION that can affect audio."

 

apologies, for posting this backwards earlier.

 

clay

 

 

[Blu]

I was having a good music appreciation session with my new second hand Weiss DAC2, and I played a track ('Visit', track 1 on Disc 2 of "Buddha-Bar Ten Years") in AIF format on my Mac Mini. I then wondered if the track would sound the same through my CD player, using it as a transport into the DAC2.

 

This track has some amazing shimmering tiny bell sounds which move around the sound field and some nice wood wind instruments in the rear distance. The CD version had greater stage depth and air around the instruments and greater frequency extension, giving the sound a more realistic representation. I thought this can't be right, so I checked all my connections, and everything was as it should be.

 

I then thought that maybe I would try a different file format, so I went to my Windows machine and re-ripped the CD in WAV format using dBpoweramp, as suggested from Chris's strategy of ripping to a FLAC archive version and a AIF play version.

 

Well I was stunned to find the WAV version sounded more realistic like the CD version. I find this hard to believe, as both the WAV file and the AIF file are both the same size. Maybe it is something to do with the metadata stored in the AIF file.

 

I can't explain it but it does mean a lot more work in keeping the metadata with the WAV files. Luckily I have not ripped a lot of my CD's to my music server yet (AIF so far), so I need to re-think my ripping strategy.

 

[Old Listener]

> Why in god’s name anybody would make a music format that does not

> have metadata is beyond me, and damn them for it, but alas

> Microsoft will probably remain the in the dark for some time.

 

While you weren't paying attention (back in the early 90s), Microsoft came up with a file format for audio and video. (WAV is the audio only version). Metadata was the least of their concerns back then. Given the hardware limitations of the time and the architecture of Windows 3.x, they managed to create something which has been useful since then.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

[Bobb-E]

I downloaded that. What do I do with it? I'm on a mac by the way. Can I use it?

 

Thanks,

 

Bobby

 

[routlaw]

The link below, from Kent Poon's blog no less, might interest those who seem to find a difference between Wav and Aiff. I have yet to ever hear the difference myself but its not for lack of trying.

 

http://www.designwsound.com/dwsblog/?p=1134

 

Additionally I asked a local recording engineer recently regarding his take on the two file formats, who uses a Windows Audio workstation and the wav format. He chuckled and stated they are identical, period.

 

And on more than once occasion I have ripped tracks from the same disc, one Aiff and one in Wav, brought the two files into Bias Peak or Wave Editor to compare the two wave forms. They were identical every time regardless of the zoom level or time frame. But taking the experiment a step further I made screen captures of the two files (wav and aif) and brought those two into Photoshop and layered them into one file to see if any differences existed visually within the waveforms. By either reducing the opacity of one layer over the next or simply turning one layer on or off, in each case all layers (thus file formats) were visually identical. This was done not only for the entire track waveform but also for zoomed in time frame comparisons. Effectively this is a visual way of reinforcing Kent Poon's experiments above.

 

From my perspective If you hear a difference between the two file formats something is wrong within the experiment.

 

One last side note, in each and every case the wav and aiff files were also identical in size, as long as metadata was not added to either file, (ie album art etc) and if the art was added the aiff file grew by approximately 1/10th of a mb.

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

 

 

 

[ted_b]

are measuring the wrong thing. I don't believe there is one single debate that wav and aiff are identical files. However, aren't they processed differently (i.e the AIFF decoder or codec is different than the wav one)? It's there that the debate should be focused on. Hell, we have debate over digital cables, and clearly the ones and zeroes are identical...but the path they take, the envelope they ride along, the dielectric they encounter...are different...and to some people (wayyyyy more than hear the diffs between wav and aiff) there is a debate. I don't have any answers, but I am theorizing, I am simply stating that if two DNA-identical twins ride along different paths, they may look different at the end of the journey.....and yet still be measured as having identical DNA. Their DNA measurements are moot and not in question; their ride experiences are what's important.

 

[cfmsp]

"From my perspective If you hear a difference between the two file formats something is wrong within the experiment."

 

You fail to acknowledge that things must happen to those data files before they reach your ears!

 

For example, one of those waveforms is (most likely) stored in a different byte order than the other - see endianness for reference.

 

(note: whether a conversion is needed from big-endian to little-endian (or vice versa) can vary not only by file format, but also by OS, hardware architecture and/or the format your USB/Firewire driver expects, for example.)

 

 

I'm not saying that this proves they sound different, but I AM saying that (given this) your tests (of static data files) prove nothing (due to the need for a processor to interpret the streaming data identically in order to remove any possibility for a difference in sound).

 

YMMV, and probably will.

 

 

clay

 

 

[ItemAudio]

This discussion is so often trivialised or distorted: no-one disputes the bit-perfect content of the stored file. It's about how it gets unpacked, processed and delivered - as ted neatly put it: 'it's about the ride'.

 

And if the journey takes a different path, a different outcome can never be ruled out. Let's keep open minds, people!

 

[Gpropertee]

I joined this site just to give my OPINION on the aural difference I've experimented within the last 8 years of recording audio in DAW's. I've changed my bit rate and sample rate numerous amounts of times to find the right sound. If anyone using a DAW whether it be the DAW of your choice, do 2 simple mixes of a heavily ladened bass and Drum instrumental and see what your ears get and do a comparison.

 

In my personal preference I've recently have been recording my projects at a 24Bit 88Khz sample rate. You can call me crazy or stupid or whatever your witty brains can conjure up but in MY OPINION AIFF files have a more defined low end which seems to be more tangible to compression when mixed within a DAW. But I've also noticed that my Broadcast .wav recordings (IN MY OPINION) have an undefined but more presently untangible high and low end(IN MY OPINION)I'm not sure if this difference is due to the way each file is processed through plugins or not. But in my experience there was an audible difference.

 

This debate reminds me of the time i lost the Firewire cable during a move for my DIGI003 so I went out and bought a standard Firewire cable...that was a terrible mistake. It changed the sound of my unit drastically to my ears. I even went out and bought the best Goldplated 0% carbon blah blah blah and still bad. So I called up shop authorized to fix Digidesign hardware hoping they would have access to the original cables that come with the unit. The guy I spoke to on the phone basically shrugged me off and said A firewire cable is a firewire cable and he hung up. Luckily Digidesign started selling the cable and I ordered it online. As soon as I replaced the cable with original cable that comes with the unit the stereo phasing stopped and the card produced a louder output and input signal. If anyone is using a firewire or usb connected audio interface, you might want to test this out for yourself.

 

[Gpropertee]

But your a fuck!ng common sense genius. All these guys are measuring sound with numbers...huh????? Please read my post on this subject. And i totally dig you theory because i am a identical twin and me and bro do look different because of the paths we took. But as kids you would have never told the difference. Thank you for this open-minded non-numbercrunching post!

 

[Bobb-E]

This reminds me of when I used to listen to tapes in an old Mercedes 300td because I didn't have a cd player in it. Those were actually some of the first pieces of music that listened to over and over again and had and really enjoyed. I think it was Silverchair "Freak Show," Pennywise "Out of Time," and The Grateful Dead "Skeletons in the Closet."

 

When I got the same albums on CD a couple of years later I didn't like the sound even though they were supposedly better. I was listening to analog in a literal tank with a chunk chunk chunk in the background. Point is, it really is that subjective and what your own body is tuned to. There is something to be said about a sound system that brings out dolby and soundstage in the music. I think this thread did mention the important thing. There's a difference between those files. They are in the same ballpark but for nitpickers there's something different to challenge yourself with noticing.

 

Also, like I said I think the second you go computer audiofile, you're probably always "downgrading," because the CD itself is the highest commercial bitrate. Isn't it?

 

[les24preludes]

I just did some comparative listening between CDs encoded as AIFF and WAV in iTunes on my Mac Mini 2010 2.4, using iTunes. I have a good quality audio system and I'm an ex-pro musician.

 

Well, after reading this thread I was surprised to find I had a slight preference for AIFF over WAV. I re-checked this several times. Differences were barely audible, but what I could hear was better timbre and separation with AIFF and slightly more natural vocals.

 

So between the two, AIFF is my preference by a tiny but just about audible margin.

 

Andy Evans