AIFF Vs. WAV

[audiophile65]

Do you like to convert FLAC files (e.g. from HDTracks) into AIFF files or WAV files? Also, when you rip CDs, do you like to use the AIFF encoder or WAV encoder? Some people say WAV sounds better....others say AIFF sounds better.

I have been using FLAC to AIFF, and I have been burning CDs to 16/44.1 AIFF. Also, I have both AIFF and Apple Lossless versions of most of my computer audiophile recordings.

Would love to hear your opinions and experiences between WAV and AIFF.

 

[AudioDoctor]

because I use iTunes, and it has better support for tagging files than WAV does apparently.

 

I hear no sonic deficiencies with AIFF versus WAV

 

[kennyb123]

I also use AIFF for the reasons the AudioDoctor provided above. And I also hear no difference between AIFF and WAV.

 

[audiophile65]

That's good to know. I have a MacBook Pro and iTunes.

No differences between AIFF & WAV -- Cool!

 

[4est]

On my system the differences between WAV and AIFF are clear and obvious in favor of WAV.

 

[Codifus]

.....WAV and AIFF are both lossless formats. They both have the same exact digital audio information. The sonic differences, if there are any, are very small. If there are big differences, then there is something amiss with your computer audio system.

 

As pointed out earlier, the technical advantage to AIFF is its nativity to iTunes. Embedded artwork etc.

 

As all too often happens when we say something sounds better, we don't have an original reference to compare to, like, say the original master recording. So better really means better to me, the WAV sounds better than the AIFF and that's all we have to compare to.

 

The only way we can really know which sounds better is to compare the AIFF to the master recording, then compare the WAV to the master recording. The better format would be the one which sounds closer to the master recording.

 

My two cents:)

 

 

 

CD

 

[wgscott]

I like to convert them to ALAC. If I find out Forrest is right, I can still convert them to wav (or AIFF). Meanwhile, I have more disk space.

 

We've been through all this before, but I guess that never stops anyone.

 

Forrest has no motive to make this up, so I'm interested in an explanation. My guesses have been that the process of stripping metadata from non-wav files involves some sonic penalty, and byte-swapping. But I have no idea if either of those has been tested.

 

[goldsdad]

"[...]I'm interested in an explanation. My guesses have been that the process of stripping metadata from non-wav files involves some sonic penalty, and byte-swapping. But I have no idea if either of those has been tested."

 

In my opinion, the first thing to determine is whether there is a psychological explanation for hearing improved sonics from one uncompressed format when compared to another uncompressed format. Only if placebo is eliminated as an explanation, can there be any reasoned search for an explanation in the physical world.

 

 

[4est]

At the risk of pissing in the waters, it always disturbs me when others presume my mind is the root of something like this. Why would I, there is nothing to gain? I do not know what is at cause, but here there is a difference. It is repeatable to me and others. I felt I needed to chime in before the OP took the consensus as otherwise. FWIW, I have not made a switch to WAV, as the vast majority of my library is AIFF due to metatagging issues. Lastly, I could hear a smaller improvement with ALAC vs AIFF. Go ahead and stone me now...

 

[goldsdad]

Hey, cool down. I certainly never said you are trying to deceive anyone. I guess you misunderstood my point in the above post which has caused so much offence to you.

 

Do yourself a favour (seriously) and do the most basic research on placebo. As far as I know, nobody has demonstrated the ability to be completely immune to placebo - it is part of the human condition. The height of arrogance would be for you to insist that you are above being a possible victim of the placebo effect if you knew what placebo is.

 

As much as anyone else, I want to see (or should I say hear?) audio being advanced. That would be more quickly achieved by the focussing of research on things which reliably can be determined to be significant.

 

 

 

[4est]

Ouch, thanks for reminding me I am delusional. Anyone else want to take a shot?

 

[Sik_Lescinovid]

You are delusional. Seriously though, read goldsdad's post again and notice that he is absolutely correct in suggesting that if a test to be performed it should test for something that is statistically more likely i.e. you experiencing a placebo. No one's saying that you are imagining things but it's less likely that there is an actual difference, hence him suggesting to test for a placebo first. The main reason for the preference of testing something that is more likely comes from Bayes' theorem, but it should also be clear from mathematical intuition.

 

[goldsdad]

Who is saying that you are delusional?

You could be extremely helpful to the audiophile community by demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that the placebo effect is not the explanation for your hearing a difference between AIFF and WAV.

 

 

[4est]

Sik-Hit me again, is that all you've got?

 

I've never stated how I tested. What do you know anyway- you listen through toslink. I probably wouldn't hear it either.

 

Goldsdad: Or you could do the community a favor by just accepting that under certain circumstances there are differences. Do you need to negate my experience to feel better about yours. All I said it that there is a difference and it is repeatable to me and others on my system. Nothing I could ever do would change anyone's mind. I am just planting a seed for others to try themselves.

 

[Paul R]

Sure!

 

 

 

Seriously though, we measured the headphone output (analog) from one of my Macbooks playing WAV vs. AIFF files though iTunes. There were small, but repeatable differences. Damnifiknowwhy though.

 

The kicker, it did not happen when I used one of the other Macbooks. It did happen from two Windows PCs, but not from a third.

 

Ergo, I suspect it may be some kind of hardware effect, and certain systems are sensitive to it. It would certainly start to explain why one person hears a difference, another person does not, and yet a third person hears a difference, but a different difference than the first person.

 

Anyways, I go straight to AIFF these days, for all the same reasons as Jud. The main system does have the difference but I cannot form any strong preference for one or the other sonically. They sound very close to the same.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[wgscott]

That's not true.

 

You've explained before to me how you tested it, and how you were pre-disposed, so that is why I am inclined to think that you are hearing something real.

 

I just happen to think there must be a non-extraordinary explanation (like my 2 guesses above).

 

What would change everyone's mind is if they could reproduce the findings in a double-blind test. I think what Goldsdad is saying is that if this is real, then it is important for everyone to know.

 

[jhwalker]

Since the digital content is identical in all lossless formats (WAV, AIFF, FLAC, ALAC, etc.), the only conceivable difference is in software processing. That is, the software must be buggy when reading / outputting an AIFF vs. WAV (or unpacking FLAC vs. ALAC, etc.). Once the digital content "stream" is reached (i.e., the musical content of the file), it is bit-for-bit identical, so it can't sound different at the hardware end *if* it's being presented properly by the software / driver.

 

[Paul R]

Same software, different hardware, different results.

 

See previous rock.

 

 

 

[goldsdad]

"I think what Goldsdad is saying is that if this is real, then it is important for everyone to know."

 

Thanks! Exactly!

 

 

[4est]

To date, I suspect it is the ESS 9018 DAC chip as it is the common denominator these days. It is only a hunch. I am not interested sticking my neck out far enough to try and compel anyone. I recommend to anyone to try it (occasionally even) for themselves as it is altogether too easy and free to try. I simply used iTunes to convert files from AIFF>WAV and that WAV>AIFF and compared the three.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Seriously guys enough of the delusional talk and personal shots. Please stop taking the easy and less intellectual route when leaving comments. Nobody wants to read pissing matches. You are all bright guys so please show a little professionalism and intellectual capacity by leaving comments that are above a sophomoric level.

 

 

[jhwalker]

My comment re: identical musical content is only valid for the same processing "chain" - if you introduce different hardware at either end, you introduce the possibility of different results, that's a given with different chips, etc.

 

[4est]

Sorry Chris!

 

[Paul R]

I was trying to lighten the mood up a little, and that was such an eaaassy line to take.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi jhwalker,

 

"...Since the digital content is identical in all lossless formats (WAV, AIFF, FLAC, ALAC, etc.)..."

 

Content is identical between .aif and .wav (only the headers are written differently). I don't believe this is the case with so-called lossless formats, since they are smaller files. They need to be expanded in order to recover the data that would be identical to the .aif or .wav.

 

Playing a FLAC and playing the original .aif do not sound the same to me. If I expand the FLAC back to .aif (or .wav) first, i.e. prior to using my playback software, they do sound the same.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com