AIFF Vs. WAV

[Teresa]

even though AIFF is an Apple product. However like you and others I do not use WAV as I am not willing to give up album artwork.

 

4est said: "Lastly, I could hear a smaller improvement with ALAC vs AIFF."

At 16/44.1k I found Apple Lossless to sound warmer than either WAV or AIFF and have concluded it has something to do with the real time unpacking. However at 24/96k I could not hear any difference between Apple Lossless and AIFF.

 

The absolute strangest thing I have found on my Mac Mini is that MP3 sounds much better than AAC (another Apple product). I find AAC dry, cold and strident while MP3 is considerably warmer. However both MP3 and AAC are both very low resolution, and I no longer listen to music in either codec.

 

So in short Apple Lossless is my favorite Apple codec.

 

[Teresa]

Paul said "I joke gently about it sometimes, because a lot of the WAV vs. AIFF stuff is a Microsoft vs. Apple thing, whatever that is really all about. ;)"

I just wanted to point out that WAV sounds better than AIFF on my Mac Mini (an Apple product). One would expect AIFF (the Apple product) to sound better but it is not so, thus I do not believe it is a Microsoft vs. Apple thing. However I reject the better sounding WAV and use AIFF and Apple Lossless because WAV does not offer album artwork on my computer.

 

Paul said "If there is a real difference, it can be measured."

Not if one does not know what to measure or has yet to discover the correct parameters. One very famous example is the early transistor amplifiers sounded terrible even though they had great measurements. Why? TIM (Transient Intermodulation Distortion) distortion had not been discovered yet. Once it was discovered they found that these perfect amps had high levels of it and were able to greatly reduce it in future models thus greatly improving the sound of transistor amps.

 

Another example is how digital playback improved after jitter was discovered. You cannot lower distortion or any other parameter until you discover it, thus HP is correct in the observation that we have only discovered how to measure a small part of what we hear.

 

[Teresa]

Since the original poster audiophile65 said "Would love to hear your opinions and experiences between WAV and AIFF," I am quite sure he was not interested in hearing from people who think they sound the same, those who believe this to be so perhaps should reread the first post. Also it is uncalled for attacking people who hear differences because it does not fit into someone's belief about digital dogma.

 

You are 100% correct nowhere in his post did he ask for technical explanations. He just wanted people's experiences and preferences in using both AIFF and WAV. Sounded like a simple request to me.

 

[Teresa]

audiophile65 said, "Would love to hear your opinions and experiences between WAV and AIFF."

 

goldsdad said "In my interpretation, that certainly does not clearly imply that he or she wants only to hear from people who hear differences between WAV and AIFF."

 

My interpretation differs from yours in that I feel if one has opinions and experiences between WAV and AIFF, then by logical extension then one does not believe they sound the same otherwise it would be impossible to have opinions and experiences between WAV and AIFF as one cannot differentiate the differences between things that sound the same to them. Thus this thread was aimed at those who hear differences between WAV and AIFF not those who believe they sound the same.

 

I previously said "Also it is uncalled for attacking people who hear differences because it does not fit into someone's belief about digital dogma."

 

goldsdad said "Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see that statement as being aimed at me since Forrest has been so upset by my comments.

 

Please explain how a technical discussion or the way in which I presented my viewpoint is "attacking people".

 

The comment was not directed at anyone in particular but in general. Telling people that their preferences are all in their imaginations and demanding proof from people who could care less and just want to enjoy their music in the best sound possible is in bad taste. Or that it is a Apple versus Microsoft thing, when at least two of us use Mac's and actually prefer the sound of Microsoft's WAV. Sorry I find all of these demands and insults as personal attacks. I find it much easier for each listener to actually listen to what they like, with no need to justify their choices. But that's just me.

 

BTW reread the original post NO technical discussion was asked for.

 

 

[Teresa]

Paul Raulerson said "As for measurements, there really is no physical phenomena that we cannot measure, including anything acoustic."

 

Really? We can only measure the most rudimentary stuff such as frequency response, noise, distortion and timing errors. No one has yet discovered how to measure soundstage, image width, image height, air between instruments, ambiance, smoothness or roughness of string tone or timbre accuracy, just to name a few unmeasurable parameters of sound.

 

At an AES conference in 1973 Dr. Matti Otala presented a paper describing a distortion that he termed Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM). Before that we could not measure TIM because we didn't know it existed. It's discovery greatly improved the sound of transistor amplifiers.

 

It was the discovery of how to measure digital timing errors "Jitter" that improved the realism of digital we all enjoy.

 

So many measurement parameters yet to be discovered and each new discovery will help us make better sounding components and recordings.

 

So perhaps it is something that we cannot measure yet that accounts for the differences many of us hear between WAV and AIFF even though they are bit for bit identical.

 

[Teresa]

You nailed the objectivist mind set. You might enjoy my blog http://audioiconoclast.blogspot.com/

 

[Teresa]

soooowhat "Are you saying that you actually "want" your system to sound different depending on what file format is used?

 

If by that you mean if I want AIFF files to sound as good as WAV I would say let them sound the same! However if you mean that WAV will sound no better than AIFF I would say let them sound different!

 

I can't use WAV as it does not support album artwork on my Mac Mini, so if there is some way to make AIFF sound as good as WAV I'm all for it.

 

[Teresa]

"We cannot measure all this because these are not objects of real world, but exist only in our minds."

 

Not true check out the Chesky Records Jazz Sampler & Audiophile Test CD (JD37) LEDR tests with "up and over" in which the sound actually raises up in an ark starting with the left speaker, slowing raising until it reaches about four feet above my speakers at center position and starts to descend as it goes over to the right speaker until it is as low as my speaker. This no illusion but very, very real which you can PROVE in your very own system!

 

Thus until we are able to measure the MOST important things with sound reproduction we will never understand it completely. Dynamic range only tells us how low and soft the music can be without excessive distortion and frequency response only tells us how accurate we can reproduce the frequencies in the original sound wave and how extended that reproduction is.

 

We need to learn how to measure soundstage, image width, image height, air between instruments, ambiance, smoothness or roughness of string tone or timbre accuracy, just to name a few unmeasurable parameters of sound.

 

GB said "The last measurable parameters in playing sound chain are air pressure at the listener's place and vibration of his chair."

We also need to learn how to measure those parameters as well, I'm not sure they will be the last but they are important as well.

 

[Teresa]

"Can you describe to me what you mean by air between instruments? Is that how well one can position individual instruments / vocals in the sound 'image'?"

Yes the position of the instruments in the soundstage and the spaces between them. Analog recordings are more revealing of the ambiance (air) in the spaces between the instruments than digital, although high resolution digital can often come very close.

 

In addition some speakers are more revealing of the empty spaces in the soundstage than others as is tube amplification over transistor. If it was someday discovered how analog, tubes and certain speakers fill in the empty spaces with ambiance "air" we will have more realistic digital recordings, digital equipment and transistor equipment. But before we do that we have to learn how to measure the phenomenon first.

 

[Teresa]

and you will see it is real and recorded to PROVE that not everything is understood about how sound is reproduced in stereo. According to both analog and digital theory there is no such thing as height information in 2 channel stereo, this CD proves that incorrect and that we still do not have a scientific explanation for how sound is reproduced with two speakers. Better theories are needed.

 

The gourd that was scrapped was really up and over using steps and the microphone captured it all and replayed the height information (which theory says does not exist) perfectly. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt current theory is not complete.