AIFF Vs. WAV

[GB]

"However, I do always pick 93 octane for best performance, and my wallet is not happy."

My car's recommended octane is 98, but it accepts 92 with no difference in performance.

My sound system behaves identically

 

[GB]

"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!"

Teresa, it's illusion exactly, by definition! There is no "sound" raising and lowering, it is called "phantom image". It exists in your mind only. And "soundstage" too, "air" and so on... It's better not to mix-up "soundstage" and "soundfield", which exists and can be measured. Soundfield (SPL values) at the listener's place makes listener's mind to form some soundstage, but soundstage doesn't exist without listener. It's not an object of real world. What you call "sound" may be produced even without any real sound source, simply with some electrodes in the brain . Sound is what we can pick with microphone and measure with voltmeter or oscilloscope. I understand, it's not as romantic as "flying sound", but is's boring truth...

 

[bdiament]

Hi sooowhat,

 

"...I've only ever used XLD or iTunes for ripping my files..."

"...Can't help but wonder if the folks who're able to tell the difference have used dbPoweramp for ripping and inadvertently created the conditions for hearing a difference.

another variable to consider..."

 

Interesting point.

I've used iTunes for my rips.

 

Another thing that crosses my mind is that it would be interesting to compare .aif and .wav not simply to each other but to the original source file. I say this because my interest is in being faithful to the source file. As I see it, any departure from the source file (even if some might perceive it as "better") is a "distortion".

 

So the question from me is, assuming a difference between .aif and .wav (one I have not heard on my system with my own recordings), is one "better" or is one in fact, worse? Comparisons against each other are useful for determining if one hears a difference. If a difference is established, I'd want to know which sounds like the original.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[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.

 

[GB]

and you will see: "it is real and recorded " - mistake. It WAS real, when recorded. But when you listen - you have only fantom image. Sorry.

"we still do not have a scientific explanation for how sound is reproduced with two speakers" - thesurfingalien explained you on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 01:55 : "it is based on phase-shifting between tweeter and woofer frequencies (or any loudspeaker in between depending on what #-way speaker one has)".

 

[dbbloke]

Wish unsubscribe worked, so much mail.

 

It's pretty certain things will sound different. Different systems, different playback software. I can't imagine the sound is hugely different though (bit for sure it will be). More likely to affect is the person.

 

I find if you eat healthy food /water and go to the gym then sit down and listen to music it's going to make a lot more difference, it's a huge upgrade with the increased blood flow, but I guess hard work.

 

Personally I use disc images, takes conversion out of the equation and helps me with my preferred playback medium cdplayer. I just accept portability is always going to compromise sound quality and the need for a server will also compromise SQ. Never heard a single sound server come close to cd - naim, linn, ayre, arcam ... I doubt almost everyone is going to have a 30-100k+ sound system that it makes much odds on anyhow - i rule out all but maybe stax headphones. Probably better spending money and time somewhere else. I mean, the stress in some of these posts is going to affect your mood and chemistry and hence how you hear.

If I had to choose then +1 for wav, mostly because it's going to be more compatible.

 

[soooowhat]

 

Hi Barry,

 

"If a difference is established, I'd want to know which sounds like the original."

 

Understood.

 

I"m assuming bit perfectness of the actual PCM data with either format.

Indeed, this can be checked and confirmed (thanks to digital).

 

This sonic differences are likely in the obfuscation category, i.e. AIFF files on some systems are perhaps causing some additional processing which interferes with playback, obscuring small details and adding noise.

 

My point being, both are likely to be as faithful to the original as the noise spectra allows.

 

OTOH, Since the mechanism for interfering with playback is unknown (or at least not a consensus opinion) and unreliable, it will affect systems differently, so who knows.

 

I certainly don't.

 

[4est]

FWIW, my files were ripped to aiff via iTunes. I used iTunes to create a wav file and then created an aiff from the wav. The aiff files were indistinguishable, and the wavs always less strident and a bit more dynamic.

 

[GB]

As I see it, any departure from the source file (even if some might perceive it as "better") is a "distortion". - fully agreed, even without quotes!

So the question from me is, assuming a difference between .aif and .wav (one I have not heard on my system with my own recordings), is one "better" or is one in fact, worse? Comparisons against each other are useful for determining if one hears a difference. If a difference is established, I'd want to know which sounds like the original. - Barry, I see no interest in fidelity of reproduction here, except yours. All other posts are about "WAV sounds better to my taste" .

P.S. For instance: "and the wavs always less strident and a bit more dynamic" - how do you know, how strident and how dynamic this recording was intended to be by sound producer?

 

[thesurfingalien]

I have opened a new topic for this subject as it is polluting this on. I respectfully request people who want to discuss this topic to do it there.

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

@Chris,

 

Would it be possible to move the entries made on this topic here to the topic I created?

 

Thanks!

Peter

 

[bdiament]

Hi sooowhat,

 

I don't either, since I haven't (yet) heard or been able to measure any difference between .aif and .wav versions of my own recordings.

 

Whether there is a mechanism interfering with playback of one type, whether there is in fact simply a difference I'm just not sensitive to or whether something else is at play, I don't know.

 

I leave room for the possibility that I'm missing something.

But I'd have to hear it to know that for a fact.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi GB,

 

"...Barry, I see no interest in fidelity of reproduction here, except yours...."

 

This is precisely why I raised the point. There is no argument (from me) as to what any given listener likes more. However, in my experience, what different listeners like is not always (or even often) necessarily truth to the input. (This is amply demonstrated by the raves I've seen about some DACs which I consider to be highly "colored" and not at all faithful to their input. But again, if a given unit brings someone listening pleasure, I feel it has fulfilled its purpose...on one level.)

 

If a difference exists between to different formats created from the same original, I would choose the format that sounds more like the original (though I understand that not everyone will make the same choice). Of course, I am fortunate to be in a position to be able to compare with masters, either my own recordings or those from clients.

 

It will be interesting to see where this thread takes us.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Miska]

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.

 

There are ways to reproduce 3D soundstage with just two channels. It works fairly OK with two speakers and way better with headphones. There are even quite convincing implementations for cell-phone stereo speakers.

 

The subject is well known, studied and understood.

 

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.

 

There are ways to capture height information, most commonly used is tetrahedron "sound field"[1] microphone layout, but other ways exist too.

Much easier is to artificially generate sound fields from a multichannel recording at mixing time, commonly done with things like QSound[2].

 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundfield_microphone

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qsound

 

[soooowhat]

 

thanks for clarifying your ripping & wav file generation approach

 

would certainly be interesting to see the endian-ness of the files in question.

 

Perhaps you can put them in "dropbox" for someone who knows how to checK?

 

Or perhaps someone can teach the rest of us how to check?

 

 

 

 

 

[4est]

GB:Good point, sort of... If I gather the gestalt of your posts if would seem as if you cannot discern a difference (thanks for answering that btw) and are dead set on looking for any possible reason to prove that the files result in the same sounding file if one's hardware if appropriately engineered.

 

That being the case, what can I say? For that matter, what can you say? It is far easier to be a critic or naysayer than it is to provide evidence to the contrary. My empirical (albeit possibly anecdotal) evidence shows otherwise, and I prefer to look for the light as opposed to claiming there is none. From your perspective I can understand- I shook my head at the thought. Upon testing this specifically numerous times, I beg to differ. I assume that it is just some sort of noise bleeding into the process, but I very seriously doubt that the noise is making wav sound better, and much more likely that it is aiff that is distorted. Unlike Barry, I have not heard the source to confirm it.

 

[thesurfingalien]

For Windows there is a tool available that creates a virtual audio device (called VAC - Virtual Audio Cable) that can be used also to capture the data that ends op at driver level.

 

Maybe a similar tool can be used on Mac? I am not an Apple-user, so I am not sure if this exists (i.a.w., could not find it).

 

If there is such a tool available, at least one can check if data originating from WAV and AIFF is the same. At that point, one must conclude that differences originate *after* player and codec operation and any audible differences must be caused by something else than the file-format itself.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong about this assumption!

 

 

Regards,

Peter

 

 

 

[4est]

the files end up as AIFF-C if that is of any help. I have been asked that in the past, but am not sure if I understand the real differences between AIFF and AIFF-C. I someone wants some files, let me know. i will retest some and send the three versions of each to wherever it is appropriate. We'd need to agree on the files in so that there is not a rights issue for distribution.

 

[GB]

"but I very seriously doubt that the noise is making wav sound better"...

For the God's sake, Forrest, what do you mean "better"? Better to your taste? Or better to fit original, as must be? But who had compared to original?

 

[4est]

As I stated previously, it is less harsh/strident with more natural (greater macro and micro) dynamics. More life like, has an ease of flow- not to be confused with soft as it is definitely not that. As I also stated, I did not near the original sessions and therefore cannot compare to that. Really GB, if your equipment was broken (like mine), it is very easy to tell once you hear it. The mechanism escapes me, but the effect is easy to distinguish and wav is clearly "better" or should I say superior. Better fits, because it is w/o a doubt closer to what I know instruments sound like and an AIFF file sounds "damaged" in comparison.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

C'mon guys. No need to go at it. Please send private messages if you feel you need to attack each other. Nobody else is interested in your dispute.

 

 

 

[Paul R]

That will quickly tell us a bit more about what is happening, I think.

I can post some notes for you to use to dissect 'em very easily and quickly laster tonight. Unless Bill, or Miska, or someone else with more free time today is willing to do so.

 

 

[soooowhat]

 

Thanks. It's hard to tell without testing the files, but I believe that WAV will likely be big endian. Miska reported earlier that recent iTunes rips to big endian as well. Perhaps Miska is incorrect, but I am doubtful of that, as he's a developer.

 

Suspicion is that little endian AIFF files, being different from WAV (if indeed WAV data is always stored as big endian), might be cause for different sonics.

 

WIkipedia says this (but even second graders aren't allowed to use Wikipedia for facts):

 

"Because the AIFF architecture has no provision for alternative byte order, Apple used the existing AIFF-C compression architecture, and created a "pseudo-compressed" codec called sowt (twos spelled backwards). The only difference between a standard AIFF file and an AIFF-C/sowt file is the byte order; there is no compression involved at all. Apple uses this new little-endian AIFF type as its standard on Mac OS X."

 

This seems to say that AIFF-C files are switched to little-endian, although who knows if this info is out of date.

 

Perhaps the presumed "transparency" between AIFF and AIFF-C has allowed inconsistencies to grow like wildfire?

 

That's my bet!

 

 

 

[Miska]

Intel architectures are little-endian. Motorola 68k and PPC architectures are big-endian. WAV is always little-endian and original AIFF is always big-endian. AIFF-C/sowt supports also little-endian.

 

My finding was that iTunes produces original big-endian AIFF files...

 

 

[Miska]

Here's an easy way to check type of AIFF without posting large files around...

 

From command line, do "hexdump -C somefile.aif | head -n 8" and inspect the result in right hand column. If it says "FORM....AIFF" then the file is big-endian original AIFF. If it says "FORM....AIFC" then the file is AIFF-C.

 

If the file is AIFF-C, inspect further down between "COMM" and "SSND". If it says "NONE" there, it's still big-endian. If it says "sowt" then it is little-endian.

 

Now, if we find that other people have AIFF-C while I'm getting AIFF, then we have even more possible variations in the game since it means that Apple software would produce different types of files in somehow different cases...

 

 

[4est]

I just used the "get info" command on the file on the disc where my music is stored. I assume that to be proper, if not please let me know and I will look into it. I have a bunch of files that were converted from ALAC via XLD, but I specifically did not use any of those files in my comparisons.