AIFF Vs. WAV

[goldsdad]

Hey, I've repeatedly tried being civil and respectful to you.

 

 

[4est]

Really, after you have repeatedly questioned my(and others) observations you are going to be offended by that? I am terribly sorry, and really will quit for today and get back to my I2S project...

 

 

 

[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.

 

[kennyb123]

I can understand why 4est feels the way he does. This is the second thread I've participated on where the topic was related to file types. Both threads descended into a discussion as to why these differences might exist, with some highly skeptical that they do.

 

I can respect the fact that some people want to better understand technical details. But some of us don't care - and we would just like to share our subjective impressions without having to cough up technical explanations - and without the insinuations that we couldn't possibly hear what we claim to hear.

 

The OP asked "Would love to hear your opinions and experiences between WAV and AIFF". There was no ask for technical explanations - he was just looking for opinions as to what sounds best. Those looking for technical explanations should be mindful of this and consider spinning up your own thread if you'd like to take the discussion in a more technical direction.

 

That's just my two cents.

 

[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.

 

[jhwalker]

*I* have "experiences between WAV and AIFF" and I should be free to share them - *nowhere* does the original poster say " . . . . and anyone who states there is no difference should just shut up".

 

Just because some posters don't agree with you is no reason to tell them to leave the room - *that* is what's uncalled-for.

 

So my "experiences and preferences" are that there is no difference and I have no preference and I'm sharing that, just like everyone else.

 

[kennyb123]

I think you may have misinterpreted what Teresa meant jhwalker. I took "who think they sound the same" as referring to those who haven't listened for differences in these files as they feel no need to because they think they should sound the same. Such people don't advance the discussion, as they don't help answer the question put forth by the OP. The OP wasn't asking about theory. He was asking for real world experiences

 

[goldsdad]

I'm going to try to defend myself before this thread is locked.

 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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".

 

I don't think I have a "digital dogma". I'm seeking objective facts, instead of having absolute faith in my, or anyone else's, perceptions. All humans have fallible sensory systems and perceptions, as far as I know. That doesn't exclude me or Forrest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Apple defined the AIFF format, Microsoft, to avoid paying any license fees, copied it and called it WAV format. They are as alike as two peas in a pod for that reason. There are a significant number of people who will take the side of one format or another based soley upon the Apple/Microsoft thing. Forget about the technical considerations and facts - damn the torpedeos, full speed ahead!

 

If you have not ran into that, count yourself as lucky.

 

As for measurements, there really is no physical phenomena that we cannot measure, including anything acoustic. I will admit that we don't know all there is to know about how humans hear, from a psycho-acoustic point of view. But we sure can measure it.

 

We can, and in fact have, measured and recorded an acoustic difference in the playback of WAV and AIFF files. In the playback. We have, with even more certainty, found that the data in an AIFF file and a WAV file is not unexpectedly, exactly the same.

 

Since the two facts would appear to contradict each other, there is obviously something we do not know that will reconcile them. However, the two facts are facts.

 

Not one single mystical bit about it.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[kennyb123]

I think it's best to avoid playing the perception/placebo card. As soon as this is played, it leaves others to think they are being accused of making things up.

 

 

[MetalNuts]

Hi, I am glad to hear that it is not about technical. I started CAS using FLAC since I had a Linn DS and Linn recommends FLAC, however, I found WAV sounds better overall with different equipment so I change to WAV. My friends feel the same and they follow suit.

 

I always wonder why we have to explain music in scientific terms and make it subordinate to the technicalities. Music is still regarded as art as distinguished from science. A piece of music played by different people with other factors being constant might not be the same. For science, there is absolute right or wrong but for arts, it can never be classified as such, different people will use their own sense and preference to evaluate.

 

Are we enjoying music as it is or are we enjoying explaining music in scientific terms. If it is latter, I am afraid that we do not need to resort it to our ears, a computer that displays or a printer that prints out the data would do or perhaps we should train ourselves to read the scripts or scores instead, that is the raw data which would always be the same.

 

Lastly, I am not against technical advance in improving our enjoyment of music but I feel that human always believe that they know more than enough to explain it in a scientific way and in fact they are not and it proves itself through passage of time of how ignorant we were and we still are. Just take a look at how we use nuclear power, we use them before we can keep ourselves and our environment safe from it (we thought we could but it proves to be wrong).

 

Is it important to prove which format is in "fact" better? Even if it is better, could we compel people using the better format or do we have a choice?

 

 

 

 

[jhwalker]

banning discussion of "perception / placebo" means that exactly half of the discussion is banned. Perception / placebo (i.e., expectation bias) is just as valid a possibility as there being an *actual* difference. You can't just ban discussion of viewpoints you disagree with . . .

 

[Codifus]

I wonder if an AIFF without artwork sounds the same as the AIFF with artwork, and how that compares to the WAV which can't handle artwork?

 

Say that 10 times backwards:)

 

CD

 

[sbooth]

We can, and in fact have, measured and recorded an acoustic difference in the playback of WAV and AIFF files. In the playback. We have, with even more certainty, found that the data in an AIFF file and a WAV file is not unexpectedly, exactly the same.

 

I find this intriguing. Can you elaborate on what the differences were? Do you have any pointers to the study or results that I could peruse?

 

[kennyb123]

No, I wasn't arguing for banning discussion of perception/placebo. What I said was that "I think it's best to avoid playing the perception/placebo card". By that I meant jumping automatically to the conclusion that placebo must be involved. I think it behooves us to assume that the person making the claim has been responsible and has put controls in place to ensure that his biases have been held in check. But, if we suspect that this might not have been the case, I still don't think we shouldn't automatically assume placebo. We should ask questions about the methodology and see if the approach that was used is trustworthy. And if we do find glaring flaws, then I think it's absolutely fair to explore expectation bias.

 

But, to suggest that we should first look for a "psychological explanation", is only going to stifle conversation and ruffle feathers. There's just no upside in going there first.

 

 

 

 

[jhwalker]

I agree it should be an open discussion, and I apologize if I jump too quickly.

 

[Paul R]

But we use an enormous amount of technology to play it, create it, and store it. An we enjoy chatting with each other about that technology. Technology fascinates us monkeys.

 

Always has too. Lute makers in ancient times probably passed many a happy hour by the fire arguing over what wood was better for a particular sound.

 

As for humans never being perfect, well, duh... that's part of being human isn't it? The same part of us perhaps, that resonates with music.

 

The environment? Well, let's not go there and say we did, huh? That discussion is not from the rational part of brains.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Paul R]

There was somewhat more energy, not much but easily measured, 960hz +- 10% range + 1st & 2nd harmonics, depending upon the material. We were at testing limits, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility there were more than we found. Very likely actually.

 

I could not hear a difference, but those who could said it sounded a little richer or fuller.

 

-Paul

 

* The difference was machine dependent, it did not appear on every machine we tested with, but when it did, it was repeatable. I am not drawing conclusions, and it needs to be repeated by other people besides us before it can be generally accepted.

 

Eh- note that this was in playback, with a couple speakers that were miked in a sound chamber. We only only had a hour of lab time too. We found zero differences in the music data.

 

 

[Blu]

I was having a good music appreciation session, and played the track 'Visit', track 1 on Disc 2 of "Buddha-Bar Ten Years" in AIFF format on my Mac Mini through my Weiss DAC2. I then wondered if the track would sound the same from the original CD through my Sony DVD/SACD/CD player as 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 than the AIFF file ripped from the same CD. 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 re-ripped the CD in WAV format. Well I was stunned to find the WAV version sounded more realistic like the CD version, it was more accurate. I found this hard to believe, as both the WAV file and the AIFF file are both close to the same size.

 

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, so I need to re-think my ripping strategy, using WAV from now on.

 

Enjoy the Music,

Blu

 

[Gregor Samsa]

You know, I don't think discussion of placebo should be banned, but telling someone that they're imagining things is a real conversation stopper. It did put me in mind of a wonderful old line, which is now my sig.

 

[blaine78]

'My' order of format preference for sound quality closest to source.

 

1 WAV - clear winner, closest to the CD source (very happy J river tags WAV)

2 AIFF - not quite there, could have lived with, but not after hearing WAV.

3 FLAC - After hearing AIFF and WAV, Flac sounds closed, diffused and lacked engagement.

4 ALAC - Like FLAC, but worse.

 

Observations using J River as player, dBpoweramp as converter/ripper.

 

[wgscott]

I have come up with the following (conspiracy) theory to explain all of the data.

 

1. wav and untagged aiff contain the same data. I have proven this to myself and others by taking a wav file, converting it to aiff, converting it again to wav, and showing they have the same checksum. No bit-rot.

 

2. Apple made aiff. Microsoft "created" wav.

 

3. Apple not like Microsoft. Especially when Microsoft bailed out Apple. That was kind of embarrassing. After all, it isn't like Goldman-Sachs at the US taxpayers.

 

4. Apple seeks revenge: It designs core audio in such a way that playback of aiff introduces small amounts of harmonic distortion, as Paul has measured.

 

5. Audiophools love small amounts of harmonic distortion. It gives that analogue tube warmth feel, often associated with the bygone era of Ronald Reagan, $0.05 Burma Shave and hard-working white people. If an occasional vinyl-like pop can be introduced, as well as small amounts of wow and flutter, all the better.

 

6. Apple's sabotage of wav thus backfires. Audio fanatics world-wide now demand their music be served as wav.

 

[Sik_Lescinovid]

Great post, definitely made my day!

 

[thesurfingalien]

Maybe it is possible to do an RMAA loopback-test on one of the PC's that showed differences, with both a .WAV and .AIF as test-files. That should give quite a good indication of differences, and pretty much excludes other influences.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

"...There was somewhat more energy, not much but easily measured, 960hz +- 10% range + 1st & 2nd harmonics, depending upon the material..."

 

Are you saying there was a frequency response difference between two files known to contain identical data? ? Do you recall the magnitude (in dB and ideally, bandwidth) of the change?

 

I don't understand the part about "speakers that were miked in a sound chamber" part. Was this comparison of two different recordings of the .aif and .wav files? or of the .aif and .wav files themselves?

 

***

This leaves me with some questions:

Will converting an .aif to .wav cause a dip at 960?

Will conversion back to .aif restore the peak?

 

***

On the subject of "placebo", I would agree with those who say it shouldn't be the first place to go. I am completely open to the idea that there may well be a difference that I am just not hearing. (In all honesty, I'm not prepared to bet heavily on the prospect but neither am I prepared to say there is absolutely no difference just because that is the case for me, whether in listening or in attempting to measure.)

 

Over my decades in this pursuit we call audio, I've found that different folks have (sometimes very widely) differing sensitivities to different aspects of sound. I know folks who hear benefits from green marker; I just end up with green fingers. I remember listening to a DAC with a friend who does hear differences between .aif and .wav and wondering why he didn't notice the ear-ripping treble on the DAC. Similarly, I know folks who like DSD/SACD, which I find discomforting in the treble. Others don't hear differences between cables and I hear a single cable change over the course of its first few days of use.

 

I believe I'd also hear a frequency response change, having listened to 1/4 dB changes I make with EQ in the mastering room (and having shown some others to their surprise, just how audible 1/4 dB can be.

 

But for the life of me, I don't know how to effect a change in frequency response in a file without changing the data in a file. Not saying it is impossible; just that it is beyond me.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com