Freesound Forums

Hello All, Is one of the above formats of higher fidelity quality over the other? I notice that sometimes when I convert a WAV file into a AIFF file, that the file size is larger. It made me assume that the AIFF is superior but now that thought of it, that may not be the case at all. Can anyone help me out? Thanks, Tyler

How much larger? Wav and AIFF are virtually identical if the bit depth and sampling frequency are the same. They can both handle multiple tracks and timestamping so there could be some difference in terms of information buried in their headers. When you burn a straight, Red Book audio CD most burners (this is coming from a former Mac owner so more experienced Windows users might have different experiences) will accept either a Wav or AIFF file so the difference is probably not in the accuracy of the sound but just the setup data. Try ripping something from CD to both formats and my guess is that they should be same.

yeah they pretty much are the same. i agree with above post.

There is absolutely no difference in the quality. Both are essentially RAW binary data, with a header. Like klangfabrik says, other metadata and non-audio information are present these days, so file sizes may vary.
.

Can't certain variations on the encoding of a wav affect filesize? For instance, I was under the impression that it's possible to achieve a small amount of compression using ADPCM or something.

In response to Halleck's post;
"Can't certain variations on the encoding of a wav affect filesize? For instance, I was under the impression that it's possible to achieve a small amount of compression using ADPCM or something."

Yes, if the program you're using has an encoding option, you're right. Back in the Dark Ages when a system that would let you do multi-track editing to hard disk could run you the cost of a two bedroom house in a nice nieghborhood in a semi-prosperous North American city (think New England Digital's Synclavier circa 1989- the house could be in Toronto or maybe Boston) the encoding algorithms were primative so most professionals wanted the CD standard 16 bit- 44.1 KHz resolution (48 Hz for Video)- the first Wav and AiFF programs had very few encoding options but what was interesting is that even these primative formats could handle multi-track, non-destructive editing (and bit depths /sample rates that there wasn't even the hardware yet to run them on.

There is a third format that can easily conform itself to the linear, CD standard- Sound Designer II (again some burners will accept SDII to make an audio CD and just like Wav or Aiff, without heavy translation. And that's because Sound Designer is really just AIFF with fewer tracks (Mono or Stereo). In the Stone Age, if you wanted to use more than two tracks then you had to buy ProTools. DigiDesign was so clever. Simplify an existing format and then make people pay through the nose to do something that could have been implemented in the original format.
And that my friends is why Audacity is so cool. Yes the multitrack editing is cumbersome but it's there for free (okay there was ProTools for Free but not anymore as far as I can determine). Sorry for the rant (us old guys do go on a bit) but the history of "standards" reads as much like a pirate story as it does the quest for the Holy Grail; a handful of saints and a shipload of rascals.