wav vs aiff noticable difference

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:30 am

I noticed small difference between both.. Shocked

with the same audio source recorded to both format,
after lots of a/b listening I found that wav is
slightly higher in 1.5k-2k than aiff.
Comparing with the source, aiff won.. It's identical

fyi, I record in WL4.0

Is this just in my head or i'm just a bit late? Laughing

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:58 am

Quote:

Is this just in my head or i'm just a bit late? Laughing

it's in your head

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:02 am

That sounds a little odd.
Wav and Aif should be identical and basicly the same 1 and 0's just with a different header. Maybe it could be your program? what happens if you convert the files instead of record them in the formats?
I must admit though that I haven't done the test myself.

Best Regards

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:29 am

Agreed Hendrik, I suspect it could be the program decoding matters.. But the results are still too vogue to be measured.
I'll tell you later about the conversion results.

Thanks Thumbs Up

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:22 pm

chriscavell wrote:

Quote:

Is this just in my head or i'm just a bit late? Laughing

it's in your head

Well, arent you just a clever man!

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:32 pm

The .WAV is concidered to be the most robust file format. Especially reliable when locking via timecode.
I have clients supply me with both among other formats. I have a hard time believing the file format is causing this specific audio quality but crazy things happen.
I have done a few tests and have not found noticable audio differences.
I'm alway's interested in other's results.

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:11 am

Joe, do you have a PCM1630 at your facility?
Have you tried testing a direct UMATIC delivery to a plant against a CDR or DDP from the computer?

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:53 am

hey i just did an a\b between .wav and mp3, the mp3 had a slight boost in the 1.5 k region, and sounded like utter crap... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:20 am

everyone's a comedian.....hahahaha...... Twisted Evil

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:12 pm

If you are hearing a difference between wav or aif of the same file in playback then either your conversion software is broken or your playback software is broken because the raw PCM data is identical for both wav and aif. The only difference is the header for the file which inidicates to the playback software the bit & sample rate and whether the file is mono or stereo.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:25 pm

Sorry it's taken so long to reply. I have been under a rock. We do have 1630's and have run tests comparing the CD to the 1630.
The quality of a 1630 can be very good as far as 16bit audio is concerned. You must be carefull and check each tape though because the tape is inconsistant. I don't know how this helps whith comparing AIFF to .WAV

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:34 am

joe lambert wrote:

Sorry it's taken so long to reply. I have been under a rock. We do have 1630's and have run tests comparing the CD to the 1630.
The quality of a 1630 can be very good as far as 16bit audio is concerned. You must be carefull and check each tape though because the tape is inconsistant. I don't know how this helps whith comparing AIFF to .WAV

Thanks Joe.
I guess it only helps me, or maybe some others too...?
Are even good tapes inconsistant, if there even are good umatic tapes?

Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 8:28 am

Yes,
You can get very good quality tapes with very low error rates. You need to run a CRC when making (or playing) a tape. I'm actually working with 2 differerent projects today from 1630. The tapes are a few years old. We will see what kind of shape they are in.

Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 11:14 am

Aif vs. Wav:

Do the null test and you'll see they're identical.....

This topic sponsored by: