[captvanhalen]

"Apple Lossless is not the exact same quality and neither is AIFF."
Yes it is. That's why it is called lossless. Think of it as simply zipping up that AIFF or WAV file and today's technology allows us to play it back without having to unzip it.
-----
WAV is not exactly what files are on a CD. There is a difference, however small it may be.
.

Now that is true, but you probably don't know why. The reason is that data on a CD is stored in an interleaved fashion to minimize data loss when the disk gets scratched. That's it. A zero is a zero. A one is a one. Period.


-----
The music straight from the CD still has a better, holistic quality to it than the WAV file of the same song.
Incorrect. Now, maybe your CD player does a better job of handling digital to analog conversion than your computer, but now we are off the subject.
-----
"WAV is simply the best because of its nearly universal compatibility and pristine audio quality."
No. No it is not. WAV is just a wrapper around raw PCM data. Chris was right after all -- you guys have no foundation to stand on when you make these claims.
AIFF is every bit as good as WAV, because they are both just wrappers around raw PCM data. Apple lossless and FLAC are just as good as AIFF and WAV because not only do they store that data "compressed" (read: zipped) in lossless manner, they are capable of retaining higher sample/bit rates of the WAV or AIFF files they "zip" -- such as 96/24.








By the way -- i am not a professional audio engineer but i was trained as one before i received my Bachelor's in Computer Science. I have been recording digital audio since 1994.

Message was edited by: captvanhalen

[flowney]

Since someone will surely ask why use 96/24 when we are unable to discern differences at much lower sample rates, let's remember that not all "listening" is done with human ears any more than all seeing is done with human eyes. We can visualize images that are beyond our normal vision (infra-red, ultra-violet, etc.) using specialized equipment and we can auralize sound that is beyond our normal hearing using special equipment.

A recent real-world case of 96/24 recording was when a space shuttle launch was recorded. Much information, including engine performance, can be derived from such a recording.

However, this is a digression from the main topic here which has to do with human perception of audio recorded for entertainment or educational purposes.

Speaking of educational purposes, does anyone have any insight into where Apple is with CELP (natural speech encoding, see: http://www.chiarigli...4-si/09-naturalaudiopaper/speechmpe.html)? You can see the grayed-out option in QuickTime Player Pro Export options for MPEG-4. Yet another off-topic direction to avoid.

[klasseng]

96KHz sampling rate, 24 bits samples are especially used in professional recording studios.

96: When an analog signal is digitized, the rule of thumb is that the highest frequency preserved is 50% of the sampling rate. So on the the face of it, it would seem unnecessary to sample higher than 40KHz since almost nobody can hear above 20KHz.

The problem comes in one stage before the digitization. Before the analog to digital converter sees the audio, it gets filtered. High frequency sounds are filtered out because, while normally not audible, they can cause inaccurate values in the samples and become audible. The filter, while doing it's filtering job causes a phase shift in sounds within the audible range. This phase shifting can cause an audible change.

So . . . increase the sample rate, increase the cut off frequency of the filter and the the phase shifting now occurs in an inaudible frequency range. The problem is eliminated.

24: more bits in a sample results in more accurate samples and/or better signal to noise ratio. It's not normally an issue in stereo signals, but when doing multi-track recordings, noise increases as the number of tracks increases. If you start out with low noise tracks, mix a bunch of them together and you'll get an acceptable noise level. If you start out with barely audible noise in the tracks, mix a bunch of them together and you've got a noisy mix.

peace,
Grant

[luaptrub]

Regardless of whether it is the same or not, I do understand everything that has been said but I have a personal rule on refraining from getting too technical on forums such as these. 99% of what I use in my work does not support Apple Lossless and therefore I use only WAV or physical CDs. MP3s sound unacceptable on the setups I use for corporate shows and even Apple Lossless doesn't sound as good. I will use a CD first if one is available.
""WAV is simply the best because of its nearly universal compatibility and pristine audio quality."
+No. No it is not. WAV is just a wrapper around raw PCM data. Chris was
right after all -- you guys have no foundation to stand on when you
make these claims.+
+AIFF is every bit as good as WAV, because they are both just wrappers
around raw PCM data. Apple lossless and FLAC are just as good as AIFF
and WAV because not only do they store that data "compressed" (read:
zipped) in lossless manner, they are capable of retaining higher
sample/bit rates of the WAV or AIFF files they "zip" -- such as 96/24."+
Please go back and read what I wrote because you obviously didn't understand the point I was making. In my work, nothing short of a CD or WAV is acceptable. And as a universally acceptable format, WAV is best to use.
Btw, I am a freelance audio engineer that does shows for many large corporations.

[captvanhalen]

luaptrub said:

Please go back and read what I wrote because you obviously didn't understand the point I was making. In my work, nothing short of a CD or WAV is acceptable. And as a universally acceptable format, WAV is best to use.

Btw, I am a freelance audio engineer that does shows for many large corporations.

Are you sure you are not a Microsoft shill. ;) Exactly what part of me quoting and disputing everything you said consitutes me needing to read what you said for the 5th time? I understood you very well, but you clearly don't understand digital audio. Maybe you should read what I wrote again. So ... let me say it one more time.


AIFF is just as good WAV. Why? Because they are both just wrappers around THE SAME PULSE CODE MODULATED DATA!

Good day sir. Enjoy! :)

[luaptrub]

No, I understand you completely. You apparently still don't understand my point though. Let me repeat it again.
WAV is better, not just in my field, but many others as well. WAV can be used in many other applications and programs, whereas AIFF is compatible with a very limited number of them. Compatibility is my point.

[captvanhalen]

luaptrub said:

No, I understand you completely. You apparently still don't understand my point though. Let me repeat it again.

WAV is better, not just in my field, but many others as well. WAV can be used in many other applications and programs, whereas AIFF is compatible with a very limited number of them. Compatibility is my point.

Earlier you were trying to convince everyone that "WAV is simply the best because of its nearly universal compatibility and pristine audio quality." As if the other formats don't have the same "pristine audio quality."

I guess you really missed one of the very first things i said when you made your unfounded claims, which was -- you pick WAV or AIFF depending on which flavor of OS that you use --- Mac or Windows.

Now then, since both WAV and AIFF are just wrappers around raw PCM data -- you can convert one to the other with no loss of quality. No change to the sound. So, your point of compatibility is really moot. Just store your audio as FLAC and you can produce WAV or AIFF on the fly. I prefer Apple Lossless over FLAC only because i use iTunes.

Earlier you insinuated that Apple Lossless "is not the exact same quality and neither is AIFF. It takes up less space for a reason."

And you were wrong. I mean, there is a reason why it is called lossless, you know. Why don't you try making these claims at a FLAC forum?

But now you are trying to convince everyone that the reason WAV is better is because of compatibility. WAV and AIFF are just wrappers around raw PCM data -- you can convert one to the other with no loss of quality. No change to the sound.

I use a Mac. It makes more sense for me to use AIFF. Back in the 90's i used Windows. It made more sense for me to use WAV.

And this is a Mac forum ... you know. ;)

So, please put up or shut up.

Thank you. :)

[luaptrub]

Well maybe some of my claims apply mostly to my industry because I require only the best quality I can get.
As for my compatibility argument, converting "on the fly" is more of an inconvenience than an advantage and I'm pretty sure everyone except you would agree with me on that. I sure don't have the time to do that. I never meant to distinguish between OSs either. For me at least, by using WAV I guarantee compatibility with any equipment I may be using, Windows or OS X.
Guess it goes back to the whole "different ears" discussion because I've been doing this for going on 25 years now and I can hear a difference between WAV, AIFF and Apple Lossless. I'll stick with what my experience tells me.
If you want to continue in this attempt to prove to a faceless community as to your knowledge on this topic, then be my guest. I'm only here to give my opinion based on my experience. I do know you wouldn't last a week doing what I do.
So, please shut up.
Good day sir. :)

[captvanhalen]

luaptrub said:

"Well maybe some of my claims apply mostly to my industry because I require only the best quality I can get."

.
LOL! I feel sorry for your clients then, because you actually think that the same PCM DATA sounds different whether it is stored in a WAV container or an AIFF container. It doesn't, and you cannot prove that it does. Otherwise you would have by now. Instead you make these claims that you cannot back up.

.
"As for my compatibility argument, converting "on the fly" is more of an inconvenience than an advantage and I'm pretty sure everyone except you would agree with me on that. I sure don't have the time to do that. I never meant to distinguish between OSs either. For me at least, by using WAV I guarantee compatibility with any equipment I may be using, Windows or OS X."

Then use WAV. Nobody said that WAV was inferior to AIFF. You are the only who is trying to convince everyone that there is a difference. If WAV works for you, then use it. Just don't try and convince everyone else that they have to do what you do unless you can show that your way truly is better. I'll remind you again that this is a Mac forum, and AIFF is the natural container for that OS.


.
"Guess it goes back to the whole "different ears" discussion because I've been doing this for going on 25 years now and I can hear a difference between WAV, AIFF and Apple Lossless. "

Then put up or shut up. You are the only one who makes this claim. I simply do not believe you.

.
"I'll stick with what my experience tells me."

And i'll stick with my experience as well. I understand how digital audio works on the lowest level. Bit by bit. You just press play on a machine.

.
"If you want to continue in this attempt to prove to a faceless community as to your knowledge on this topic, then be my guest. I'm only here to give my opinion based on my experience. I do know you wouldn't last a week doing what I do."



Hey, you are the one that is keeping this argument going, not me. You have yet to actually prove your point. You just keep making baseless claims. Besides, i tried that industry. The pay is pretty bad. You can have your job.

.
"So, please shut up. Good day sir. :)"




You aren't even original. ;)

[luaptrub]

LOL! I feel sorry for your clients then, because you actually think that the same PCM DATA sounds different whether it is stored in a WAV container or an AIFF container. It doesn't, and you cannot prove that it does. Otherwise you would have by now. Instead you make these claims that you cannot back up.
You're right on one thing: I can't prove it. But I'll bet you don't know why. Let me tell ya cause its gonna be a real head scratcher: it's SUBJECTIVE! My many more years of experience gives me more than enough credit to back up my claims.
Then put up or shut up. You are the only one who makes this claim. I simply do not believe you.
Feeble remarks like this only discredit yourself. You're free to believe whatever you like but my point still stands.
And i'll stick with my experience as well. I understand how digital audio works in the lowest level. Bit by bit. You just press play on a machine.
More feeble remarks.....I understand it as well and I do a heck of a lot more than pressing play. Just because it looks good doesn't mean it sounds good. There's no substitute for a well trained ear.
Hey, you are the one that is keeping this argument going, not me. You have yet to actually prove your point. You just keep making baseless claims.

Nope. Sorry but I've proved my point. You just choose not to take it for what it is: the truth. You're free to believe whatever you like. I just prefer not to shove technical jargon down everyone's throats. Not everyone here is as familiar with those terms as we are and may not appreciate being left out.
Besides, i
tried that industry. The pay is pretty bad. You can have your job.
Too bad cause once you actually get good at it, the pay is pretty nice. ;)
You aren't even original. ;)
LMAO! Now I know what I'm dealing with. :)

[captvanhalen]

luaptrub said:

You're right on one thing: I can't prove it.

That's right. All you can do is be a troll.

Goodbye troll. :)

[captvanhalen]

I would like to invite the "readers" to do a little google search on WAV vs AIFF: http://www.google.com/searchq=wavvsaiff

http://forums.applei...hp/t-18991.html

"Redbook audio is just a general term for raw, uncompressed audio. WAV and AIFF are both redbook formats. They both produce the exact same sound the same way. A WAV file and AIFF file of the same audio will actually be very similar. If I recall correctly (it's been a long time since a working in low-level audio), the only difference is the header and footer of the file... and maybe an endian issue."

http://forums.macrum...hp/t-10858.html

"There is no difference in sound quality, just the code, but you can encode the file types back and forth to find out if there is a difference in sound quality. However, even with incredible hearing and modern earphone technology it should be impossible to distinguish the quality between the two file types."

http://www.hydrogena...php/t46297.html

"First, WAV and AIFF are almost exactly the same thing. They are both containers for RAW PCM audio. The only difference is that WAV originally was a Microsoft / IBM standard and AIFF originaly was an Apple standard. They both will preserve the resolution of the CD PCM audio perfectly and untouched. The downside is that the size of the files will be exactly the same as it was on the CD and thus very large (about 10MB per minute of CD audio)."

http://discussions.a...794186&tstart=0

"CDs are another story completely. any software that burns an audio CD will take care of formatting the disc and data properly. neither bare AIFFs, nor WAVs will play in a standard consumer audio CD player (though the format of the audio on a CD is indeed AIFF)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

"Both WAVs and AIFFs are compatible with Windows and Macintosh operating systems. The format takes into account some differences of the Intel CPU such as little-endian byte order. The RIFF format acts as a ?wrapper? for various audio compression codecs."

"The usual bitstream encoding is the Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) format."

Our "readers" can do their own research, rather than take the word of people who make lofty unfounded claims.

[Chris Breen]

This has become way too personal. Capt, you're right, there's no audible difference (subjective or otherwise) between AIFF and WAV files -- at their heart they have the same audio data.

Now that we have that cleared up, I suggest that if you two wish to snipe at each other, you do so via private message.

[captvanhalen]

Chris Breen said:

This has become way too personal. Capt, you're right, there's no audible difference (subjective or otherwise) between AIFF and WAV files -- at their heart they have the same audio data.

Now that we have that cleared up, I suggest that if you two wish to snipe at each other, you do so via private message.

I totally agree Chris. I would like to apologize to you and your readers for this mess. Especially to you, because you were right. Maybe this whole fiasco just helped to prove your point.

:)