What is the preferred recording format, WAV or AIFF?

[stubbsonic]

There is no need for scientific proof. In fact, science kind of gets in the way of understanding this stuff at this level — caught between the technical realities of mixing, sharing, and archiving vs. the reality of human hearing and people's choices of phonographic media for replaying what we create. There are simply too many right ways and wrong ways, depending on too many factors to ever hope to test in any consistent scientific way.
Shooshie

It seems like you are confusing "scientific" with "common sense". The scenarios you are presenting don't defy scientific study. The research would be more complicated, but not impossible. As with any WELL-DESIGNED study, you just have to account for all of the factors you can consider.

The adage "Trust your ears" is too simplistic and/or self-centered. If you know you have better hearing than everyone who will listen to your products, then perhaps that is a fairly safe rule-of-thumb.

I think "Do no harm" is perhaps a better adage for us audio pros. If I'm bringing a signal in from a thoughtfully positioned microphone, I lovingly send it through the nicest sounding mic pre I can afford, and try to preserve the sound as best I can. Throughout the process there are decisions that will add one quality and take away another-- usually and hopefully for the better of the project. Reverb will add a spaciousness to the sound while it might lose some degree of immediacy and intimacy. Perhaps, a more accurate adage is "Choose your harms in service of art."

However, when it comes to bit-depth and SR, it can be a complicated question, but the consequences are actually pretty minimal. Choosing a higher rate can require some hoop-jumping with SRC to get to your final format requirement (or you go through some added DA/AD stage). Matching the final format requirement is fine if that format is decent (48K/24, or even 44.1/24). However, it will make sense to archive at a high-rate and bit depth if the project warrants that level of care.

When I'm creating, I listen to the content, the music and follow where it needs to go. When I'm in audio engineer mode, I listen to the sound quality and use my knowledge and experience to prevent mistakes and avoid both signal and data loss.

[FMiguelez]

It seems like you are confusing "scientific" with "common sense". The scenarios you are presenting don't defy scientific study. The research would be more complicated, but not impossible. As with any WELL-DESIGNED study, you just have to account for all of the factors you can consider....

... The adage "Trust your ears" is too simplistic and/or self-centered.

Yes!

+10000

[darrell]

This is probably obvious, but if I am building a piece (orchestral) strictly from 24-bit samples, is there any reason to go to 48 or higher? Reverb tails perhaps? Do I not understand the difference between 24-bit samples and a higher recording rate? (Serious question)

Also, FMiguelez, where do I get the special stones?

[mikehalloran]

This is probably obvious, but if I am building a piece (orchestral) strictly from 24-bit samples, is there any reason to go to 48 or higher? Reverb tails perhaps? Do I not understand the difference between 24-bit samples and a higher recording rate? (Serious question)

48kHz is the sampling rate. 24bit is the resolution (aka depth). Here is a primer.
https://www.applied-acoustics.com/techt ... ebitdepth/

It is a very good question. Many do toss these terms around without understanding.

Many disagree with the author's conclusions but you will at least know what we are talking about. It does not address the issues of anti-aliasing filters and many others.

[Killahurts]

Getting back to the initial question from the o/p: What is the preferred recording format, WAV or AIFF?

Is anyone still using aiff these days?

Yeah, I am. But only because once we got off Sound Designer 2 files I chose AIFF, and I just never have thought to change it.

I guess I'm supposed to go to Broadcast Wave to be in the cool club, but I don't even know what that does

I do know that if I pull up wave files, DP plays it. If they are AIFF, DP plays it. They don't sound any different. If they need me to deliver Waves, I convert. If everything else is the same, i.e. bit rate, sample rate, etc.

Know what else? I record in 44.1kHz. always (except when I'm working with video). I don't like to convert.. bad enough having to convert 24 bit to 16 at the end.

[stubbsonic]

It's an oversimplification, but BIT-DEPTH deals with amplitude resolution (which affects the dynamic range), and SAMPLE-RATE deals with frequency resolution (which affects the upper end of the spectrum). In a waveform graphic, the Sample-Rate influences the X axis (horizontal), and the Bit-Depth influences the Y axis (vertical).

The two go hand in hand so you want plenty of resolution in time, and in value. I don't know if/how one affects the other, but they are measured in different ways. 24 bits give you a staggering number of possible amplitude positions, and 96K gives you 96000 samples per second per channel.

With human hearing topping off somewhere around 20K when we are kids --and declining as we age (and live, and chew gum)-- we need a little more than twice that to get those frequencies represented. Other processes are involved to remove aliasing and other artifacts.

No one is arguing for 16 bits, other than to suggest that it ain't that bad. 24-bit is better safer and requires less level futzing. We are discussing whether improvements that are offered by rates higher that 48K are audible and worth the disc space. I say it's worth the disc space whether I can hear it or not. But I usually record at 48/24.

[EMRR]

I guess I'm supposed to go to Broadcast Wave to be in the cool club, but I don't even know what that does

Pull up AIFF's in a different program, you don't know where they go in time. Pull up BWAV's, time stamps are built in, you can send them to time code points and everything is in the right place in time.

[FMiguelez]

Regarding bit depth, I confess that, seemingly contradictory to some of my points, I've been using 32 bFP to record my stems and final mixes lately.

I did this mostly to expedite my workflow, and to avoid the issue of quantising distortion VS dither noise when recording the stems and final mix (or bouncing them) to 24 bits. The regular audio tracks, remain at 24 bits, of course.
Also, DP's Dither command uncertainty also didn't boost me with confidence. And I also wanted to be technically correct.

I admit the dither noise must be waaaay down there. If I turn up my Tascam's gain to hear the dither or quantisation distortion, I can't because I hear the noise of the Tascam louder first (unless I turn it waaaay up, and this allows me to A/B dither or quantization). That makes them hard to hear.

I also figured that the 1/3 larger size that the 32 bFP entails was worth it to avoid those issues and be technically correct.

Regarding the higher SRs, I would probably TRY, just for giggles, 96 or 88.xx, since my hardware supports it, but my sample libraries are mostly in 44.1, so it doesn't make much sense for me.
Some people argue that I'd benefit from the COMBINED instruments higher resolution this way, but I haven't felt compelled to try it. One of these days, perhaps, just to see what happens and if it's worth it...

But the 32 bit thing was totally worth it, since they are stems and the final mixes!

[EMRR]

I track at 24 and switch to 32 for mix.

[darrell]

Thanks guys! I am more smarter now!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Shouldn't we have devolved into personal attacks about "taste" in this thread yet.

Not the right bunch of members I guess.

[EMRR]

I try not to devolve, but .....get a few more drinks in me.....

[MIDI Life Crisis]

I try not to devolve, but .....get a few more drinks in me.....

You're on.

[SixStringGeek]

Shouldn't we have devolved into personal attacks about "taste" in this thread yet.

Not the right bunch of members I guess.

I find it hilarious people arguing about this in an era when half the pop songs out there feature at least on segment with the vocals piped through a super lo-fi channel like a megaphone, telephone, iphone, etc.

Almost nobody appreciates fidelity in commercial music these days anyhow.

[BKK-OZ]

Almost nobody appreciates fidelity in commercial music these days anyhow.

Mr Young would disagree: https://www.ponomusic.com/ccrz__CCPage? ... l_I_really