What is the preferred recording format, WAV or AIFF?

[Topo]

Wondering what the Pro's and Con's are for one or the other. What's everyone use? Thanks

[FMiguelez]

I remember AIFF used to have some kind of issue with timestamps, and something about the limit of the length of a file...

The moment DP adopted BWAV I started using it and never looked back.

[Henry Robinett]

BWAV.


All the best,
www.henryrobinett.com
Check out my latest CD on iTunes.
I Have Known Mountains by Henry Robinett
https://itun.es/us/pi6C_

[MIDI Life Crisis]

BWAV

Everything in 48k/24 bit

THE END

[mikehalloran]

BWAV

Everything in 48k/24 bit

THE END

He's not wrong.

Even though you have other choices, that's what the other children working in other studios generally like to see if you are swapping files.

[Michael Canavan]

IMO the main and only reasons to use AIFF is if you're working a lot with Logic and Garageband, AIFF supports Apple Loops, and that's about the only advantage anymore. Hate saying it but I feel the same way these days about AU. I was an early adopter of AU thinking Apple would surpass Steinbergs VST format, but sadly that's not the case, that, and when I was using Logic and Live it was an easy transfer of preset formats etc.

[Henry Robinett]

BWAV

Everything in 48k/24 bit

THE END

Everyone I work with uses 96k/24. Myself included.


All the best,
www.henryrobinett.com
Check out my latest CD on iTunes.
I Have Known Mountains by Henry Robinett
https://itun.es/us/pi6C_

[philbrown]

BWAV
Why? Markers.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

BWAV

Everything in 48k/24 bit

THE END

Everyone I work with uses 96k/24. Myself included

The question then is "why?"

Film and video generally require 48/24 unless it's hi-def. 96 doesn't improve anything afaik.

Why consume more disk space? What do you see as the advantage of 96?

[Jesse DeCarlo]

The question then is "why?"

Film and video generally require 48/24 unless it's hi-def. 96 doesn't improve anything afaik.

Why consume more disk space? What do you see as the advantage of 96?

The amount of disk space consumed by 96k audio is nothing compared to the amount of server space consumed by forum discussions about the benefits (or not) of 96k audio.

Many audio engineers who work in music production, among whom I count myself, feel that most ADC/DAC implementations sound better at 96k. We know it's not supposed to be this way, because according to the Nyquist Theorem we can have complete reconstruction of the audible frequency band at 44.1kHz, but they key word is implementation. Building a converter to a price point generally does not result in achieving the theoretical ideal.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

The amount of disk space consumed by 96k audio is nothing compared to the amount of server space consumed by forum discussions about the benefits (or not) of 96k audio.

You're a clever guy.

[stubbsonic]

WRT 96K, though my ears are perhaps to "road worn" to hear what they add-- there is something to be said for "strategic overkill".

Since we have the ability to capture a higher resolution than ears can currently process, this doesn't mean that perhaps decades from now, some technology might exist that can enhance our experience of media. So in that future period, we might appreciate that some media took advantage of the extra resolution.

I consider each project's trajectory (final medium, and perhaps future for re-issue, etc.) I sometimes start the project at 96K, knowing that it will be worth the extra space (and the headache of SRC).

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Keeping up with current and even past technologies is more of a concern to me...

[Shooshie]

I no longer rely on what I can hear, though I do hear most things. I take it to young ears who can still hear 20K. They, like me, hear a distinct difference between 44.1K and 48K. When I play 48K vs. 88.2K or 96K, the reports are about 50/50, the same as random. I want to believe in the marvelous depth which logically I presume should be there, but I can't hear it, and I just don't get any reports back from those young ears that indicates they're hearing it. I've used those higher levels on a number of projects, but I've come back to 48K as my standard, simply because I find it a little less problematic storage-wise, which trumps the imaginary feeling that things are "better." (which I still think, logically, they OUGHT to be)

Shooshie

[stubbsonic]

I saw a pretty convincing demonstration with a moderately priced AD/DA converter showing that at 48K, the highest frequencies were faithfully preserved.