[davidhunternyc]

I was wondering what the format of a CD is recorded with? WAV, AIFF, or neither. Here is the reason I am asking. I have a MacBook with a 1TB external hard drive that I have been burning my entire CD collection onto. Please don't jump down my throat here, but I decided to burn all my CD's with AIFF. I know everyone has been telling me to use Apple Lossless, but I have plenty of storage space on my hard drive. But I want to know, what is the original Red book information on a CD. I could have burned all my CD's using WAV instead. What are the costs and benefits of burning using AIFF and what are the costs and benefits of burning using WAV? I started using AIFF because I am using a MacBook but the MacBook also supports WAV. So I do not know one way or the other which is the best format between the two. I would think that if the information on a CD is AIFF than I should use that format to burn my CD's on my external hard drive. What format do recording studios use? A lot of questions but if anyone could help me I would be grateful. Thanks.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Bump

 

[zip22]

I don't understand your reasoning for not using apple lossless, but there is a lot of info on this topic online

Red Book (audio CD standard) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pulse-code modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Peter Pinna]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was wondering what the format of a CD is recorded with? WAV, AIFF, or neither. Here is the reason I am asking. I have a MacBook with a 1TB external hard drive that I have been burning my entire CD collection onto. Please don't jump down my throat here, but I decided to burn all my CD's with AIFF. I know everyone has been telling me to use Apple Lossless, but I have plenty of storage space on my hard drive. But I want to know, what is the original Red book information on a CD. I could have burned all my CD's using WAV instead. What are the costs and benefits of burning using AIFF and what are the costs and benefits of burning using WAV? I started using AIFF because I am using a MacBook but the MacBook also supports WAV. So I do not know one way or the other which is the best format between the two. I would think that if the information on a CD is AIFF than I should use that format to burn my CD's on my external hard drive. What format do recording studios use? A lot of questions but if anyone could help me I would be grateful. Thanks.

The files on a CD are .cda files. In which format the files would be stored on your computer would be entirely up to you. .WAV and AIFF files are comparable. They produce the best sound because they are uncompressed.
When you burn a CD using either .WAV files or AIFF files, the sound of the music as it plays from the finished CD will sound better than if your source would have been some type of compressed file such as an mp3 file, as one example.
Regarding cost and benefits with either a .WAV or an AIFF file, these are larger files so therefore they take up more space on your hard drive as well as when they are transferred to a CD (and become .cda files). You probably already know that you can fit more compressed files on a CD then will be able to fit uncompressed files. However, as indicated previously, the sound quality will not be as good when compressed files are used instead of uncompressed files.
Recording studios use both formats (.WAV and AIFF) to digitally store files. They also store the original recordings in a vault. These original recordings could be anything from DAT recordings to analog tape to discs and even cylinders (if the recordings are very old).
I hope my answer helps. Good luck!

 

[davidhunternyc]

So neither WAV or AIFF are the formats on a CD? It did not mention either of these formats on the Wikipedia links. But which format would you use on an external hard drive; AIFF or WAV?

 

[davidhunternyc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Pinna /img/forum/go_quote.gif The files on a CD are .cda files. In which format the files would be stored on your computer would be entirely up to you. .WAV and AIFF files are comparable. They produce the best sound because they are uncompressed. When you burn a CD using either .WAV files or AIFF files, the sound of the music as it plays from the finished CD will sound better than if your source would have been some type of compressed file such as an mp3 file, as one example. Regarding cost and benefits with either a .WAV or an AIFF file, these are larger files so therefore they take up more space on your hard drive as well as when they are transferred to a CD (and become .cda files). You probably already know that you can fit more compressed files on a CD then will be able to fit uncompressed files. However, as indicated previously, the sound quality will not be as good when compressed files are used instead of uncompressed files. Recording studios use both formats (.WAV and AIFF) to digitally store files. They also store the original recordings. I hope my answer helps. Good luck!

Thank you Peter for your reply. Yes, it was a big help. Why do recording studios use both WAV and AIFF, instead of one or the other? There has to be a reason why both are used. Since I am using a MacBook and AIFF is an Apple format, should I stick with it or go with WAV?

 

[thedauntlessone]

Like zipp said why not use ALAC? It's a lossless file... and I can guarantee you won't be able to tell the difference between lossless and high bit rate MP3

 

[davidhunternyc]

I know this is crazy, but just a few weeks ago, I brought up this issue of lossless files vs. uncompressed files such as WAV or AIFF. Those are good questions but it is not what I am after here in this thread. I have so many questions about what is actually on a CD, and what are the benefits and costs and burning in WAV and AIFF. If you could help, please respond. Thanks.

 

[labrat]

Deleted.

 

[krmathis]

Neither!
Both WAV and AIFF are file containers. An audio CD don't hold any containers, just raw PCM audio data.

 

[davidhunternyc]

Thanks for the response. It seems to me that if PCM is used on a CD and it is digital, than why can't we burn those CD's using the same PCM? Does it have to due with the disk itself? And I am still waiting to see if anyone can tell me the pro's and con's of both WAV and AIFF. Thanks.

 

[ricthaman]

I'm not totally shure about this but I thought there was something like RAW audio. I think this comes closest to what the OP means imho.

I work with RAW files regularly because they are better than WAV files for some purposes. I don't know the nitty gritty of it though....

rgds

 

[gz76]

I don't know why the OP isn't ripping to Apple Lossless, which is a lossless compression scheme. It'll give you the same information as AIFF/WAV, but at a fraction of the file size, unlike lossy compression which throws away data to save on file size.

Anyway... the different file formats exist, as far as I know, because WAV was co-created by Microsoft for use on their operating system, and AIFF was co-created by Apple. If you want to know more about the differences, then just read the linked articles.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have so many questions about what is actually on a CD, and what are the benefits and costs and burning in WAV and AIFF. If you could help, please respond. Thanks.

CDs contain PCM data. Both WAV and AIFF are container formats that store PCM data. The actual audio data that is contained in a WAV or AIFF file will be the same audio data as exists on the CD.

Lossless formats such as FLAC, ALAC, WavPack, etc. also store PCM data. Unlike WAV, AIFF, and the CD itself, which store uncompressed data, lossless formats employ various compressions schemes. However, as the phrase "lossless format" implies, there is no loss of data as a result of this compression. A lossless file can be decoded to exactly the same PCM data as the original file.

Lossless formats store exactly the same PCM data as the CD. In addition, lossless files support metadata tagging, which WAV files do not support (I'm not sure about AIFF). There is really no reason to archive your music in WAV or AIFF instead of a lossless format like FLAC or ALAC.

Incidentally, the term "burning" usually refers to the creation of a CD: "I burned some songs onto a CD so I could listen to them in the car." The term "ripping" is used to refer to extracting the audio data from a CD: "I ripped the new CD I bought so I could listen to it on my iPod."

 

[ElDanno]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks for the response. It seems to me that if PCM is used on a CD and it is digital, than why can't we burn those CD's using the same PCM? .

You are, PCM is inside the AIFF format you are using. As it can be in a WAV file.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif And I am still waiting to see if anyone can tell me the pro's and con's of both WAV and AIFF. Thanks

WAV is a Microsoft format with specific requirements for Windows.

AIFF is a Apple format with specific requirements for Macintosh.

It as simple as that.

They both can contain PCM audio. The same PCM audio you find on a CD.

If you are using a Mac you should stick with AIFF instead of WAV. It's that platform's native format.

Although, as mentioned before you should really be using Apple Lossless as that would save a lot of space.