WAV vs AIFF Recording

WAV and AIFF represent the two dominant uncompressed audio formats in professional recording. Both store audio at full quality, raising the question of which to choose. Understanding their differences helps make informed format decisions.

Format Similarities

Both formats store uncompressed PCM audio data. The actual audio samples are identical regardless of container format. A 24-bit, 48 kHz recording contains exactly the same audio data whether saved as WAV or AIFF.

Both support all professional sample rates and bit depths. Either format handles everything from standard 44.1 kHz/16-bit to high-resolution 192 kHz/24-bit configurations.

Quality is identical between formats. No audible difference exists because the audio data is the same. Format choice affects file structure, not audio content.

Historical Platform Associations

WAV originated on Windows platforms and became the default for PC-based audio production. Its association with Windows made it the standard in studios built around Windows computers.

AIFF originated on Macintosh platforms, developing as Apple’s equivalent uncompressed format. Mac-based studios traditionally defaulted to AIFF for the same compatibility reasons.

Modern cross-platform compatibility has reduced these distinctions. Both formats work reliably on both operating systems and in all major DAWs.

Technical Differences

WAV stores data in little-endian byte order, matching Intel processor architecture. AIFF uses big-endian byte order, matching older Motorola processors used in early Macs.

These technical differences are handled automatically by software. Users don’t interact with byte order directly, so this distinction has no practical impact.

File structure differs between formats. AIFF uses IFF chunk-based structure while WAV uses RIFF structure. Again, software handles these differences transparently.

Metadata Support

Both formats support embedded metadata including artist, title, and production information. The specific metadata fields and structures differ between formats.

Broadcast WAV (BWF) extends WAV with standardized metadata fields for professional broadcast applications. BWF includes timestamp and originator information valuable for post-production.

AIFF metadata support varies by application. Some DAWs write comprehensive metadata while others support minimal information.

Compatibility Considerations

WAV enjoys marginally broader compatibility across platforms and applications. Some specialized audio tools, particularly Windows-based utilities, may support WAV exclusively.

AIFF compatibility is excellent across major platforms and applications. Any professional DAW handles AIFF files without issue.

When exchanging files between facilities, WAV typically presents fewer compatibility questions. The slight compatibility advantage makes WAV a safe default choice.

File Size

File sizes are essentially identical for equivalent audio content. Both formats add minimal overhead to the raw audio data.

Any size difference is negligible, typically a few kilobytes for metadata headers. This difference has no practical impact on storage requirements.

Neither format provides compression. Both produce files sized according to duration, sample rate, and bit depth without reduction.

Choosing Between Formats

When working within a single studio, either format works fine. Consistency within the facility matters more than which format is chosen.

When collaborating with external studios or clients, asking about their preference prevents format questions. If no preference is stated, WAV serves as a safe default.

For archive purposes, either format provides excellent long-term stability. Both have decades of established support and will remain readable indefinitely.

Converting Between Formats

Converting between WAV and AIFF is lossless and introduces no quality change. The audio data transfers perfectly between container formats.

DAWs and audio utilities handle conversion through simple export or save-as functions. No special processing or settings are required.

Avoiding unnecessary conversion simplifies workflows. Choosing one format and maintaining it throughout production eliminates conversion steps.

Practical Recommendation

WAV represents the most universally compatible choice. When uncertain, defaulting to WAV minimizes potential compatibility questions.

Studios and engineers with established AIFF workflows have no reason to change. The format works excellently for all professional applications.

The format choice matters less than consistency. Choosing either format and using it consistently produces better results than mixing formats arbitrarily.