SD II, AIFF and Wav... is there any diff. according to the sound quality?

[King Kong]

People like to ask me this question when I tell them I'm using 001 and PT in a PC rather than a Mac, does SD II do something that Aiff doesn't?

Will there be a different if I record in Aiff with a Mac system?

[odysseys]

Protools handles sdII files on mac and wav on PC (other formats also but with conversion first).A friend of mine that has worked in Air studios in the past told me that SDII and AIFF have the same sound quality,while wav differs slightly (downwards) due to some form of recalculation (don't remember his exact explanation,but the result is that).I haven't done any listening test,so i don't have any opinion on this one.I just try not to change file format when i master if the mastering program supports the one i was working for until then.

[Jayman#9]

Of coarse AIFF and SD2 files sound better. They are Mac formats!!!! [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] I've heard this from almost every Mac guy that ever has brought up the subject. There is no big difference. It's all the same 1's & 0's with different headers witten in the different formats. Lastly, why would Digidesign say that Wav is the new standard if it sounded the worst? Because it doesn't. The facts are that wav files happen to be the most universal. I'm not sure about AIFF, but wav files are a good format for surround sound. Wav's can have at least 9 (I'm not sure of the limit) channels of audio interleaved into 1 file. I'd say that SD2 files are the worst simply because they can't record higher than 48khz or have more than 2 channels.

[minimoog]

all three file formats store uncompressed PCM data. they sound 100% identical. anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is full of shi*.

also, converting between any of these formats will not alter the sound in any way, shape or form. it's not like performing sample or bit rate conversions.