WAV or AIFF for ADR

[tomflint]

A quick question about ADR...

I'm doing some ADR sessions for voice recording using Pro Tools and I'm wondering if it's better to save them as AIFF or WAV files. I accidentally recorded my first session in AIFF and my second in WAV. Is this going to pose any problems during the sound mix with continuity? I have a lot more ADR to record so what should I choose from here on? Thanks!

[David W. Jones]

I would ask your editor what format they prefer. Was the original session an omf import into Protools? Did you not plan a round trip workflow in advance of your ADR session?

[John Willett]

Record everything in WAV or BWAV - if anything else is required only convert to that at the very end.

Keep all session and master recordings at uncompressed WAV or BWAV.

[Rick R]

I'm with Dave, "I would ask your editor what format they prefer"

Otherwise they are both PCM files, and would have the same quality. (sample rate and bit depth being equal) I prefer WAVE because my DAW and editing software writes/reads the metadata better.
FWIW, contrary to popular belief, a "Broadcast Wave File" would have the same quality as well, it can just contain more metadata. Timecode stamp, slate info, ect.

[Richard Crowley]

A "WAV" file and a "BWF" file are both forms of RIFF (Resource Interchange File Format). AVI is another form of RIFF file.
In fact the only difference between WAV and BWF is that BWF contains additional (interchangable and independent) meta-data "chunks". Adding BWF-style chunks to a WAV file creates a "BWF file". There is nothing magic about BWF except for a few more bytes of meta-data.

OTOH, AIFF is a branch of a completely different tree (IFF vs RIFF).

[Pedantic Sound]

WAV is the standard format with AIFF popping up now and again. WAV is a better way to go.

[David W. Jones]

WAV is the standard format with AIFF popping up now and again. WAV is a better way to go.

It really depends on the original edit format, which is why I suggested he ask his editor. For example... If they are editing on an older Mac software platform which works well with AIFF files, but balks with WAV files, then suggesting WAV files is the wrong choice. It really makes no sense to offer up an answer without knowing the particulars. It's kind of like asking... Which video codec should I use to match my earlier edit?

Rull of thumb... Always ask before you deliver!

[Noiz2]

It really depends on the original edit format, which is why I suggested he ask his editor. For example... If they are editing on an older Mac software platform which works well with AIFF files, but balks with WAV files, then suggesting WAV files is the wrong choice. It really makes no sense to offer up an answer without knowing the particulars. It's kind of like asking... Which video codec should I use to match my earlier edit?

Rull of thumb... Always ask before you deliver!

While I would also say that WAV is generally the better choice (it would have to be an ancient Mac to both not support WAV and not be able to convert it) ALWAYS ask first the person who is actually going to use the file. You just never know what they might require.

You are also going to want to ask about sample rate and bit depth AND what disk format they can read. If you hand an editor on a Mac a NTFS formatted drive they are going to have a hard time with it. The reverse is also true many windows users are going to have a problem with a HFS formatted disk. So get all the details up front and save yourself pain in the end.