AIFF vs WAV: Does It Matter?
Published · updated · by Loopin
AIFF and WAV are both uncompressed formats storing essentially identical audio data — the difference between them is almost entirely about platform origin and metadata structure, not sound quality.
Why they're functionally the same audio-wise
Both formats store raw, uncompressed PCM audio data — the actual sound information is essentially identical between a WAV and an AIFF of the same source. Neither format applies any compression or lossy processing, so there's no meaningful quality distinction to worry about.
This means choosing between them is not a decision that affects how your master sounds, contrary to occasional confusion suggesting otherwise.
Where the difference actually originates
WAV originated on Windows/Microsoft systems, and AIFF originated on Apple systems — a historical legacy that mostly no longer matters since both formats are now broadly cross-platform compatible in virtually all modern software.
This origin story explains why some Apple-native tools default to AIFF, but it doesn't mean WAV is somehow incompatible or inferior on a Mac, or vice versa.
The one place it can genuinely matter: metadata
AIFF and WAV handle embedded metadata slightly differently, which occasionally causes compatibility quirks with certain specific software combinations, though this is increasingly rare with modern tools. If you're relying on specific metadata tags surviving a particular software chain, it's worth testing rather than assuming.
For the vast majority of mastering and distribution workflows, this is a non-issue — it only becomes relevant in specific, less common technical situations.
What actually determines which one to use
Check your specific distributor or platform's stated requirements — most explicitly request WAV, which makes it the more broadly safe default choice for final delivery regardless of what platform you produced the track on.
If a specific tool in your chain defaults to or strongly prefers AIFF and you have no reason to change it, there's no compelling reason to convert — the format itself isn't the source of any real problem.
The practical bottom line
Don't spend time deliberating between AIFF and WAV as if it's a quality decision — it isn't. Use whichever your workflow naturally produces, and convert only if a specific downstream requirement, like a distributor's stated format preference, calls for it.
This is a compatibility question, not a mastering or production quality question, and it deserves proportionally little attention in your actual workflow.
Frequently asked questions
Does AIFF sound better or worse than WAV?
Neither. Both are uncompressed formats storing essentially identical audio data. There's no meaningful sound quality difference between them -- the distinction is about platform origin and metadata handling, not audio.
Why do some Apple tools default to AIFF?
AIFF originated on Apple systems, similar to how WAV originated on Windows/Microsoft systems. This is largely a historical legacy now, since both formats are broadly cross-platform compatible in modern software.
Which format should I use for final delivery to a distributor?
Check your specific distributor's stated requirements. Most explicitly request WAV, making it the broadly safer default choice for final delivery regardless of which platform you produced the track on.