[Dream] Aiff and Wav

[Dale Ghent]

On Mar 30, 2007, at 9:29 AM, UnderTow wrote:

> OMFI is really an Avid thing. In other words it is not a public
> organisation (although it is recognised by other public  
> organisations).
> OMF is also being superseeded by AAF.

Remember, we're talking about events that took place back in the 80s.

> BWF on the other hand is recognised by the following organisations:  
> EBU,
> ITU, APBU, NAB, IRTO, ATSC, AES, CCIR, FCC, NTSC, ISO. (and more  
> probably
> including OMFI group). These are the kind of organisations I mean.
>
> That having been said, AIFF will probably be arround for the  
> forseeable
> future.

...

> Correct but AIFF doesn't support timestamping afaics so BWF really  
> is a
> superior format.

I wasn't talking about what was best and what was worse vis a vis  
WAVE vs. AIFF man. This isn't a football game. I was explaining their  
differences and how it came about.

Yes, BWF's metadata facilities poly-channelness make it much more  
useful than stock AIFF and WAVE RIFF formats, but that wasn't what  
the discussion was about.

/dale