Talk:WAV

message: Does anyone know what this codec type is, or where I could find out? Mr. Jones 10:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 350 

message: I'm confused, this article describes PCM as lossless whereas all other articles seem to describe it as lossy (Lossy data compression, List of codecs).  --gb 08:31, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Don't mix up PCM and ADPCM. The first is "lossless", but the latter can be lossy.
::According to the article, PCM is also uncompressed (which is why it it lossless -_-).  This would seem to indicate that ADPCM is compressed.
::: You could also store data lossy without using compression, e. g. if you have a format with floating point values instead of integers :o) — 91.4.31.52 20:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would one want to "store data lossy without using compression" ? The loss that the article is about is loss whose consequence in the data (image, sound or whatever) is never desireable but may be considered tolerable as the price for the benefit of compacting the data. Floating point values just have smaller (finite and non-constant) quantising steps than integer values. (cuddlyable3) 84.210.139.189 19:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  32bit Floating point can easily cover all 16bit integer numbers without any quantization effects. Quite the contrary: 32 bit floating is able to cover integers up to 25 bit (signed). The definition of lossless can be stated as follows: If a certain number format is capable to represent the input format without quantization or similar the encoding process is lossless (i.e. if the input signal can be completely reconstructed from the encoded signal). This does not depend only on the number format but also on the input signal. This implies that for each input signal which has to be encoded an appropriate encoding must be found which can fully (non-destructively) cover the input number range. E.g. if the input signal has a dynamic of 8 bits, the signal can be encoded lossless using 8 bits PCM. Compression has nothing to do with it. Compression is per definition a lossless process. If something can be lossy than it is encoding. Take mp3 for instance: The encoding is based on psycho-acoustical models what can result in a data reduction which can be (to trade space for exactness) lossy. Once encoded, the output stream gets compressed by a runlength compression. This runlength compression is completely reversible and that's the reason why it's a compression. Please respect the simple statutes for editors of encyclopaedias: First get the knowledge, then write. Wikipedia does not profit when it spreads misinformation only because of some writing exercises of some self-exposers.Cls.nebadje 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually, PCM is not really lossless. PCM is a way to store sound, which by definition is an analogue signal, in a digital way. Analogue signals have an infinite amount of possible sample values, whereas PCM represents samples with a finite number of values. Any "real" sample value that is in between PCM's possible values is rounded to the nearest representable sample value. So, PCM is lossless only in the sense that no data is lost apart from the loss caused by digitalization.Cassandra B 17:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the statement suggesting LPCM is "lossless". The term usually refers to data compression, and the word was even linked to the lossless data compression article. However, LPCM in WAV is not compressed therefore cannot be lossless nor lossy in this sense. There is no loss of data involved, but it is improper use of such terminology. Note how BMP file format does not suggest it is "lossless", as similarly it is an uncompressed format. --Zilog Jones (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lossy/lossless 

message: How many audio channels can a wav file have? --Zilog Jones 00:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically 65535 channels, because WAVEFORMATEX::nChannels is 16 bits. Motonari 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of channels 

message: The values in "1 min" column are wrong. For example "11,025 Hz 16 bit PCM" is said to be "1291k" per minute. Thats just the Prefix it doesn't have any unit of measurement. I guessing it should be Byte? And shouldn't the value be ((Bitrate * 60)/8)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.71.53 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Codec Comparison Table 

message: I'm don't think the limit calculation is accurate.  If the maximum file size is 2^32 bytes, then by my calculation the file can be up to 13.5 hours..  The issue may be that some programs treat the file size as an signed integer, which would limit it to 2^31 bytes.  However, I think the format itself uses unsigned. Superm401 - Talk 10:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The limit calculation is correct, because it assumes stereo.Motonari 02:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Implementations often take -1 (0xFFFFFFFF) in the size field as "length unknown" and therefore will play until the file ends. If you only have one chunk, that does the right thing. Otherwise, one uses superchunks to overcome this limitation — movies packaged into a RIFF/AVI are commonly superchunked at 1 GB boundaries. Not sure how exactly the binary layout is, but I suppose it is just a concatenation of multiple RIFFs. ("RIFF" <length> <payload> "RIFF" <length> <payload>...) -j.engelh (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit 

message: I want an example wav file on this site. Yes sir.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.4.90 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Example provided, Sir. Bestfaith (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted. The hex file dump is too detailed for an encyclopedia. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss. User Girx deleted a short example wav file with a summary "We don't need a hex dump in an encyclopedia; this is not a tutorial about generating wave files". Is there a good argument why articles about file formats such as .bmp and .gif offer examples but the .wav article may not? Blooteuth (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no example file? 

message: A "standard" .wav file is signed, 16-bit, little-endian.  The easy way to tell is to generate a short section of silence, and note that the data values are all 0000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 8-bit WAV files are unsigned, everything above that is signed. That's the "standard" to my knowledge. Radiodef (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Signed vs Unsigned - what is "standard"? 

message: The section WAV file compression codecs compared simply starts with no discussion of how compression in WAV files is accommodated, or how it is rare. I see a need for an introductory paragraph. (I can't write this as I know nothing about compressed WAV. I was unaware such a thing even existed.) Also, I am not sure that the long table is appropriate. The article is about WAV; it is not about comparing different audio compression algorithms. What do others think? HairyWombat (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The format chunk lets you specify the format of the audio data. WAV files are almost always 1 for uncompressed PCM and then the audio is raw samples in a big line but you can put whatever you want in the header. I will keep this in mind and try to find a reference for the codes. Radiodef (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compression section needs intro 

message: It seems the sampling rate can be set anywhere from 1 Hz to 4.3 GHz, and it has no problem storing signals down to DC.  Has anyone used WAV files to store non-audio data, like low-frequency seismic recordings or high-frequency ultrasound?
Apparently so.
http://ltspice.linear.com/software/scad3.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.63.131 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-audio data 

message: I wonder whether the article title should in fact be Wave Audio File Format, with WAV redirecting to this location? Given that it is the full name of the format s. AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format) currently works this way and I think it works better. Any thoughts? Fattonyni (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it should be WAVE. WAV name is just MSDOS victim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijauhsdfjsik (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Done. Done. Changed to the full format name Waveform Audio File Format, just the same as Audio Interchange File Format is for AIFF, so better logically. Jimthing (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Undone. In the future, please make a request for move instead. --Hinata talk 18:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title -- abbreviation? 

message: .wv is file extension of wavpack  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.56.1 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  .WV is not the same as WAV 

message: I have some doubts about this section. A discussion of lossy formats and why they're commonly used may be interesting in itself, but perhaps this article is not the best place to discuss this. Also, given that things change over time, the very idea of a section called "POPULARITY" is liable to become unstuck over time. 92.234.48.114 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POPULARITY Section 

message: Waveform Audio File Format [...] is a Microsoft and IBM audio file format standard [...]
If it's a standard, under what has it been standardized (ISO/IEC,...)???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.98.77 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A company (or an alliance) can create a standard without ISO/IEC/ANSI. It happens all the time. Glrx (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on WAV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120227091041/http://ltspice.linear.com/software/scad3.pdf to http://ltspice.linear.com/software/scad3.pdf#page=98
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified