Tweet
Greetings,
I recently posted about a problem I was having with AIFFs played back on J River MC--a pop at the very end of each track. I sent JRMC a couple of AIFF tracks ripped correctly on dB. JRMC investigated, and it turned out to not be their problem. According to them, the problem may have been:
"In an AIFF file's COMM chunk, there is a parameter that says how much audio data (number of sample frames) there are in the SSND chunk. The problem file [the AIFF file I sent them] had it specified wrong (8 bytes more than it should). The value can also be deduced from the chunk size of SSND chunk. This is theoretically not the right way (since the chunk size is subject to padding), but in practice is probably OK. Other applications probably used this second method so they did not show the problem. We used the first method method - the right method, because the AIFF specification says the amount of data should always be calculated from the number of sample frames. Now we use whichever method gives us a smaller value.
EDIT 1: I am not sure which version of dBpoweramp was used to create the file.
EDIT 2: It does not look like it was the tagging that created the problem. It was the creation of the aiff file by dBPa."
Just FYI--is this true?
Best,
Kristian
I recently posted about a problem I was having with AIFFs played back on J River MC--a pop at the very end of each track. I sent JRMC a couple of AIFF tracks ripped correctly on dB. JRMC investigated, and it turned out to not be their problem. According to them, the problem may have been:
"In an AIFF file's COMM chunk, there is a parameter that says how much audio data (number of sample frames) there are in the SSND chunk. The problem file [the AIFF file I sent them] had it specified wrong (8 bytes more than it should). The value can also be deduced from the chunk size of SSND chunk. This is theoretically not the right way (since the chunk size is subject to padding), but in practice is probably OK. Other applications probably used this second method so they did not show the problem. We used the first method method - the right method, because the AIFF specification says the amount of data should always be calculated from the number of sample frames. Now we use whichever method gives us a smaller value.
EDIT 1: I am not sure which version of dBpoweramp was used to create the file.
EDIT 2: It does not look like it was the tagging that created the problem. It was the creation of the aiff file by dBPa."
Just FYI--is this true?
Best,
Kristian
Comment