Ya know...

Hi,
 
Is the distortion really any better? Or is it just weirder?

Define a "pure" sound?

To my mind, even an analog recording is only an "analogy" of the sound you hear in the room.

And what about sounds that were never recorded by a microphone? Synths etc?

I think too much is being read into this

Another shameless plug. I like your style Ed 

Sooner or later somebody is going to invent a better way to record sound that does not result in quantization error and aliasing. By analogue and pure, I mean "real sound", not equipment type. My post was actually more about the limits of my own ability to see how to improve the state of the art of non linear editing (I am neither educated enough nor smart enough). But I want to. To answer Pedro, I find digital distortion weird, but its not about that per se, as about finding a closer approximation to the original sine than quantized samples and random noise bits. Maybe I am wrong, and we have reached the pinnacle of audio recording already.

foxwolfen


Sooner or later somebody is going to invent a better way to record sound that does not result in quantization error and aliasing. By analogue and pure, I mean "real sound", not equipment type. My post was actually more about the limits of my own ability to see how to improve the state of the art of non linear editing (I am neither educated enough nor smart enough). But I want to. To answer Pedro, I find digital distortion weird, but its not about that per se, as about finding a closer approximation to the original sine than quantized samples and random noise bits. Maybe I am wrong, and we have reached the pinnacle of audio recording already.

That's a better way of looking at it than a digital vs analogue debate.  I think the only way to strive for that kind of perfection is to overlook the idea that what we have is good enough, which it likely is for all practical purposes regarding music making.

I think we've probably reached a plateau rather than the pinnacle I'm sure there's further innovation to come.

The fact that digital audio has definite 'characteristics' even if they are beyond the scope of normal hearing in most cases means there is room for improvement.

If I were to broach the problem, and had unlimited funds for experimentation, I'd attempt to mechanically duplicate a fine-tuned set of ears for the vibration capture then create software to mimic how the brain processes that information.

The WYHIWYG approach.

I often think something along the lines (no pun intended) of plotted vectors, kind of like an upscaled version of vectored fonts versus bitmapped ones, where the points that end up being aliased are predicted as a trajectory rather than solid 'blocks'.

I have no idea of what is involved or how it would work with audio but I do think of it from a lay point of view as an area where improvements could emerge from.

Maybe that would suit instruments better than recording though.

daryl1968

Jonbouy


I often think something along the lines (no pun intended) of plotted vectors, kind of like an upscaled version of vectored fonts versus bitmapped ones, where the points that end up being aliased are predicted as a trajectory rather than solid 'blocks'.

I have no idea of what is involved or how it would work with audio but I do think of it from a lay point of view as an area where improvements could emerge from.

Maybe that would suit instruments better than recording though.

I like kittens

I don't, hateful little things that make me sneeze.  Beneath all that schmaltzy fluffy greeting card appeal they also have the most obnoxious smelling wee of all creatures.

There I said it.

Fox I think you may be looking into this way too deep to be honest. I'm still confused on the whole "pure sound" thing. When you record onto tape, is that considered pure sound? If you think it is, it's actually not as tape altered the original sound quite a bit. Digital gets a bad rap because most people that record using it after switching from tape, are blown away that the sounds they thought were great no longer stand up.

Digital only records what you put into it. If anything, math and science to the side, it's more pure as it captures the exact sound without tape coloration and saturation.

I just fired up my old 24 track 2 inch machine last week to do a song on it because I got tired of it sitting in the studio looking at me like "c'mon, use me or sell me biyotch!" So I striped a track of SMPTE so I could still use my pc and away I went. I've not recorded a single thing on tape in years. Well, needless to say I didn't miss it nor did I miss the sound. Since I've been recording digitally, my tones I use now have been altered for digital. My tastes have changed as well. What I was left with was a good sounding recording, but it was a bit dark with a more saturated sound than I'm used to. It's still good and stacks up against anything else I've done, but I'd not call it pure sounding. Colored and warm would be more my explanation.

Also, with digital transfers, your converters can really play a role in how things sound. I notice the sound I get out of my Realtek card is different than my Layla, Pro-Fire, and RME. Notice I say "different" not better or worse.

I have a few students I teach that were born and raised on analog and tape. The digital realm was quite a challenge to them because they were used to that tape saturation we can get when we run something hot. It does color the sound and does take away some of the highs we get with digital. But to me, the pure sound is the digital sound because it is recording exactly what you put into it without any coloration. If there is coloration for the worst...my first place to look would be in the soundcard or converters you're using as they can make a difference.

After my recording experience now though, I don't see me ever using my tape machine again other than if a client comes and requests it or I have to do a bounce from tape to disc for someone. However, I will say that I did like the way vocals and guitars sounded right out of the box. That said, the only thing I wasn't able to cop all the way was the tape saturation I'd achieved by going a little over 0dB. Digital and plugs don't have that aspect quite down in my opinion. But....copping the eq I get on tape in the digital realm to make the sound SOUND the same was easy and I could tell no difference at all. That's just my experience though. I stay away from all the math and science. It doesn't help me at all. Something either sounds good to me, or it doesn't.

-Danny

Danny, to me one of the greatest attributes of going digital was, as you describe, a much "cleaner" sound, vastly expanded dynamic range and a complete lack of media related noise. As I mentioned above, pure in this sense is not about analogue equipment, but the fact that our ears are analogue, instruments are analogue (outside digital instruments), and the transfer medium (the air) is analogue. The problem I am facing in my brain is that the various recording devices and media all have flaws to some degree. With Tape its lack of dynamic range, with vinyl its is bass EQ, with digital its quantization error. And also with digital, the sine is only a close approximation and requires the addition of noise to anti-alias the sine... this is not "pure". All I am saying is, I am ready for the next evolution.

With Tape its lack of dynamic range, with vinyl its is bass EQ, with digital its quantization error. And also with digital, the sine is only a close approximation and requires the addition of noise to anti-alias the sine... this is not "pure"

Yes, all very true, but the difference is, you can HEAR the lack of dynamic range in analog, you can HEAR the bass EQ problems with vinyl, you can HEAR the high end roll off with tape.

What I can't hear is the quantization error introduced in a digital system.

It may be imperfect, but it's a bloody sight better than anything that's gone before it.

@SCorey - this is very true and why I tied in the idea of light field camera.

foxwolfen


Danny, to me one of the greatest attributes of going digital was, as you describe, a much "cleaner" sound, vastly expanded dynamic range and a complete lack of media related noise. As I mentioned above, pure in this sense is not about analogue equipment, but the fact that our ears are analogue, instruments are analogue (outside digital instruments), and the transfer medium (the air) is analogue. The problem I am facing in my brain is that the various recording devices and media all have flaws to some degree. With Tape its lack of dynamic range, with vinyl its is bass EQ, with digital its quantization error. And also with digital, the sine is only a close approximation and requires the addition of noise to anti-alias the sine... this is not "pure". All I am saying is, I am ready for the next evolution.

Ok, I'm with you now...thanks for clarifying. I was a bit confused with the pure thing...but I see what you mean.
 
Ok, this brings up another question. You mention these quantizing errors and flaws, but can you really hear them? If so, can you please give me some examples and teach me what to listen for? I am honestly not trying to be a smart @ss and call you out on this. But I've heard about this stuff for years and honest when I tell you, I sure can't hear a difference at all. I sincerely would love to be able to learn how to hear it if it exists.
 
For example, I've recently been running my exports out at 32/48. I don't hear a difference between them and 24/48 when I export out that way. It is my understanding that 32 bit float will round out my errors. However, I don't hear anything that sounds bad on either export format. If there is a way this can be taught to me simply by using my ears, I'd love to be able to hear it. Same with dithering....I can't hear it nor can I hear the various noise shaping offered. Sometimes I think I hear a difference and then find out it was all in my head.
 
-Danny