The auditory system is digital. The cochlea stimulates discrete hair cells and results in discrete nerve firings. Nothing very smooth about it.

If you want to improve the state of the art in sound recording and reproduction, you need to study psychology and perception.

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.

Guys, I have already qualified why I meant by pure, and its not what you are talking about. I fully agree that digital is a vast improvement over analogue technology.

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

At the end of the day, your ears are the weakest link in the chain and make most of these discussion moot. I have print outs of my hearing and I know that my left ear is not as sensitive and has some high frequency attenuation. If I was to listen using one ear at a time I'd end up with two different mixes.

If you think that you can hear distortion at certain frequencies you better have a good hearing test to be sure that you can actually hear properly at that frequency. I tend to think that the soft clipping of analogue equipment tends to smooth things out by introducing natural compression. Following that logic, there's no reason why a skilled engineer couldn't recreate those same effects.

Bottom line, our ears are more flawed than our recording gear of choice.