Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Mapman, suggests another good point. With vinyl there seems to be much more dependency on the accuracy of many more mechanical stages from beginning to end (user), and how does that actually turn out in overall real use?
In the end, even with the issues of availability, convenience, portability, record-ability and durability aside, it may come down to which format comes closer to the bulls eye, more often? How that is judged will perhaps be very personal. Some scoring more isolated cases of nearness to perfection higher, others scoring consistency higher. Even within those parameters, the scoring might vary, e.g., with some dismissing different levels of extraneous noise to different extents, and other penalizing extraneous noise to different extents. And, the same kind of scoring could be applied to what ever other various criterion different individuals prioritize differently.
At the risk of being redundant, I have yet to be convinced that one format consistently outperforms the other. With that said, I choose to consider those issues I previously suggested be put aside, availability, convenience, portability, record-ability, and durability and add one other, value(!) when I choose a format.
Except for those with an existing compilation of a particular format, or those rare few, for which cost is not even a consideration, I would offer that good digital can be quite a bit less expensive than good analog, and the extra funds might ultimately be better spent on music, rooms, DSP, speakers, etc..

Atmasphere,

Are you trying to change the subject?

The how we actually hear stuff is fine but I don't see how what you say applies to analog only. Both analog and digital are shooting for similar results as best I can tell and I have heard both do quite well despite the inherent limitations of each.

I suspect you may have some bias in your viewpoints regarding digital given your background and interests.

Nothing wrong with that, we all believe what we believe and are all biased in some way.

I like the idea of making comparisons in the common voltage domain and trying to quantify things there if possible? Not sure to what extent it is but I think it makes sense. Then we could talk in quantitative terms about what is really going on. That's the only way to ever really know.

I am on board with all the how we hear stuff, but I do not think good solutions in this regard is limited to any single paradigm or technology necessarily, though the challenges with each is clearly different.

I might be willing to assert that quality control with good modern digital formats is miles ahead of any ancient analog technology, regardless of the inherent advantages otherwise.

Assuming this, that would indicate that digital in practice rather than in theory is inherently more accurate and precise.

64 bits? Bit depth describes the dynamic range, 16 bits=96 dB, 20 bits=120 dB, 24 bit=144 dB. The later could record a jet taking off and a pin drop without changing the gain. That's more than enough for the most dynamic music with headroom to spare.

"Bit depth describes the dynamic range"

That is true for any particular application or format spec, like CD redbook, but not in general.

More bits can mean more accuracy and/or more dynamic range. So if the specified maximum dynamic range stays the same, more bits will mean finer resolution per sample in terms of representing amplitude more accurately.