Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Duomike, even with the best turntable, if there are problems in the design of the phono section, ticks and pops will be abundant! This can have nothing to do with the actual LP BTW.

Mapman, the birdies I am referring to can be heard by anybody when you employ a sweep tone to ferret them out. Here is someone who discovered this phenomena by accident:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/34329-cd-frequency-sweep-can-hear-birdies.html

It seems that the slower the sweep, the easier they are to hear. Now consider that this sort of thing (in-harmonic distortion) is going on all the time within the context of music during playback. The ear will interpret this as a brightness, even though some of the 'birdies' content can be low frequency.

To be more precise, the birdie tone is a non-linear manifestation of intermodulation between the scan frequency and the actual tone. As the tone changes frequency, so does the birdie tone. It is caused by poor dithering technique, poor monotonicity in the DAC, and other inter-modulations in the conversion process. I'm pretty sure the industry could have avoided a good bit of this had they been paying attention, but the assumption was that if the digital system had super low THD that is was therefore free of distortion. They just simply didn't *look* for any other forms until much later...

Ralph,

I run a recording studio so we see this sort of comparison all the time. I get asked, 'why do you have all this old analog crap?' all the time. I just sit them down and play the difference.

Ah...that was beautiful ;-)

Vbr,
Sam

How do you determine what "accurate" is?

I think as the hardware improves,we can hear improvents in the accuracy or both vinyl and digital formats.

What does seem to tip the hat infavour of digital is the promised master tape fidelity of hi res digital dowmloads.

I've heard a bit of this, and compared to an extremely more expensive SME 30/12,Clearaudio Strad cart,AR phono and 25 Anniversary,on Sonus Strad speakers and Nagra VPA amps,it was hard to tell if one was any more accurate than the other.

The real fly in the ointment, was that for the first time, digital was as good or better than the full blown vinyl set up in this system.

Never thought a vinyl guy like myself would ever say that, but that's what I heard.

The whole point of being an audiophile is ..."to be moved by a piece of music"

A piece of music, is something ineffable. this might be bad news but you can be moved by a piece of music heard over a used $5 dollar am radio you bought at the salvation army!

A good song transcends fidelity because songs are more than that.

bob dylan has listened to music via cassettes on a getto blaster to explore music.

Songs have a life of their own because of the words and the melody. Hi fidelity is just "getting a kick out of trying to reproduce real life instruments through gear as you hear them in real life"

"Which is more accurate?" There is no definitive answer. I suppose some are deriving pleasure from asking the question and that's ok. But we need to let go and enjoy. Perhaps i'm preaching to the choir but maybe not for some...

Sound reproduction is as varied as cooking. No two apple pies are identical and each must be compared to another on a case by case basis.

There are a plethora of contingencies involved in each form of playback, in each individual case that meaningful discussion becomes futile.

Both formats are hit and miss. But i still feel persuaded to say, that the BEST playback i have ever heard, when the planets align, was vinyl.

So, if the question was...""when the planets align", which is the most accurate format:digital or vinyl?" (and by "accurate" you mean as a virtue "best sounding so as to move you" ...I would answer by saying..."vinyl is more accurate".

Also...

RE***More accurate, mind you, not better sounding. ***

This makes no sense to me. So therefore "more accurate" necessarily must equal worse sounding??!!

No.

"Accurate" necessarily must be understood as a sonic virtue, therefore "accurate" necessarily should equal "better sounding".

Its a contradiction to say something is more accurate but NOT better sounding.

Accurate should be understood as a sonic virtue and not a sonic vice.

Impeccable "Accuracy" should lead to emotional involvement with zero negative effects, at least that is how i define and understand "accuracy".

The best accuracy i have ever heard was with vinyl, though that level of accuracy sometimes eludes me because of several factors but when everything is right, its like "wow!"

Sadly because vinyl playback involves physical/mechanical parameters to be optimal ...it is more work and more difficult to realize and acheive these optimal conditions but with that said...i argue when those optimal conditions are realized it IS the BEST.

So, with all this said, I will answer the question as i see it.

Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

When everything is right and it relatively, rarely is...

Vinyl... is more accurate than digital.

(and..."a good song" transcends "the hair splitting" of anal retentive "hi-fidelity" audiophiles.)

A good song has a life of its own that doesn't depend on hi-fidelity to enjoy its life.

95 percent of its value can be hear on a 500 dollar system the last 5 percent... is made manifest on a 25,000 plus system.

*