Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Some good points above, Vertigo.

The comment "More accurate, mind you, not better sounding" makes no sense, but belies the common (among audiophiles) lack of understanding of what accuracy means. Unfortunately, accuracy is seen as something that is independent of a verifiable reference. The more a listener spends time listening to live music, the easier it becomes to recognize and define accuracy. Familiarity with live music is the only way to attach real meaning to the term; anything else is just an expression of preference.

Many audiophiles have a notion of what constitutes accurate or euphonious sound that is not rooted in reality. Being used to the "accurate", thin and tipped-up sound of most digitally recorded strings, I think they would be very surprised to hear how "euphonious" a great string section playing the Dvorak Serenade For Strings in a great concert hall can sound. Conversely, they would be equally surprised at how incredibly abrasive and strident a soprano saxophone can sound heard live and up-close in a club. In both cases, if a piece of equipment can
convey this, it approaches accuracy. And then we have the really elusive, non-tonal aspects of music that define accuracy (or not); the rhythmic and dynamic subtleties that are heard in live, unprocessed music that are almost destroyed by most equipment.

Vertigo, I believe your apple pie comparison is misplaced. Apple pies might more likely be compared to recordings, and the formats might be more appropriately compared to the pans they're baked in.

Frogman, despite the digital dig, I think your point is right on.

Medusa looks better when her photo is not accurate.

Aphrodite's beauty is portrayed best in an accurate photo.

SO in terms of gaining pleasure from our senses, this is best achieved with an accurate representation of something beautiful accordingly. This is closest to the audiophile scenario IMHO.

When something is not so beautiful to start with, less accurate representations might actually be preferred. Depends on how ugly it really is I suppose. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent.

If we can all agree to the standard by which to measure whether or not a sound reproduced by a stereo is accurate or not then we can begin to judge whether or not that reproduced sound is in fact accurate.

But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition.

Distinctions need to be made.

If we were to agree that our standard will be unamplified instruments like violins, guitars, flutes, drums. Then we have a standard. A ruler is a standard by which we measure whether or not a line is straight. If we put the ruler up against the line we can then see and judge.

Where things become complicated is when acoustic instruments become AMPLIFIED THEN RECORDED. This adds a secondary manipulation to the natural timbre of an acoustic instrument.

Now the judging becomes more difficult, since you have instrument plus quality of amplifying gear plus quality of recording gear plus the transfer gear used to put to the destination format, ie vinyl, digital, 8 track!

What is the timbre of a PA or a particular amp isolated from the instrument? Who really knows? All we know is the different degrees of quality with their synergies, ie when the flute is amplified by the pa but not recorded.

What the hell am i trying to say? I guess...that because recordings are made with gear which is either unknown to us or unfamiliar we are going to have a hard time judging whether or not the line is straight? If the only kind of music that was recorded was unamplified acoustic instruments we could have some hope in really knowing whether or not our systems are up to snuff but that is not the reality, there are thousands of different guitar amps and PA systems.

So in my opinion it is ultimately a exercise in futility to try and attain perfection across the board, everytime and all the time.

So the question "which is more accurate" is a sharp hook and people are foolish to bite onto the question at all! (smile)(hence my cocky first posting)(forgive me)

So, to me its not a vinyl or digital issue. I think we should be unprejudiced to format.

I like to enter someones room "blindfolded" let the person play their system back to me , i listen for a while and ask?

Ok, what's this person got going on in his system, is it good, is it bad, is it ok? do i like it or not? I dont care necessarily if he is using a line conditioner or not, if he is using vinyl or not, what i care about is...is it good or not...thats it. I dont even make a distinction between live or recorded music. Same response...am i enjoying myself or not?

"But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition."

Yeah, maybe the fact is nothing is really sufficient. OR maybe it just really doesn't matter. Just enjoy the music!

Interesting discussion though.