Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

"Interesting question, Mapman, but I don't think that it has an answer. Since there are a great many ways in which each medium and its reproduction can be inaccurate, how does one weight each of those ways relative to the others, and tally up a net balance?"

I didn't think it would be an easy question to answer, which is part of the fun, at least a slightly different spin on a common debate.

I suppose one would have to create a model of some sort to determine. Best model wins, however that is determined.

I see digital as inherently more precise in that vinyl results can vary much more widely I think.

My gut tells me that decent digital is more accurate as well in that tolerances of digital gear is pretty tight with those relating to timing and jitter being the show stopper for many. Vinyl can be all over the place and requires a lot of owner loving care to even deliver whatever the level of inherent accuracy (of reproducing what was recorded) there is.

Also, I am not convinced that jitter is necessarily a significant show stopper these days if a pretty straightforward proper appraoch is taken for the home system building.

"I would say vinyl still has the edge. Through the whole process, it also keeps it in the same mechanical vibration format it started out in, and is reproduced by the speakers in that manner, the same as we hear."

I used to think that but having heard really good digital of late am not so sure these days.

Keeping things in the same (analogue) signal domain seems good in theory, but assures nothing in of itself. There is lots of good and bad in the non digital real world that we live in. If not being digital were the ticket, we would live in paradise perhaps.

The quality of execution of the overall process (design, tolerances, etc.) is what assures results. Digital has a lot of advantages in practice as well as theory in this regard that helps make the case.

Hmm. How are you guys defining accuracy?

I see digital as inherently more precise in that vinyl results can vary much more widely I think.

I was under the impression of all things being equal. IOW, the best analog system and record, along with the best CD and player. Still a digital system can have a sonic characteristic that's not natural. I had a Luxman CD player years back that could not make anything sound real. Also a couple of other brands of CD players, or DAC's. I've heard plenty of bad sounding records, but they still somewhat sound more like the original source, than a bad sounding digital reproduction. After hearing some fairly bad digital reproductions, I find that I still hear that artificial reproduction in some pricey players. With analog, I never get fatigue, or those odd artifacts even from the worst records I've had. Bringing tolerances into it changes it some, but still I think vinyl has the edge.

The world is digital at the micro level but analog at the macro so there is no real answer to this question.

Stanwal, this statement does not make any sense! I believe it's the reverse - The world is analog at the micro level & digital at the macro level. As you ascend from the micro level to the macro level, you can quantize the info & make it digital (thereby losing as much as info as you deem fit depending the levels of quantization).
If the world is/was digital at the micro level, converting it to analog at the macro level means that we do not generate any new info. if the world is digital at the micro level it means that things exist only in discrete states. does this even make sense?
Think of Brownian motion - is it digital? I don't think so.....