Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

"OTOH vinyl has been improving dramatically over that same time. all levels of vinyl playback have improved. technology advances and market demand have pushed vinyl perfromance much higher due to the much higher potential of the format. there is simply lots of information in those grooves that improving playback gear keeps uncovering.
"

Maybe, but the cost seems to keep skyrocketing in order to cover whatever the heck is in those grooves that has never been heard before.

Digital is mre mainstream so more people are likely to be able to afford the improvements as the come.

How much does a Durand TElos tomearm cost? How about the whole vinyl rig needed to hear the previously unheard?

the vinyl front end i use is less than the $72k that Ralph mentions for the digital at RMAF.

but my point was that all levels (price points) of vinyl playback have improved. a $5k or $10k vinyl front end can sound terrific. just 10 years ago the story was different. there was far fewer choices and less development focus. drive systems, arms, cartridges, and phono stages have all improved up a down the price spectrom.

so yes; maintstream does have better vinly.

What are the technical innovations that have made modern vinyl rigs better?

I have no doubt there have been improvements in amplifier and speaker technology that would make the source sound better in general than prior but what about the source itself? Also what about the recordings? Have records improved?

We all like our digital HD TVs, right?

Someone explain to me how digital can seemingly do such a good and seemingly accurate job with video but much older and mature digital audio technology is incapable of doing the same with music? Timing? Pace, rhythm, perhaps? Digital clocks are extremely accurate these days. I just do not buy it in theory and both my eyes and ears agree.

IS vinyl the equivalent of HD in audio and digital not? Is analog even capable of doing what digital appears to do even today? I just do not see it.

Then again, I do not doubt that analog can sound better. It often does to me. Then again I have a movie buff friend that does not like to watch old movies in HD and preferes analog because the HD makes the recording look like a fake production whereas conventional analog TV allows it connect better for whatever reason (familiarity maybe). The video equivalent of what we audio kooks often refer to as being "musical" or engaging (which is clearly not the same thing as detailed or accurate) perhaps?

Only within the last couple years have I managed to achieve digital that is consistently engaging like good analog. It is also some of the most detailed sound I have ever owned and I suspect also reasonably "accurate". Now I know it can be done and for reasonable cost to boot.

As I have said before, I have yet to hear a consistent superiority of one format over the other.