Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

I suppose one could make the argument that on the molecular level, analog tape provides no more than random samplings.
Unsound (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

Then if you take that same tape with its particles and use if for a digital recording, maybe you'll get different digital defects?

Vinyl is king.HELLO!!

"Vinyl is king."

Small kingdom?

I'm stumped on that one. Why is that?

re-read my previous posts. The Nyquist theorem is poorly applied.

I will add that until human perceptual rules are understood and kept in mind during the design of the 'next' digital codex, digital will continue to display the same colorations that it does now.

One last point is also obvious- digital audio showed up in the early 1980s, about 3 decades ago. Yet analog is still very much alive, with 1993 being the year of the least vinyl production. If digital was really 'more accurate', 'better' or anything like that, it would have been able to supplant the prior art in that time. I can name plenty of examples wherein that has happened on other fields. Its not happened in audio because digital has failed to bring home the promise. I don't think anyone takes 'perfect sound forever' seriously anymore :)

Ralph, what do you feel is the more significant limiting factor for redbook, sample rate or bits per sample? Just curious.

FWIW, my instinct has always been that sample rate is the more significant issue, at least for most music. In fact I've been amazed at times at how good SOME cd's can sound, given the seemingly absurd 10% margin with respect to the Nyquist rate.

Best regards,
-- Al