Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

"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

"what do you feel is the more significant limiting factor for redbook, sample rate or bits per sample?"

I'm clearly not answering for Ralph, but for me I think it is the sample size that is the performance bottleneck for me, if there is one. I say if there is one becaue I still am not 100% convinced that the CD redbook format itself is deficient in any practical sense.

I say the sample size in that one of the things that I am not totally convinced CD redbook can match relative to vinyl is the ability to sustain a truly consistent level with the higher frequencies due to random variations associated with the sample magnitude value. The audible effect can often (but not always?) be subtle variations in pitch and/or high frequency transients such as those produced by massed strings, where extremely subtle transients are in play. Relatively few digital rigs do this well enough to challenge vinyl from what I have heard, but I have heard it done well so I believe it to be possible, which would mean that the implementation in play with most systems and not the format itself is the culprit.

I have heard a/b comparisons between CD and vinyl and even R2R where the analog formats clearly beat the digital, but again, I cannot say for certain that the CD format was the culprit as opposed to aspects of comparing different actual recordings in each format.

One of the most thoughtful, and poetic attempts at answering this
question appears in Peter Ledermann's answer to Neil Gader's question in
a recent interview:

"Aside from it's ease, warmth, and feel-good sound, it (analog) is
approachable, do-able, difficult, and satisfying to master and accomplish.
It is a hoop shot from across the court. Impossible to sink, but, when it
works, makes you stand up and dance. It is visceral as opposed to virtual,
marvelously and delicately ephemeral in contrast with the concrete yes
and no of digital."

I love that. I would like to offer a different perspective from what has been  
discussed mostly so far, and which points to what I think Ledermann is
saying. I won't get into the technical issues as my understanding of them
is limited, and some can do a much better job than I (thank you Ralph).
But, I know what my ears tell me, and I trust them. I believe that both
technologies are capable of excellent sound (obviously), and there are
obvious tradeoffs involved with each. I have made a living trusting my ears
for thirty five years, and their message is pretty clear.

More times than not, when this discussion comes up, the opinions as to 
one technology's superiority or inferiority revolve around tonal issues. One 
is considered brighter or warmer than the other, high frequency cut-off
points, etc. But to me, the main issue with digital vs. analog is not tonal or
timbral. It has to do with what I think Ledermann is alluding to: the feel-
good quality of analog. Whatever the issues may be with sampling rates
that many feel are responsible for tonal resolution deficiencies or
limitations with digital are, to me, even more important as concerns their 
effect on time and dynamics. Time is where the soul of music lies. The
ability to capture the extremely subtle gradations in dynamics and rhythm
that musicians use to convey a message is where the difference between 
the two technologies is most obvious to me. The grooves set up by James 
Brown's rhythm section are always a little deeper with good analog. The
difference between the softest and loudest moments in a crescendo by a
great string section in an orchestra is always more exciting with analog.
Even when digital offers a louder ultimate volume, what happens between
the softest and loudest points is more coherent, more vibrant, with good
analog. The difference may be subtle, but it is real to my ears. Those are
the subtle details that give music meaning and excitement. It is ironic,
since digital has the theoretical advantage when it comes to speed
stability. But time accuracy between point A and point B does not a groove 
guarantee. What happens between those two points seems to matter a
great deal.

There is a saying among musicians: "No-one ever got fired for
having a bad sound". What is meant by that is that what matters
most is not the most beautiful sound, but the ability to play with good time
(rhythm).